The multiverse!

[sandwiches]

The multiverse - are we for it or against it?

www.salon.com/books/feature/2011/01/27/the_hidden_reality_brian_greene

The Hidden Reality" by Brian Greene

"The Hidden Reality": The multiple universe, explained
The idea of the parallel world has fascinated writers for centuries. A new book explains the science behind it

The concept of the multiverse -- a plethora of individually infinite universes of every conceivable nature, coexisting yet separated from each other in some fashion -- holds a particular horror for those who fancy that their lives derive meaning and ethical stature only from a sense of self-determined uniqueness. Ontological nausea and revulsion swiftly sets in when such a person begins to contemplate billions of his doppelgängers enacting perverse, bizarre and morally repulsive scenarios imbued with just as much existential gravitas as the one his particular consciousness in this universe experiences and privileges. Such a vision embodies self-betrayals of the most intimate possible nature.

Greene informs us at the outset that he will explicate nine types of multiverses. (Yes, we are about to encounter a multiverse of multiverses!) The first seven are direct outgrowths of discoveries or theories in modern physics: cosmology, string theory, etc. The final two are more purely conceptual or speculative exercises.

There is at least an advertisement featuring Courtney Cox (infinitely more appealing than Jennifer Aniston - whatever my daughter might opine) on the website linked to above. In an alternative universe, Courtney and I could be getting on very well!

Nevertheless I suspect it is bunkum - but I am not a scientist!

[unkleE]

Mar 6, 2011 19:30:50 GMT sandwiches said:

The multiverse - are we for it or against it?
<snip>
Nevertheless I suspect it is bunkum - but I am not a scientist!

I wonder also. I cannot help feel unsure about the motives of scientists and academics generally these days. Science is supposed to be disinterested, objective, but you can't help feeling that many are motivated by metaphysical concerns. ID is the obvious example on the christian side (yes, I know it's not really science, but it wants to be), but it seems to me that some cosmology and neuroscience in particular sets out to find anti-theistic evidence. (Sam Harris reportedly studying neuroscience and Richard Carrier studying NT history are extreme examples).

So I used to think that the multiverse was the same. A hypothesis that even its proponents admitted couldn't be based on evidence; a hypothesis that contravened Ockham's Razor to the nth degree by multiplying entities almost ad infinitum, etc. Little more than a desperate fantasy.

Yet I noticed that Martin Rees, a cosmologist of impeccable pedigree and a man whose integrity I would bet on, and a supporter of the multiverse and even hopeful there may be some indirect experimental confirmation one day. (Though even he admits that one reason he chooses the multiverse is that the only realistic alternative is God, and that is not a 'scientific' explanation.) Stephen Barr also, in his excellent book "Modern Physics and Ancient faith" treats the multiverse as a serious hypothesis.

Finally, Paul Davies, another scientist whose integrity I respect, gives it some credence, although he also points out that it doesn't achieve the metaphysical outcomes some people would want. For if a universe that is amazingly fine-tuned to survive and produce life is statistically impossible by chance, then a multiverse which was capable of producing 10^500 separate universes or domains, each one with different physical properties and laws (which is the very minimum that is required to explain the fine-tuning by natural means) is even more amazing.

So now I just treat the multiverse as a possibility waiting to be demonstrated, but which makes no difference to the metaphysics.