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

I am not sure if the issue of the nature of the infinity of multiverse has been raised. However, there is a big difference between denumerable and non-denumerable infinity. In the former the ordinary notion of probability is valid, whereas in the latter one has to introduce the concept of probability density.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Cooper
Sent: Mon 8/4/2008 12:46 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

Tegmark seems to go another step further with the idea of parallel universes. His special Sc. Am. article, which was a separate publication, was quite interesting, yet his use of the term "theory" seemed unjustified since I saw nothing testable presented in his "theory".

I find it a bit amusing that a close study of quantum events allows the emergence of the idea of parallel universes; from the infinitesimal to the infinite in one unprecedented giant leap; a step that will undoubtedly never again be equaled.

Nevertheless, it is certainly a wonderful hypothesis and not out of line with my own little razor view I hold regarding what is out there. Namely, that whatever reveals God to be grander and more majestic is the better of any two choices, but not necessarily so if it is in contrast to Ockhams' razor. Yet, I am not convinced that any multiuniverse view does add majesty to His name.

Coope

-----Original Message-----
From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:27 AM
To: David Heddle
Cc: George Cooper; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

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 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.

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 12:59:53 2008