Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

First of all, unlike pseudoscience, multiverses actually follow from
the basic cosmological models. As to whether or not we should call it
a theory versus an hypothesis, I am not sure how the terms are being
used in the popular press and scientific sources.

Tegmark for instance remarked "The lesson is that the multiverse
theory can be tested and falsified even though we cannot see the other
universes." Now if I can only find the full text... Aha

http://www.dvmx.com/multiverse.pdf

The lesson to learn from this example is that multiverse theories can
be tested and falsified, but only if they predict what the ensemble of
parallel universes is and specify a probability distribution (or more
generally what mathematicians call a measure) over it. As we will see
in Section V B, this measure problem can be quite serious and is
still unsolved for some multiverse theories.

For level I parallel universes, Tegmark explains his case in the paper above.

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM, George Cooper
<georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> If multiverses are "beyond observation and testing", do they qualify to be
> called scientific theories. I have no problem if they are called
> hypothesis, but if they do make predictions that are untestable, then the
> door opens for pseudoscience to also make such claims.
>
>
>
> Of course, direct observations are not a requirement as long as the
> inference from indirect observational evidence is strong. Black holes, for
> instance, are not directly observable. Do any of these "theories" offer
> indirect observational evidence? If so, then perhaps my view is too strong
> against them.
>
>
>
> Coope
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> To: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> Cc: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2008 1:33:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All
>
> The fact is that multiverses is a logical outcome and prediction of
> the various cosmological models involved. (Level I: (Open multiverse)
> A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic
> universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing
> all initial conditions.) This by itself does not guarantee the
> existence of multiverses, however it provides at least a theoretical
> foundation. The problem is that presently multiverses remain beyond
> 'observation' and 'testing'.
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:41 AM, George Cooper
>> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As you have pointed out in their conclusion, they do not address the
>>> possibility that these stars, which they take to be in an equilibrium
>>> state,
>>> might not ever form. Even if stars could form they would have to
>>> survive
>>> their instability phase, too. Supernova would be also required in order
>>> to
>>> form the necessary metals for terrestrial planets capable of hosting
>>> life,
>>> whatever metals that might be. It would have been interesting if they
>>> could have shown that nucleosynthesis of carbon was possible within the
>>> range they found to suitable for fusion. [Carbon was not deemed possible
>>> until Hoyle determined otherwise, which helped BBT, ironically.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that there is no hint of a test procedure to determine the
>>> existence of another universe. Multi universes and parallel universes
>>> are
>>> not "science" but metaphysics. To take quantum events and conclude other
>>> universes can exist is a stretch of unimaginable proportions and beyond
>>> anything that mankind has ever done, right? [Admittedly, other universes
>>> might exist as I have no science to suggest they don't, but the
>>> proponents
>>> and authors of other universes should at least not use the "theory" tag,
>>> especially when they know what a theory is not.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Coope
>>
>> I didn't want to overstate the case and like you I would say if the
>> anthropic principle is considered not "science" then multi-verse
>> cosmologies
>> also are not "science" for the same reason. Nevertheless, this was a first
>> stab at trying to deal with the fine tuning objection to the multi-verse
>> hypothesis. You piqued my curiosity. Where did you hear it called a theory
>> instead of a hypothesis?
>>
>> Rich Blinne
>> Member ASA
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 3 21:08:06 2008