I suppose there is not connection between the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the multiverse (or parallel universes). A connection between the two concepts would make, of course, the multiverse, multiple possible universes that includes our own, more part of reality than otherwise.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Heddle
Sent: Mon 8/4/2008 10:51 AM
To: PvM
Cc: George Cooper; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All
PVM,
I have over the years read the Tegmark paper many times. Perhaps you can help, I seem to be missing something. What experiment does he suggest? I always seem to miss that no matter how carefully I read it.
Also, you wrote:
First of all, unlike pseudoscience, multiverses actually follow from
the basic cosmological models
.
But that doesn't give them a get out of jail free card. Classical Electromagnetic theory is great at an enormous range of applications. It also, however, predicts atomic instabillity, not to mention an ultraviolet catastrophe. Similarly, at most multiple universes are suggested--but that means little more than incentive to look for them. If you can.
Something "consistent" with a model still is not science if it cannot be tested.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
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 falsi?ed, 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.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 4 11:10:40 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 11:10:40 EDT