I personally don’t think there is a multiverse and I could go into some elaborations as to why.

I personally don’t think there is a multiverse and I could go into some elaborations as to why. I think it’s a wrong direction that it’s been sold as true for the past 15+ years when it was only ever a helpful construct for calculations, never intending to be used outside of calculations.

Good stuff for sci-fi though, and I think it’s sort of created a new religion on the world scene (just not recognized as one just yet).

===

Oh I think they’re _possible_ in some small ways, sure. Little bubble universes and such. But as much as I *want* there to be parallel universes, I have to stay skeptical of it for now. At the same time, they *do* exist in an epistemological sense (yes, I got to use that word!!) but not as of yet in an ontological sense.

====

I *do* like that the multiverse has become modern mythology, as we *really* need some novel origin mythology, as the ones that are tried and true are getting long in the tooth, and multiverse and some other theories that can’t really be backed with evidence *do* inspire people in many fantastic ways.

It brings back the awe and wonder of things to people who otherwise might have lost it back in the days where it was believed there was a genuine ‘vacuum’ between ‘stuff’.

Now we know there’s no vacuum – there’s always something bubbling everywhere, even if it’s a stray force passing by.

This fullness of connection *is* uplifting and if that along with less provable concepts gives people hope and inspiration for greater and larger strides in their own lives, I’m fine with it.

====

Yeah. I think of the mathematical multiverse as more of a “decision tree”. The concept of a multiverse that’s more poetic and non-mathematical is possible of course, but the mathematical one used for assisting probabilities doesn’t seem to be (as one of the powers of theoretical physics is this ability to ‘borrow from” unlikely things, such as anti-time to give extra wiggle-room as opposed to classical style… but only when the final calculations work out fine)

====

Well, were there such a thing as a multiverse, they’d be entirely unknowable by us. We would effect another universe simply by our knowledge of it, making it a part of this Universe and not a separate Universe.

====

Information consists of ‘stuff’. If there’s stuff passing between universes, then they’re not enclosed and therefore connected, making them part of the same structure.

====

They’re parts of the same Universe if they’re connected. We can *call* it multiverse, but it would be akin to calling each valve of the heart separate hearts when they’re in fact part of the same structure.

If you *want* to call a super-structure a multiverse that’s fine, but to me, if they’re ‘leaking’, they’re connected and therefore I’d consider them previously unknown parts of this Universe.

=====

Whence comes the knowledge of?

=====

k i read through it. Cringing a little at references to Tegmark ’cause he’s got a wonky “the universe *is* mathematics” (which is an issue I could go into)…

..and the link to neutrinos-as-reasons-why it’s ok to pursue multiverse with scientific legitimacy is a little shaky.

Neutrino were postulated in the 30s, and the first tests for confirmation of their existence were hypothesized in 1941 and carried out in the 1950s with some success.
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.61.97

Where are the multiverse tests that are reasonable?

I can’t fundamentally accept a mathematical-only theory as anything more than a helpful tool to further calculations until there is at least some decent hypothetical tests that _could_ be carried out in the future.

They’re fun to talk about but to take seriously takes more than mathematical quirkiness.

=====

I wouldn’t stop ANYBODY from investigating ideas using whatever tools are available and people discussing them as-if real, making nifty science videos about possibilities and such.

But for a proper categorization, to me, I’d put multiverse in the category of something like, say, mathematically-based philosophy or something like that, and split that aspect of theoretical physics into a proper department, until liasons from the evidence-based theoretical physics department can work with them in order to come up with plausible testing scenerios, even if they’re testing procedures that are impossible with current technology.

The reason why I’d split it off is that the dreamy part of theoretical physics, and its promotion as the root of Science with everything else coming off of it, is its reducing the importance of Baconian and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_science which, from their bottom-up and top-down ways seems to encompass all of scientific inquiry in favor of an untestable foundation…. unless we first decide to modify things so that logic and mathematics (ultimately, number theory) becomes the “root of all things”.

=====

Here, your answer to this may help:

Do you assert that logic is a fundamental property of the [everything that is]?

—-

Right now my 11 yr old nephew is singing “We are number one” by Robbie Rotten from Lazy Town, my 5 yr old niece is screaming about a spider in the house.

Your LARGE WORDS are like blissful silence and I await a more reasonable set of words coming from you to respond further.

—–

If you assert that logic is a fundamental property of the [everything that is] then I have to change my rhetoric.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ two = 6

Leave a Reply