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

While I understand that moving goalposts is easier than addressing the
statements made by Tegmark and others, I find it strange that you are
willing to call it metaphysics contrary to the evidence.

We are often quick to denounce that which we do not understand. It's a
human trait and yet, I have presented evidence that counters your
position and now you require additional restrictions before you are
convinced.

Sorry but I have no time to waste here.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:32 AM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 13:01:23 2008