SciPhysicsForums.com

RArvay --

Whenever we see evidence of purpose and intent, it seems unreasonable to rule it out on the basis of unlikely chance or unimaginably vast numbers rolls of the dice, especially when we cannot define the dice.

Discerning purpose and intent in what we observe of the universe is to ascribe subjective human values to something not human. Logically it represents a category error and an instance of the simulation fallacy. Another way of looking at it: you are pretending to put yourself inside the Mind of God. But of course that's a problem only if you believe in God.

#2 should also be unacceptable, because it is merely a work-around, cannot be falsified, and poses more problems than it solves. For example, if our single universe came about through randomness, then how did the multiverse get its properties, parameters, constants and potentials?

Putting aside multiverse theory as superfluous and probably, like the notion of God, forever unprovable, we're left here with one of Dr. Christian's cherished bugbears: the assumption of irreducible randomness. Which concept arises, among other reasons, because the measurement of any elementary particle allows one to extract a single bit of classical (comprehensible) information before the particle goes haywire and produces what appears to us to be patternless gibberish (for which the fancy term of art is ... Irreducible Randomness). Now, it's just being intellectually responsible to ask how such gibberish could possibly underwrite the emergence of order in the universe. Conceivably it's not as patternless as we suppose? That's certainly not an unreasonable assumption: it may in fact be pure quantum information, even, who can say, cosmic code. But if so it's a code our brains have not evolved to read because here in the macroworld it has never been selectively necessary for us to read it. And now, as we probe into venues previously inaccessible to the human mind, it confronts us as an impenetrable wall. (In computational terms it's likely that P≠NP.)

An acceptance of less-than-absolute understanding is the crowning product of the Enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century which shaped the secular intellectual world we continue to live in. It's Hume and Kant. It's Reason defining its own limits. An individual needs to be a serious cultural outlier not to know that but there are quite a few of those around.

OK guys, let's get back on-topic.

You have no idea the sums I'm capable of thinking. I can even envision the Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics in its own shiny new building with a Board comprised of the most distinguished names in contemporary science, all handsomely remunerated. I can imagine Richard Gill guillotined in the courtyard.

menoma wrote:

Fortunately the funding for my proposed experiment is rising steadily as we speak, and so is the interest in it by professional experimentalists.

I'm solicited for donations all the time. Almost without exception the solicitors give you some idea of how much they've raised. If, for example, after all this time, the total has risen steadily from $0 to the neighborhood of $10,000 the future would seem less bright than if it has steadily risen to $50,000.

The future is brighter than you can think.

Fortunately the funding for my proposed experiment is rising steadily as we speak, and so is the interest in it by professional experimentalists.

I'm solicited for donations all the time. Almost without exception the solicitors give you some idea of how much they've raised. If, for example, after all this time, the total has risen steadily from $0 to the neighborhood of $10,000 the future would seem less bright than if it has steadily risen to $50,000.

menoma wrote:

After a forced exit of one of the staunch Bell believers committed to quantum mysticism and quantum voodoos, this forum is now largely commented on by rational, no-nonsense local-realists like myself. We leave mysticisms like "irreducible quantum randomness", "quantum non-locality", "quantum non-reality", "multiverse", and other voodoos to Bell believers and their uninformed friends. And we do this by rigorous mathematical demonstrations, scientific methodology, and impeccable logic.

Let us not discuss forced exits. However, to paraphrase the heroine of Evita -- "Everything will be justified by my experiment." Dr. Christian holds that single advantage over Mr. Arvay: his hypothesis is testable. God does not submit to experimentation but Nature does. Although perhaps raising the money would now qualify as a miracle.

Fortunately the funding for my proposed experiment is rising steadily as we speak, and so is the interest in it by professional experimentalists.

Anyone is welcome to contribute towards the experiment of the century simply by donating here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/lpmain/.

After a forced exit of one of the staunch Bell believers committed to quantum mysticism and quantum voodoos, this forum is now largely commented on by rational, no-nonsense local-realists like myself. We leave mysticisms like "irreducible quantum randomness", "quantum non-locality", "quantum non-reality", "multiverse", and other voodoos to Bell believers and their uninformed friends. And we do this by rigorous mathematical demonstrations, scientific methodology, and impeccable logic.

Let us not discuss forced exits. However, to paraphrase the heroine of Evita -- "Everything done will be justified by my experiment." Dr. Christian holds that single advantage over Mr. Arvay: his hypothesis is testable. God does not submit to experimentation but Nature does. Although perhaps raising the money would now qualify as a miracle.

I always preface my posts by confessing that I am not a physicist.

I do, however have the utmost respect and admiration for you guys.
I am in awe of your encyclopedic knowledge and ability to correlate vast amounts
of data into cohesive theories. Mathematical precision and discipline are qualities I respect,
and I realize that they are necessary to an understanding of nature and the advance of technology.
I just don't have the intellect, nor do I pretend.

I have been privileged during my 66 years of life to have worked with or near great minds of medicine, business and military.
These also are people whose intellect I cannot approach.
Over time, however, I discovered that the greatest of the great may sometimes have a blind spot in their thinking,
one which they may correct when made aware, or sometimes even when made aware, they cannot see through.

For example one day I read of a statement by the greatest of the great, Stephen Hawking.
He said that God cannot have created the universe because time began with the universe,
and therefore, God would not have had time to create time.

I thought to myself, but time did come into being somehow. How could nature itself have created time? It, also, did not have time to do so.

I affirm in my two self-published books that faith cannot (and even should not) come about through the scientific method.
What I do is to demonstrate that those of us who do have faith should not be thereby excluded from discussions of science, and that
the deepest questions of science can be informed by the paradigm of faith.

Of course, faith does indeed lead to many absurd or tragic results, for example when it blindly rejects reason.
Essentially, my faith tells me a few unprovable things about science that I think many accomplished scientists agree with:

1. Nature makes sense. It is founded upon rational, consistent principles.
2. There is a difference between moral right and wrong that does not depend on our transient opinions.
3. Every human is endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights.
4. There is an ultimate basis of physical reality that itself is not physical.
5. Nature cannot have come about by natural means, since there was no nature to provide those natural means.

Many of these opinions are not my own, but come from the writings of classical and contemporary scientists from Newton to Hawking.
Nor am I the first and only to notice that as physics more deeply investigates basic fundamentals and foundations of physical reality,
it begins to sound more and more like the Eastern mystics (of which am assuredly not one), who tell us that
the only thing we really perceive is our perceptions, from which we reconstruct an external world which we must continually
modify as we go along.

In any case, if I am unwelcome here I will not impose myself--which will be a great loss for me.
.

menoma wrote:It's not constructive to dragoon science in the service of metaphysical presuppositions. Although around here you're in compatible company.

Actually RArvay, you were in compatible company around here, but not any more.

After a forced exit of one of the staunch Bell believers committed to quantum mysticism and quantum voodoos, this forum is now largely commented on by rational, no-nonsense local-realists like myself. We leave mysticisms like "irreducible quantum randomness", "quantum non-locality", "quantum non-reality", "multiverse", and other voodoos to Bell believers and their uninformed friends. And we do this by rigorous mathematical demonstrations, scientific methodology, and impeccable logic.

Joy Christian

It's not constructive to dragoon science in the service of metaphysical presuppositions. Although around here you're in compatible company.

Also of The God Paradigm.

By any chance are you Robert Arvay, author of The Ten Thousand Proofs of God ? If not perhaps you should be.

Not being a physicist, mine is only a layman's impression.

They advocate the multiverse because the cosmological constant must be precise to one part in 10 to the 120th power in order for the universe to neither explode nor implode. That degree of precision has been compared to all the grains of sand on the earth, so that if the constant were off by one grain of sand, the universe could not exist.

Even the hardest of die-hard natural-materialists cannot (without embarrassment) claim that that is all a coincidence, unless they propose unimaginable numbers of universes, each randomly assigned constants.

This leaves us with two possible alternatives:

1. Cosmic Intent
2. Unimaginably vast numbers of universes, each randomly assigned its constants.

#1 is unacceptable to natural-materialism because it sounds like theology.
#2 should also be unacceptable, because it is merely a work-around, cannot be falsified, and poses more problems than it solves. For example, if our single universe came about through randomness, then how did the multiverse get its properties, parameters, constants and potentials?

It is possible that there are vast numbers of universes, but even that would support consideration of #1, Cosmic Intent.
Whenever we see evidence of purpose and intent, it seems unreasonable to rule it out on the basis of unlikely chance or unimaginably vast numbers rolls of the dice, especially when we cannot define the dice.

Just my thoughts.

I think they advocate the multiverse because they don't have an explanation for the 20 or so constants of nature. So they propose that these are given by chance which suggests that elsewhere they might be different. If we do eventually find that these constants can be derived, then I suspect that the multiverse will have to go away.

But one question I have is how much of QFT and GR and the SM is necessary to have an inflationary model to begin with from which the mulitverse is derived?

— Paul Steinhardt, "Theories of Anything" edge.com'

A pervasive idea in fundamental physics and cosmology that should be retired: the notion that we live in a multiverse in which the laws of physics and the properties of the cosmos vary randomly from one patch of space to another. According to this view, the laws and properties within our observable universe cannot be explained or predicted because they are set by chance. Different regions of space too distant to ever be observed have different laws and properties, according to this picture. Over the entire multiverse, there are infinitely many distinct patches. Among these patches, in the words of Alan Guth, "anything that can happen will happen—and it will happen infinitely many times". Hence, I refer to this concept as a Theory of Anything. Any observation or combination of observations is consistent with a Theory of Anything. No observation or combination of observations can disprove it. Proponents seem to revel in the fact that the Theory cannot be falsified. The rest of the scientific community should be up in arms since an unfalsifiable idea lies beyond the bounds of normal science. Yet, except for a few voices, there has been surprising complacency and, in some cases, grudging acceptance of a Theory of Anything as a logical possibility. The scientific journals are full of papers treating the Theory of Anything seriously. What is going on?
===========================
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

As the logical conclusion of prevailing assumptions, the multiverse hypothesis has surged in begrudging popularity in recent years. But the argument feels like a cop-out to many, or at least a huge letdown. A universe shaped by chance cancellations eludes understanding, and the existence of unreachable, alien universes may be impossible to prove. “And it’s pretty unsatisfactory to use the multiverse hypothesis to explain only things we don’t understand,” said Graham Ross, an emeritus professor of theoretical physics at the University of Oxford.
============================
In my view (this poster) some form of the multi-verse theory may be true, but probably not in its most popularized present forms. The main point of MUH seems to be to explain how an unimaginably unlikely universe as ours came into existence. The problem is, the multi-universe is even less probable. Not being a physicist, mine is only a layman's impression.