Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[Ella S.]

Multiverse models are falsifiable, otherwise they would not be scientific models. Granted, models like String Theory seem like a bit of a stretch, but they could be sustained through investigation one day.

I think it's better to not speculate and let the scientists do their job by investigating these potential avenues through experimentation. We simply don't know enough yet to accept or dismiss these models.

That said, the multiverse as it's used in pop fantasy is usually not based on any scientific concept. Some of them drop references to MWI or String Theory, but the idea is closer to the concept of "possible worlds" in modal logic. This is much closer to how multiverses are treated in fiction, since they tend to emphasize "possible" alternate timelines.

While this is mostly a case of writers borrowing from philosophical thought experiments, as they are well-known to do, there are some philosophers who argue that the possible worlds of modal logic do objectively exist. This is often argued as an extension of mathematical realism or some form of metaphysical idealism.

As science fantasy in particular tends to rely on a technobabble mish-mash of real science with pseudo-science, since that is a staple of the genre, it is no real wonder that they reference multiverse theories from physics to scientifically justify their use of these thought experiments. It's no different from excusing space travel with "FTL drives" or rubber forehead aliens with "convergent evolution" or psychic powers with "using 100% of the brain," in my opinion.

Can it be confusing and a little misleading to audiences? Yes, but I don't think we should hold an entire genre of writers accountable for people who have difficulty separating reality from fiction.

 

[ratiocinator]

The pilot making the trips = millions of years.
The paints being dropped = small changes building up.
The finished painting of Mona Lisa = Macroevolution.

Wow. What you are telling the world here is that you have no idea whatsoever about the theory of evolution but you're going to try to argue against it anyway, from a position of total ignorance of it.

Evolution is not a random process like dropping buckets of paint.

This is so basic it really is difficult to fathom how anybody who has ever been exposed, even in the most casual way, to the theory could possibly misunderstand to this extent, let alone somebody who has been posting on forums for ages with people who do understand it.

Maybe you didn't understand. I understand the state of atheism., and what it does to one's mind.

Maybe you don't understand creationism and what it does to one's mind.

 

[Polymath257]

Not sure what you mean by blind faith. I am wondering what you mean by religious blind faith.

Faith that is not based on objective evidence that is believed whatever the evidence would be. It is a deciding to believe no matter what.

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith that is not based on objective evidence that is believed whatever the evidence would be. It is a deciding to believe no matter what.

Oh ok. Still not sure but ok.

 

[gnostic]

Just going by the evidence, can you explain if trees were built by man, and by that I mean from the seed on up?

trees grow from seeds, of course.

However, humans can gather seeds and plant them elsewhere.

and more recently, botanists with molecular biology background, can “genetically engineer” or “genetically modify” seeds to have certain genetic traits added or removed from the seed. But as I said, Genetic Engineering is only “recent” field, started during the 1970s.

But seeded plants (Spermatophyte), including of trees have been around for 319 million years (Late Carboniferous period). Before the earliest Spermatophyte species, older land plants reproduced through spores, not through seeds.

There were no humans back then, in the Carboniferous, as well as predating reptiles and mammals. Only early and primitive amphibians and amniotes (which evolved from these primitive amphibians) were the earliest terrestrial tetrapods in this period.

 

[YoursTrue]

trees grow from seeds, of course.

However, humans can gather seeds and plant them elsewhere.

Yes, but that's not the point. Seeds do not remain seeds once they start growing. Sure they can be planted by humans.

 

[gnostic]

Not sure what you mean by blind faith. I am wondering what you mean by religious blind faith.

“blind faith” required no physical evidence, you would just accept whatever you believe in to be true, regardless of the evidence.

All faiths, regardless whether religious faith or non-religious faith, are personal acceptance of belief or opinion, therefore faith is subjective.

On the other hand, evidence are independent of any one person’s personal and subjective view, opinion, belief or preference (eg like, dislike, attractiveness/looks).

Don't get me wrong. Subjective views and experiences are great for arts, literature or music, because people’s creativity are where masterpieces come from.

Natural Sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc), not so great.

 

[gnostic]

Multiverse models are falsifiable, otherwise they would not be scientific models.

No, scientific model is requirement that any concept to falsifiable and testable, but if you cannot test the models of a hypothesis, it isn’t falsifiable.

Multiverse models are more THEORETICAL models than scientific ones, as the models are mathematical solutions, and these solutions usually come in the form of complex equations. But in science, no mathematical solutions are true by-default, even equations can be false when tested.

There are chances for theoretical models to become scientific theories in the future, when the models can be rigorously tested with evidence or experiments. The Scientific Method required TESTING of the Hypothesis, and that means -

• testing the explanations,
• testing the predictions and
• testing the equations.

So should the evidence not support the equations, then the theoretical solutions are weak or be incorrect, therefore you would have evidence that have refuted the equations.

For instance, explanation of gravity as curvature of spacetime and explanation of gravitational lensing were theoretically possible in General Relativity, but became scientific probable, when these were tested through observations.

The only way to test in any model, is through observations in evidence and/or in experiments. Only then, that hypothesis becomes a candidate of becoming a new scientific theory.

The Multiverse models haven’t yet reach and pass the requirements of Scientific Method…yet. And it may not ever become a scientific theory.

 

[gnostic]

The pilot making the trips = millions of years.
The paints being dropped = small changes building up.
The finished painting of Mona Lisa = Macroevolution.

those are examples of absurdities that you have made up.

none of these examples - flying plane trips, paint drops and the painting of Mona Lisa - have anything to do with the theory of Evolution.

not only do your “=” signs are examples of Argument from Ignorance (in which @ratiocinator have accused you of), each of these examples are based on False Equivalence.

You are making up assumptions and scenarios that have nothing to do with Evolution.

Not a single ones of them - flight trips, paint droplets or painting - relate to biology; everything about Evolution is based on biology.

These examples of yours, are just disingenuous.

 

[YoursTrue]

“blind faith” required no physical evidence, you would just accept whatever you believe in to be true, regardless of the evidence.

All faiths, regardless whether religious faith or non-religious faith, are personal acceptance of belief or opinion, therefore faith is subjective.

On the other hand, evidence are independent of any one person’s personal and subjective view, opinion, belief or preference (eg like, dislike, attractiveness/looks).

Don't get me wrong. Subjective views and experiences are great for arts, literature or music, because people’s creativity are where masterpieces come from.

Natural Sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc), not so great.

regarding blind faith, it is not blind to recognize that buildings made of stone and wood and concrete, etc., were built by men. They didn't build themselves. It is also not blind to realize that human hands did not build the seed from which a tree emerged. No strings (hands) attached.

 

[YoursTrue]

those are examples of absurdities that you have made up.

none of these examples - flying plane trips, paint drops and the painting of Mona Lisa - have anything to do with the theory of Evolution.

Sure they do. Planes did not come about without human hands and intelligence. Neither did the Mona Lisa.

 

[gnostic]

Granted, models like String Theory seem like a bit of a stretch, but they could be sustained through investigation one day.

Since Albert Einstein was alive, he has been trying to formulate a single theory that merged General Relativity (GR) & Quantum Mechanics (QM) together.

String Theory (ST) & Superstring Theory (SST) are proposed solutions to formulate a “theory of everything”. The problems with ST & SST are that they became increasingly so complex theoretically, that they became impossible to test.

And I am afraid to say, multiverse is heading in same direction as that of ST & SST. Multiverse is only useful in philosophical discussions than as science

I think Quantum Field Theory (QFT) with Particle Physics have come closer to the Theory of Everything than String Theory, but only if QFT physicists can formulate the testable Quantum Gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since Albert Einstein was alive, he has been trying to formulate a single theory that merged General Relativity (GR) & Quantum Mechanics (QM) together.

String Theory (ST) & Superstring Theory (SST) are proposed solutions to formulate a “theory of everything”. The problems with ST & SST are that they became increasingly so complex theoretically, that they became impossible to test.

And I am afraid to say, multiverse is heading in same direction as that of ST & SST. Multiverse is only useful in philosophical discussions than as science

I think Quantum Field Theory (QFT) with Particle Physics have come closer to the Theory of Everything than String Theory, but only if QFT physicists can formulate the testable Quantum Gravity.

Yeah, and here to thought until recently that TOE was Theory of Evolution. Oops, I'm learning I guess.

 

[gnostic]

regarding blind faith, it is not blind to recognize that buildings made of stone and wood and concrete, etc., were built by men.

Again, you providing false equivalence example.

Of course, humans have built buildings made from wood, stone or concrete, but that have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Buildings are not biology. You are making comparisons that have nothing to do with each other.

if you want to talk about Evolution, then provide biology examples.

but if you want to talk about building materials for construction of some buildings, then start a new thread, about architecture, or structural engineering, or construction practices.

Evolution has nothing to do with constructing houses, cars, mousetraps, watches, or writing computer programs, or whatever stupid and irrelevant analogies that creationists like to use.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, and here to thought until recently that TOE was Theory of Evolution. Oops, I'm learning I guess.

@Ella S. was talking about multiverse and string theory which are “physics” subjects, YoursTrue.

Evolution is a “biology” subject.

These are two different types of TOE, one for biology and one for physics.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Ella S. was talking about multiverse and string theory which are “physics” subjects, YoursTrue.

Evolution is a “biology” subject.

These are two different types of TOE, one for biology and one for physics.

ok, so I'll have to be aware of the context. Thanks!

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you providing false equivalence example.

Of course, humans have built buildings made from wood, stone or concrete, but that have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Buildings are not biology. You are making comparisons that have nothing to do with each other.

if you want to talk about Evolution, then provide biology examples.

but if you want to talk about building materials for construction of some buildings, then start a new thread, about architecture, or structural engineering, or construction practices.

Evolution has nothing to do with constructing houses, cars, mousetraps, watches, or writing computer programs, or whatever stupid and irrelevant analogies that creationists like to use.

Yes, it does in contrast. Even let's say when engineers decide to construct a building. They must survey the ground, work on building a solid foundation. (The ground they did not compose -- most likely it was already "there." OK, they might have to fix it up a bit.) That you do not agree it is a good analogy of things either being contructed with intelligence and knowledge, or lack of intelligence when it comes to evolution does not make the contrast wrong. I remember wayyy before I believed in God as delineated in the Bible, really didn't think much about that, I was invited to be in a philosophy club. (Why, I don't know...I was young then -- maybe some of the guys thought I was cute and/or smart? They didn't tell me...) The group spoke of physics, by that I mean atomic structure and space within. I was fascinated but kept wondering (and no one smarter than me -- just kidding and supposedly about being smart--had any answers) and said so out loud -- how come there's so much space we don't see even when objects become objects? Like furniture. Well, anyway -- I have a feeling someone will come up with an answer, even if supposed -- but I think you might get the point I am trying to make now. In other words --
the illustration about illustrating to say could a building just came about by physics or magnetic means is not unreal or a poor illustration. But it would seem so to some, I suppose.

 

[Ella S.]

No, scientific model is requirement that any concept to falsifiable and testable, but if you cannot test the models of a hypothesis, it isn’t falsifiable.

Multiverse models are more THEORETICAL models than scientific ones, as the models are mathematical solutions, and these solutions usually come in the form of complex equations. But in science, no mathematical solutions are true by-default, even equations can be false when tested.

There are chances for theoretical models to become scientific theories in the future, when the models can be rigorously tested with evidence or experiments. The Scientific Method required TESTING of the Hypothesis, and that means -

• testing the explanations,
• testing the predictions and
• testing the equations.

So should the evidence not support the equations, then the theoretical solutions are weak or be incorrect, therefore you would have evidence that have refuted the equations.

For instance, explanation of gravity as curvature of spacetime and explanation of gravitational lensing were theoretically possible in General Relativity, but became scientific probable, when these were tested through observations.

The only way to test in any model, is through observations in evidence and/or in experiments. Only then, that hypothesis becomes a candidate of becoming a new scientific theory.

The Multiverse models haven’t yet reach and pass the requirements of Scientific Method…yet. And it may not ever become a scientific theory.

I think you're reading into my words implicit premises that I did not state.

I did not say that any multiverse model has become a scientific theory. I said that, as models, they are potentially falsifiable. You yourself affirm here that the point of these models is to develop falsifiable hypotheses. That's what I was saying.

There is an important difference between a "scientific model" (which is a model that is used in science, such as MWI) and a "scientific theory" which is a highly-sustained model, such as the Theory of Special Relativity or the Theory of Evolution. You have your terms mixed up.

Since Albert Einstein was alive, he has been trying to formulate a single theory that merged General Relativity (GR) & Quantum Mechanics (QM) together.

String Theory (ST) & Superstring Theory (SST) are proposed solutions to formulate a “theory of everything”. The problems with ST & SST are that they became increasingly so complex theoretically, that they became impossible to test.

And I am afraid to say, multiverse is heading in same direction as that of ST & SST. Multiverse is only useful in philosophical discussions than as science

I think Quantum Field Theory (QFT) with Particle Physics have come closer to the Theory of Everything than String Theory, but only if QFT physicists can formulate the testable Quantum Gravity.

This seems to me like a different argument from the one you presented above. While I agree with the general argument in your previous post, here I'm not sure I can. I'm not entirely sure that I agree that String Theory's complexity makes it impossible to test. At least, I don't agree that it makes String Theory and other multiverse theories unfalsifiable, but I might be able to agree that it is infeasible to conduct experiments investigating them, if that's what you mean and you're merely being hyperbolic.

You called multiverse theories, collectively, all unfalsifiable, though. This is incorrect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oops, I'm learning I guess.

I do not think you will ever do that. It is an abomination as far as faith is concerned. Martin Luther clearly said so.

 

[ratiocinator]

I think Quantum Field Theory (QFT) with Particle Physics have come closer to the Theory of Everything than String Theory, but only if QFT physicists can formulate the testable Quantum Gravity.

For clarity: QFT is already well established, whereas string theory is only hypothetical. QFT doesn't, in its current form, cover gravity. String theory is one (of many, even though it seems to get the most attention) hypotheses that attempt to unify GR and QFT.