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

PvM,

> Sorry but I have no time to waste here.

Yes that's a good step. You've wasted enough time, in a collective sense,
equivocating and arguing from authority.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:01 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 13:06:57 2008