Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
scienceblogs.com
Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#2hah, its like a variable in a function making theories about what the whole program is all about, and that there might be many other functions similar to it. :D
take a look at this one too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#3[deleted]
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#4Fascinating article, but I'd still like to know more about that 8th figure on the inflation model. We are told that the y-axis represents energy, but what is the x-axis? It clearly isn't time because it's being measured in phi over something measured in GeV.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#5This kind of science has always been hard for me to integrate. Thinking as a Bayesian, these arguments seem to be meant to influence my "prior" over possible initial states or natures of the universe. I'm not accustomed to that.
I'm used to science presenting me with evidence meant to influence my "posterior". I can handle that.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#6This kind of science has always been hard for me to integrate. Thinking as a Bayesian, these arguments seem to be meant to influence my "prior" over possible initial states or natures of the universe. I'm not accustomed to that. I'm used to science presenting me with evidence meant to influence my "posterior". I can handle that.
Are you aware that's irrational? Your assumptions about priors contain plenty of mistakes (all ideas do, mine too) and you should find a way of thinking which better allows for correcting those mistakes.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#7If you're interested in MWI you should read David Deutsch's books:
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#8Sometimes I think I was born too soon. To think the new knowledge we well discover with in the next 100, 200, 1000 years is really exciting.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20-50 years with all the genetic engineer going on one could live for ever. Of cause as long as you can afford it.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#9This kind of science has always been hard for me to integrate. Thinking as a Bayesian, these arguments seem to be meant to influence my "prior" over possible initial states or natures of the universe. I'm not accustomed to that. I'm used to science presenting me with evidence meant to influence my "posterior". I can handle that.
Are you aware that's irrational? Your assumptions about priors contain plenty of mistakes (all ideas do, mine too) and you should find a way of thinking which better allows for correcting those mistakes.
I think it's more unfortunate than irrational. I'd like to think I'm open to changing them--my priors started out (a couple of decades ago) pretty terrible. The process of how to do it well in response to arguments without experimental results is the challenging part.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#10Fascinating article, but I'd still like to know more about that 8th figure on the inflation model. We are told that the y-axis represents energy, but what is the x-axis? It clearly isn't time because it's being measured in phi over something measured in GeV.
The attribution to Ned Wright takes you here:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Narlikar/Narlikar3_2.html
which has a lot more information. Phi is defined as the Higgs scalar field.