> Why are some people so adament about a "plenitude" or
> a "multiverse" ... what proof is there that is so
> convincing that the defenders of this faith are
> unwilling to discuss anything else?
> Scott

As Russell mentioned, the multiverse concept is attractive because of
its potential to explain a lot of things (e.g., fine-tuned aspects of
the universe) which are very difficult to explain otherwise, in a very
compelling way. Also, some theories in science, e.g., Linde's chaotic
inflation, and Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum
mechanics, are compatible with this concept as well (although
historically proposed for different reasons). Stephen Hawking has
actually co-authored a paper in Physics Letters B invoking the
multiverse concept to anthropically determine the cosmological constant
and the mass density of the universe. Hawking was actually off by a
substantial factor (density too low), and he attributes this to using a
single field in his calculations instead of many fields, but I was
already alarmed by the fact that he wrote that, for lack of an
explanatory TOE, he was going to resort to the multiverse concept to
select the right density value from all the possible values in the
universe ensemble.


Reply via email to