Creepy watching the Tipler video on the Intelligent Design channel: Discovery Science, of the Discovery Institute in Seattle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
One of the fads created in the past few decades is for scientists to make up multiverse theories to solve :"fine-tuning". But they don't think enough to see that it could be addressed in other ways, with basically one universe, and without invoking Intelligent Design. @philipthrift On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you > on this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to > be neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the > rest here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what > I was able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I > follow Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 > trillion years of dust, I find irresistible. He doesn't speak of this on > this vid-so you're Good to View. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFpbngtvWD8&t=15s > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > To: Everything List <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 2:49 pm > Subject: The multiverse is dangerous to science > > > > > https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous > > > *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous > precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence* > > Jim Baggott > @JimBaggott > > ... > > Sean Carroll, a vocal advocate for the Many-Worlds interpretation, prefers > abduction, or what he calls ‘inference to the best explanation’, which > leaves us with theories that are merely ‘parsimonious’, a matter of > judgment, and ‘still might reasonably be true’. But whose judgment? In the > absence of facts, what constitutes ‘the best explanation’? > > Carroll seeks to dress his notion of inference in the cloth of > respectability provided by something called Bayesian probability theory, > happily overlooking its entirely subjective nature. It’s a short step from > here to the theorist-turned-philosopher Richard Dawid’s efforts to justify > the string theory programme in terms of ‘theoretically confirmed theory’ > and ‘non-empirical theory assessment’. The ‘best explanation’ is then based > on a choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to > empirical evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that > can be readily engineered to suit personal prejudices. > > Welcome to the oxymoron that is post-empirical science. > > ... > > Still, what’s the big deal? So what if a handful of theoretical physicists > want to indulge their inner metaphysician and publish papers that few > outside their small academic circle will ever read? But look back to the > beginning of this essay. Whether they intend it or not (and trust me, they > intend it), this stuff has a habit of leaking into the public domain, > dripping like acid into the very foundations of science. The publication of > Carroll’s book Something Deeply Hidden, about the Many-Worlds > interpretation, has been accompanied by an astonishing publicity blitz, > including an essay on Aeon last month. A recent PBS News Hour piece led > with the observation that: ‘The “Many-Worlds” theory in quantum mechanics > suggests that, with every decision you make, a new universe springs into > existence containing what amounts to a new version of you.’ > > ... > > Perhaps we should begin with a small first step. Let’s acknowledge that > theoretical physicists are perfectly entitled to believe, write and say > whatever they want, within reason. But is it asking too much that they make > their assertions with some honesty? Instead of ‘the multiverse exists’ and > ‘it might be true’, is it really so difficult to say something like ‘the > multiverse has some philosophical attractions, but it is highly speculative > and controversial, and there is no evidence for it’? I appreciate that such > caveats get lost or become mangled when transferred into a popular media > obsessed with sensation, but this would then be a failure of journalism or > science writing, rather than a failure of scientific integrity. > > > @philipthrift > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/184adc7f-f342-4e69-98e5-a998e5523406%40googlegroups.com.
