The Multiverse: A New Perspective on Our Existence

[Garth]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/abs/0511/0511037 by Steven Weinberg

In the Austin airport on the way to this meeting I noticed for sale the October issue of a magazine called Astronomy, having on the cover the headline “Why You Live in Multiple Universes.” Inside I found a report of a discussion at a conference at Stanford, at which Martin Rees said that he was sufficiently confident about the multiverse to bet his dog’s life on it, while Andrei Linde said he would bet his own life. As for me, I have just enough confidence about the multiverse to bet the lives of both Andrei Linde and Martin Rees’s dog.

My thoughts exactly - well I'm not so sure I'll bet the dog!

Show me one and I'll believe you.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

Kinda wrecks the entire concept of a 'universe' when you admit to more than one of them.

 

[Vast]

Show me one and I'll believe you.

I don’t think anyone’s forcing you to believe in multiple universes, many physicists seem to be working on a variety of different cosmological models, the multiverse paradigm seems to be one a lot of physicists and cosmologists think deserves their time perusing.

What’s more the same could be said of strings in string theory, “show me one and I’ll believe you”, hasn’t stop string theorists perusing this field of physics for the last 30 years.

 

[Labguy]

What’s more the same could be said of strings in string theory, “show me one and I’ll believe you”, hasn’t stop string theorists perusing this field of physics for the last 30 years.

Yes, and 30 years of little success I think. Even the "Grand Proponent", Brian Greene, spends a significant portion of his books appologizing, in effect, for the fact that it will probably never be "testable" and for having to use math of probabilities and infinities. But, those Calabi-Yau Loops make neat graphics in the books...

 

[Vast]

Yes, and 30 years of little success I think. Even the "Grand Proponent", Brian Greene, spends a significant portion of his books appologizing, in effect, for the fact that it will probably never be "testable" and for having to use math of probabilities and infinities.

The other major issue with string theory, apart from lacking testable predictions, is that it’s promoted with public money and has persuaded a generation of researchers to work in a field of physics which has had very little success.

 

[Vast]

“Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific
claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in
cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for pur-
pose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church
will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent
design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try
to explain away the appearance of design as the result of ‘chance
and necessity’ are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it,
an abdication of human intelligence.”

What?! Overwhelming evidence for purpose and design? That’s a rather strong statement, I’d say similar to those of ID proponents. Seriously, the Catholic church is just as anti-science as the Evangelical Christian fundamentalists, only they hide it a little better. If it’s not Neo-Darwinism, it’s now Anthropic arguments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/o...ml?ex=1131253200&en=c74a3e861a3079ae&ei=5070" the New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schonborn, Cardinal
Archbishop of Vienna.

 

[Chronos]

The maddening difficulty in obtaining testable predictions from ST suggests, at least to me, it might be a good idea to put the big picture aside for now and concentrate on fitting smaller pieces of the puzzle together.

 

[SpaceTiger]

The maddening difficulty in obtaining testable predictions from ST suggests

I'm not sure I like having the same acronym as string theory.