3 ms·

Is the multiverse theory falsifiable? I can't tell.

by wensing 18y ago

rms 18y ago
>Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
- jhancock 18y ago
  Its amusing that some are so adamant against the unprovable concept of a creator that they go to such lengths as believing in something else equally unprovable. I like the multiverse concept. Its cool. Maybe a creator created this ;)
DarkShikari 18y ago
To some extent, actually, yes. Here's a way of doing it. Let us say that a hyper-advanced civilization has the ability, through simulations or otherwise, of calculating the odds of life arising in a universe with given initial conditions and fundamental constants (to some rough accuracy). They can test billions of possible initial states, including our own, and use that to see whether we lie in a very probable location in phase space or an improbable one. If the location is probable, it strongly supports the multiverse theory. If the location is improbable, the theory is likely false. For example, if the average probability of life arising in a given universe in some chunk of phase space that includes ours is 40%, and ours is in a subsection of that phase space with a 30% probability, the multiverse theory is not falsified. If ours is in a subsection of that phase space with a 0.000001% probability (far lower than average), it suggests that multiverse is unlikely, because our existence seems to be in violation of pure chance. The same method can be used to falsify evolution. Test billions of simulations of the Earth's development of life, and see where our species falls statistically. If we're in a probable area of the phase space (phase space of possible sentient creatures to evolve), our understanding of evolution is likely correct, and if we're in a very improbable area (many many standard deviations away from the most likely), our understanding must be flawed somewhere.
- swombat 18y ago
  Down-modded for basic misunderstanding of the scientific method.
  - DarkShikari 18y ago
    Exactly how? Or are you just going to respond with a useless one-liner rather than actually explain your objection? Statistical analysis of probabilities is a method of analyzing the odds of a theory's validity. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. And when there's absolutely nothing else you can do, its the only option other than blind faith. I'll repeat this again: If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. The entire point of the Anthropic Principle is to attempt to answer this question by stating that if reality was not improbable as such, we wouldn't exist to ask that question. Do you object to this concept? How is this concept a violation of the scientific method?
    - swombat 18y ago
      I warmly invite you to consult the wikipedia page on the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method In it, you will find the "essential elements" of the scientific method: * Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) * Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject) * Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory) * Experiments (tests of all of the above) The last two elements are missing from your approach, and it is hence unscientific. Please note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. This is a very wild conjecture with no substantiating evidence. It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it.
      - DarkShikari 18y ago
        Please note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are. It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it. So, by your logic, the anthropic principle is wholly equal to blind faith? Sure, its not strictly science, and more of a logical argument than a scientific experiment (much like my original post), but really? Equal to blind faith? If you are that deluded, I'm not even going to bother arguing this. This is pointless. Go get yourself a source a bit better than Wikipedia and educate yourself.
swombat 18y ago
Not currently, no, and that would, indeed, make it unscientific...
- wheels 18y ago
  I think there's a line between unscientific and scientific conjecture. No scientist worth their salt considers the multiverse interpretation more than a conjecture, which seems fair game. It's fine for scientists to go grasping at straws, since I believe that's fundamental to the creative processes that result in new theories, but it's important to note where that's happening and where theory is unfolding.
wheels 18y ago
Quantum computing as a field arose from David Deutsch's desire to build an experiment which could test the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The idea was that if it were able to find a solution to a problem which was not tractable in one universe, then it would support the notion of a multiverse.

Is the multiverse theory falsifiable? I can't tell.

by wensing 18y ago

Is the multiverse theory falsifiable? I can't tell.

rms 18y ago

>Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

jhancock 18y ago
Its amusing that some are so adamant against the unprovable concept of a creator that they go to such lengths as believing in something else equally unprovable. I like the multiverse concept. Its cool. Maybe a creator created this ;)

DarkShikari 18y ago

To some extent, actually, yes. Here's a way of doing it. Let us say that a hyper-advanced civilization has the ability, through simulations or otherwise, of calculating the odds of life arising in a universe with given initial conditions and fundamental constants (to some rough accuracy). They can test billions of possible initial states, including our own, and use that to see whether we lie in a very probable location in phase space or an improbable one. If the location is probable, it strongly supports the multiverse theory. If the location is improbable, the theory is likely false. For example, if the average probability of life arising in a given universe in some chunk of phase space that includes ours is 40%, and ours is in a subsection of that phase space with a 30% probability, the multiverse theory is not falsified. If ours is in a subsection of that phase space with a 0.000001% probability (far lower than average), it suggests that multiverse is unlikely, because our existence seems to be in violation of pure chance. The same method can be used to falsify evolution. Test billions of simulations of the Earth's development of life, and see where our species falls statistically. If we're in a probable area of the phase space (phase space of possible sentient creatures to evolve), our understanding of evolution is likely correct, and if we're in a very improbable area (many many standard deviations away from the most likely), our understanding must be flawed somewhere.

swombat 18y ago
Down-modded for basic misunderstanding of the scientific method.
- DarkShikari 18y ago
  Exactly how? Or are you just going to respond with a useless one-liner rather than actually explain your objection? Statistical analysis of probabilities is a method of analyzing the odds of a theory's validity. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. And when there's absolutely nothing else you can do, its the only option other than blind faith. I'll repeat this again: If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. The entire point of the Anthropic Principle is to attempt to answer this question by stating that if reality was not improbable as such, we wouldn't exist to ask that question. Do you object to this concept? How is this concept a violation of the scientific method?
  - swombat 18y ago
    I warmly invite you to consult the wikipedia page on the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method In it, you will find the "essential elements" of the scientific method: * Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) * Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject) * Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory) * Experiments (tests of all of the above) The last two elements are missing from your approach, and it is hence unscientific. Please note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. This is a very wild conjecture with no substantiating evidence. It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it.
    - DarkShikari 18y ago
      Please note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are. It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it. So, by your logic, the anthropic principle is wholly equal to blind faith? Sure, its not strictly science, and more of a logical argument than a scientific experiment (much like my original post), but really? Equal to blind faith? If you are that deluded, I'm not even going to bother arguing this. This is pointless. Go get yourself a source a bit better than Wikipedia and educate yourself.

swombat 18y ago

Not currently, no, and that would, indeed, make it unscientific...

wheels 18y ago
I think there's a line between unscientific and scientific conjecture. No scientist worth their salt considers the multiverse interpretation more than a conjecture, which seems fair game. It's fine for scientists to go grasping at straws, since I believe that's fundamental to the creative processes that result in new theories, but it's important to note where that's happening and where theory is unfolding.

wheels 18y ago

Quantum computing as a field arose from David Deutsch's desire to build an experiment which could test the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The idea was that if it were able to find a solution to a problem which was not tractable in one universe, then it would support the notion of a multiverse.