Is this the only game in town?

LordTimothytheWise · Jul 8, 2009

A new scientist article has some interesting things to say about a multiverse, but some make me a little nervous.

Namely:

If it turns out to be positively curved, wed be very confused. That would be a setback for these ideas, no question about it. Until any such setback the smart money will remain with the multiverse and string theory. It has the best chance of anything we know to be right, Weinberg says of string theory. Theres an old joke about a gambler playing a game of poker, he adds. His friend says, Dont you know this game is crooked, and you are bound to lose? The gambler says, Yes, but what can I do, its the only game in town. We dont know if we are bound to lose, but even if we suspect we may, it is the only game in town.

That sort of logic scares me.

Although admittedly, even the string theory seems to me to be a little... much.

What makes me even more nervous though is the prospect of some kind of "scientific consensus" on the issue since there could very well be enough multiverse theories to "fine tune" the idea to our universe, whether or not it has any basis in reality.

Heres a potentially volatile question: Is it possible that the obsession of some individuals with negating the ID movment has had some influence in willingness to adopt this particular position on the origin of the universe?

I am concerned that not accepting a multiverse based upon its highly speculative nature will become viewed as "pseudoscience" because of the implications.

I am also wondering if the string theory has reached this point already.

Any thoughts from the well informed and experienced posters upon these subjects?

Hespera · Jul 8, 2009

LordTimothytheWise said:
A new scientist article has some interesting things to say about a multiverse, but some make me a little nervous.

Namely:

That sort of logic scares me.

Although admittedly, even the string theory seems to me to be a little... much.

What makes me even more nervous though is the prospect of some kind of "scientific consensus" on the issue since there could very well be enough multiverse theories to "fine tune" the idea to our universe, whether or not it has any basis in reality.

Heres a potentially volatile question: Is it possible that the obsession of some individuals with negating the ID movment has had some influence in willingness to adopt this particular position on the origin of the universe?

I am concerned that not accepting a multiverse based upon its highly speculative nature will become viewed as "pseudoscience" because of the implications.

I am also wondering if the string theory has reached this point already.

Any thoughts from the well informed and experienced posters upon these subjects?

is this a conspiracy theory?

Jester4kicks · Jul 8, 2009

LordTimothytheWise said:
That sort of logic scares me.

Although admittedly, even the string theory seems to me to be a little... much.

What makes me even more nervous though is the prospect of some kind of "scientific consensus" on the issue since there could very well be enough multiverse theories to "fine tune" the idea to our universe, whether or not it has any basis in reality.

Heres a potentially volatile question: Is it possible that the obsession of some individuals with negating the ID movment has had some influence in willingness to adopt this particular position on the origin of the universe?

I am concerned that not accepting a multiverse based upon its highly speculative nature will become viewed as "pseudoscience" because of the implications.

I am also wondering if the string theory has reached this point already.

Any thoughts from the well informed and experienced posters upon these subjects?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here... but I'm pretty sure that both the multiverse hypothesis and string theory simply focus on the nature of the universe, not the origin of it.

ragarth · Jul 8, 2009

I thought string-theory was supplanted by m-brane and p-brane theories?

Chesterton · Jul 8, 2009

Jester4kicks said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here... but I'm pretty sure that both the multiverse hypothesis and string theory simply focus on the nature of the universe, not the origin of it.

True, but the multiverse idea gives people an apparent solution to the fine-tuning problem. It's not a solution because, as someone pointed out in another thread, the word "universe" by definition means "everything there is". All multiverses equal a universe, no?

Maxwell511 · Jul 8, 2009

LordTimothytheWise said:
Heres a potentially volatile question: Is it possible that the obsession of some individuals with negating the ID movment has had some influence in willingness to adopt this particular position on the origin of the universe?

Most scientists don't really care about the ID movement. It does not influence their thinking. The multi-verse idea is a valid hypothesis, there are multiple scientific fields that suggest it could be true. The reason scientists come to ask the question(; is there more than this universe?) comes from deduction from theories about our own universe.

Btw I think that String Theory is overly emphasized. It is not the only game in town. Take Loop Quantum Gravity or Twister Theory for example.

LordTimothytheWise · Jul 10, 2009

Hespera said:
is this a conspiracy theory?

No, I am concerned about social dynamics, not conspiricies.

LordTimothytheWise · Jul 10, 2009

Maxwell511 said:
Most scientists don't really care about the ID movement. It does not influence their thinking. The multi-verse idea is a valid hypothesis, there are multiple scientific fields that suggest it could be true. The reason scientists come to ask the question(; is there more than this universe?) comes from deduction from theories about our own universe.

Btw I think that String Theory is overly emphasized. It is not the only game in town. Take Loop Quantum Gravity or Twister Theory for example.

Thank you.

Alunyel · Jul 11, 2009

The term "Multiverse theory" or "String theory" is incredibly deceptive. With our current abilities, they're not varifiable. In order for something to become a theory, it has to be varifiable. There has to be a way that we can say "Ok, if xxxxxxx is correct, we can expect xxxxxxx to happen, if we do this, but if it isn't we can expect to see xxxxxxxxx.", which at the moment, we just can't do.

We essentially have to be able to make a prediction and then test that prediction.

"Multiverse hypothesis" and "String hypothesis." would be more accurate.

corvus_corax · Jul 11, 2009

Jester4kicks said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here... but I'm pretty sure that both the multiverse hypothesis and string theory simply focus on the nature of the universe, not the origin of it.

I think you might be correct here, but as already pointed out, s theory may (possibly) be already supplanted by more correct models.

Maxwell511 said:
Most scientists don't really care about the ID movement. It does not influence their thinking.

Well, yeah, because ID is an idea that actually DEFIES the reality that we can perceive around us.

Maxwell511 said:
The multi-verse idea is a valid hypothesis, there are multiple scientific fields that suggest it could be true. The reason scientists come to ask the question(; is there more than this universe?) comes from deduction from theories about our own universe.

Valid hypothesis???
ouch that hurts.
What is a valid hypothesis other than a Scientific Theory?
Is there such a thing as a 'valid hypothesis'?
Honestly, I don't know.

Alunyel said:
The term "Multiverse theory" or "String theory" is incredibly deceptive. With our current abilities, they're not varifiable.

That's what I thought as well

Alunyel said:
In order for something to become a theory, it has to be varifiable. There has to be a way that we can say "Ok, if xxxxxxx is correct, we can expect xxxxxxx to happen, if we do this, but if it isn't we can expect to see xxxxxxxxx.", which at the moment, we just can't do.

Or at the very least, falsifiable.

Alunyel said:
We essentially have to be able to make a prediction and then test that prediction.

And can that be done yet regarding String theory, and the various brane theories (or, perhaps, mathematical hypotheses)?

Alunyel said:
"Multiverse hypothesis" and "String hypothesis." would be more accurate.

I'm of the same mind, unless someone can give multiple independent lines of objective empirical evidence otherwise.
Which, btw, I've never seen.

Search

Search

Is this the only game in town?

LordTimothytheWise

Fides Quaerens Intellectum

More options

Hespera

Junior Member

More options

Jester4kicks

Warning - The following may cause you to think

More options

ragarth

Well-Known Member

More options

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

More options

Maxwell511

Contributor

More options

LordTimothytheWise

Fides Quaerens Intellectum

More options

LordTimothytheWise

Fides Quaerens Intellectum

More options

Alunyel

Guest

More options

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

More options

Need help?

Similar threads