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

Well call me old fashioned, but I'll be convinced when he says: "here, do *
this* experiment using *this* equipment to measure *this* observable and if
there are multiple universes you'll get *this* result.

Anything else is just wordsmithing. Anything else is no better than ID.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:26 AM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps because he does not propose an experiment as much as
> describing possible observations which would rule a multiverse
> unlikely.
>
> As to the consistency with science, it is a minimal requirement. Thus
> when trying to compare multiverses with pseudo-scientific notions, one
> has to ignore that multiverses are a logical prediction which follows
> from the cosmological models involved.
> In other words, it is not an ad hoc model.
>
> The question I was addressing is the statement about multiverses that
> it is a metaphysical concept.
>
> Tegmark provides an outline as to how science may test multiverses.
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:51 AM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 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.
> >
> >
>

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 11:32:44 2008