3 ms·

The multiverse is not some addon that can be removed easily; it's just another prediction of the theory.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
Without an experiment that can show a multiverse, it is just a way to explain the unexplainable. It can be completely discarded and replaced with "for some reason" and any experimental evidence would support the same conclusion.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  It's not unexplainable if there is an explanation, obviously. "For some reason" is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    > if there is an explanation, obviously One with the same evidence as "god did it." > is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions. This is true of the multiverse too. It is an attempt to explain why things are like they are rather than a testable theory.
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      > This is true of the multiverse too. Okay, this is just going in circles. Up above you accepted that multiverse theories did make testable predictions. And they do, which is what makes them science.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        No, I did not. A theory may have includes the idea that the multiverse caused whatever it predicted, but that is not based on anything except the authors fantasy. It is exactly the same as arbitrarily saying god caused something in a theory, an unobserved event we can say has whatever impact on this universe we want without any proof. edit let's use a concrete example. This thread is about the cosmological constant. I could easily say that concept is causes by multiverse influence on this universe, just as rightly I could say it's god's finger on the scales. Neither now have experimental data because I can say that. further edit sorry, this is a bit stuck in my head. Look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Notice that it is labeled a hypothesis, and the theories that involve evidence predict a multiverse may be possible with these conditions.

Without an experiment that can show a multiverse, it is just a way to explain the unexplainable. It can be completely discarded and replaced with "for some reason" and any experimental evidence would support the same conclusion.

akvadrako 6y ago
It's not unexplainable if there is an explanation, obviously. "For some reason" is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  > if there is an explanation, obviously One with the same evidence as "god did it." > is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions. This is true of the multiverse too. It is an attempt to explain why things are like they are rather than a testable theory.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    > This is true of the multiverse too. Okay, this is just going in circles. Up above you accepted that multiverse theories did make testable predictions. And they do, which is what makes them science.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      No, I did not. A theory may have includes the idea that the multiverse caused whatever it predicted, but that is not based on anything except the authors fantasy. It is exactly the same as arbitrarily saying god caused something in a theory, an unobserved event we can say has whatever impact on this universe we want without any proof. edit let's use a concrete example. This thread is about the cosmological constant. I could easily say that concept is causes by multiverse influence on this universe, just as rightly I could say it's god's finger on the scales. Neither now have experimental data because I can say that. further edit sorry, this is a bit stuck in my head. Look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Notice that it is labeled a hypothesis, and the theories that involve evidence predict a multiverse may be possible with these conditions.