Multiverse Evidence Explanation?

[Tanelorn]

Thanks Mordred, I had not heard that word before, ever!
There it is :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

Perhaps we need a new forum? :)

 

[Mordred]

doubtful between beyond the standard model, cosmology and other forums such as QM. Another forum wouldn't add anything. The subject of multiverse comes up often but usually the questions are easily answered leading to short life threads.

 

[marcus]

... I am not committed to a multiverse and not arguing anyone should be. I think there is more common ground between us than you imagine. All I’m saying is that the conclusion that inflation is eternal is a result of a calculation of how inflationary theorists think the inflaton field evolves...

I think we must share a lot of common ground! I think I can honestly say that I am not devoted to "non-multiverse" thinking for its own sake either. E.g. the usual isotropic LQC implies a prior contracting phase. So that's another classical universe, you could say. I don't object on principle to there being other classical regions besides this expanding one we live in. But I'd only bother contemplating other regions that are strictly necessitated by an otherwise elegant model with good contact with data.

So I'm not opposed on principle to every sort of multiverse (there seem to be a lot of versions, maybe it is an inherently vague concept ). But I should say I have not seen any very persuasive argument for eternal inflation. This is how I'd adapt what you said earlier:

"All I’m saying is that the conclusion that inflation is eternal is a result of a calculation of how [SOME] inflationary theorists think the [SOME TYPE OF] inflaton field evolves..."

As I understand it (e.g. see Wikip'a) the "eternal inflation" picture is not that inflation starts up sporadically from time to time at widely separated locations. Eternal inflation is that once it starts it continues forever except at rare bubbles of normality where it happens by random accident to have decayed.

This obviously does not happen in the effective isotropic LQC picture. There the bout of inflation is entirely deterministic from start to finish. Simple quadratic potential (no contrived false vacuum plateau). You can see from the equation that it is like a pendulum/oscillator with a FRICTION term. The LQC bounce is what gives it a big enough kick for starters and then it runs down.

So the scalar field in this case does not "evolve" in the way imagined by fans of eternal inflation. Or so I think. I could be wrong, in which case please set me straight.

For convenient reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
"...In theories of eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the universe. Because these regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating..."
"...The bubble universe model proposes that different regions of this inflationary universe (termed a multiverse) decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to "sub"-universes not in causal contact with each other and resulting in different physical laws..."

 

[Chronos]

One of the unending sources of confusion for me is the definition of a multiverse: Is it an overlay of unbounded universes that are causally disconnected; an overlay of unbounded universes that are temporally and causally disconnected; an overlay of bubble universes that, while spatially bounded, are causally disconnected; or an overlay of bubble universes that, while spatially bounded, are temporally and causally disconnected? It's just too slippery to make any sense to me.

 

[skydivephil]

Phil, Perhaps a solution would be to divide the subject in two, one being observational Cosmology and the other being speculative Cosmology. With two distinction such as this it is now easy even for a layman such as myself to distinguish between most theories.

I agree

 

[skydivephil]

Phil, Perhaps a solution would be to divide the subject in two, one being observational Cosmology and the other being speculative Cosmology. With two distinction such as this it is now easy even for a layman such as myself to distinguish between most theories.

Actaully now I think about it, you would still have a grey area. Let's suppose someone claims to see signs of another universe or a pre big Bang phase in the CMB or in galaxy observations where would that go? Its nice to have easy categories but you cannot avoid the grey areas in between.

 

[skydivephil]

Marcus, I agree the multiverse is a vague concept. In the LQC bounce the prior contracting phrase is considered pretty similar (even mirror image) to our universe. However our universe does not look like its going to recollapse so there has to be something significantly different about the contracting branch even if its just the distribution of matter/dark matter/dark energy. The only way to get the contracting universe to be the same as our universe is if we assume dark energy is not a constant but something dynamical, do you agree? I don’t think we can rule out dynamical dark energy, but right now it looks like a constant, probably the cosmological constant.

I also agree:
"All I’m saying is that the conclusion that inflation is eternal is a result of a calculation of how [SOME] inflationary theorists think the [SOME TYPE OF] inflaton field evolves..."
Even Guth says almost all inflationary models are eternal, rather than all.

I can’t match your understanding of the literature but I can give my journalistic instinct. Eternal inflation is one of many models of what happened in the very early universe. Most of the originators of inflationary cosmology Guth, Steinhardt, Linde etc think that if inflation happened its eternal. There is a huge pop science interest in the multiverse. I think string theory would have been killed when the landscape was discovered but managed to survive only because eternal inflation allowed them to populate their landscape. So whether inflation is eternal or not is a very big story.
The critics of inflation make at least two major points, inflation:
1 requires fine tuning to start so doesn’t solve the problems it’s advertised to
2 is eternal and hence loses predictivity
Along comes LQC and these guys are clearly saying problem 1 is solved. But yet I don't seem them saying problems 2 is solved.
I asked the researchers I spoke to about this, none of them have made that claim. The closest I’ve got is Abhay Ashtekar saying problem 2 might get solved in the future. But even if this is going to happen, he left open whether LQC would confirm or deny eternal inflation saying he had no intuition about it.
Also Aurélien Barrau has said the multiverse should be taken seriously:

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/31860
and he invoked ternal inflation.

So if his new results overturned this I’m sure it would be big news.
I can’t follow the maths in these papers as well as you and I really appreciate your input but reading the conclusions, but I just don’t see anything in LQC inflation papers that overturns eternal inflation. Of course that doesn’t mean eternal inflation is true but I’m not so sure that LQc has put the nail in its coffin.

Recently Abhay Ashtekar gave a talk to the joint Tufts/Mit seminar, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. I wonder what the q&A was like? Have you spoken to Aurélien Barrau about it? I think he’s going to be at loops 2013 so if you are going to be there , it will very interesting to see what he has to say. If not maybe Ill email him, let me know.

 

[Chalnoth]

One of the unending sources of confusion for me is the definition of a multiverse: Is it an overlay of unbounded universes that are causally disconnected; an overlay of unbounded universes that are temporally and causally disconnected; an overlay of bubble universes that, while spatially bounded, are causally disconnected; or an overlay of bubble universes that, while spatially bounded, are temporally and causally disconnected? It's just too slippery to make any sense to me.

There are multiple different multiverse ideas. I think Tegmark did a good job of breaking them down in his multiverse hierarchy paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283.pdf

A slightly more concise version :

1. Different initial conditions.
2. Different regions of space with different effective, low-energy physics.
3. The many worlds picture of quantum mechanics.
4. Other mathematical structures.

A few of things to note:
First, a multiverse simply consisting of different, causally-disconnected regions with different initial conditions is generally considered to be quite mundane and unexceptional. And yet, it is ontologically identical to multiverse 3, which is often considered to be highly controversial. Multiverse 2 is more controversial still, and yet it is a necessary result both multiverses 1 and 3 given a fundamental theory with multiple metastable vacua.

 

[Mordred]

good paper thanks for pointing it out

 

[marcus]

Hi Skydive,
you link to a 2007 wide-audience speculative "Cern Courier" piece by Barrau.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4460

I don't see any subsequent Barrau paper along those lines. In a sense that speaks for itself.

Since that wide-audience piece in 2007, Barrau has written over two dozen serious articles including quite a few dealing with LQC INFLATION. But I don't remember anything further about "eternal inflation" or "multiverse". He seems to have given up on eternal multi stuff, or lost interest.

So I don't see why what you say is big news:

...
Also Aurélien Barrau has said the multiverse should be taken seriously:

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/31860
and he invoked eternal inflation.

So if his new results overturned this I’m sure it would be big news...

It seems to me that it is not big news if the new paper (like so many others by Barrau) simply IGNORES "eternal inflation" as not relevant to bounce-driven minimalist inflation, and avoids the "multiverse" topic as well.

Actually, as a side comment, I suspect that the "multiverse" topic intrigues the public for reasons which are not essentially scientific. Because it somehow resonates with fantasy, religion, philosophical wondering and wonderment. So its journalistic profile could be out of proportion with its actual scientific importance. Hence not to be surprised if it doesn't get mentioned in this or that LQC inflation article.

 

[Mordred]

this paper has some interesting and related information.

Time before time

Classifications of universes in contemporary cosmology,
and how to avoid the antinomy
of the beginning and eternity of the world

some of the tables and images are also useful. I certainly enjoyed this article.

 

[Chronos]

There are multiple different multiverse ideas. I think Tegmark did a good job of breaking them down in his multiverse hierarchy paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283.pdf

A slightly more concise version :

1. Different initial conditions.
2. Different regions of space with different effective, low-energy physics.
3. The many worlds picture of quantum mechanics.
4. Other mathematical structures.

A few of things to note:
First, a multiverse simply consisting of different, causally-disconnected regions with different initial conditions is generally considered to be quite mundane and unexceptional. And yet, it is ontologically identical to multiverse 3, which is often considered to be highly controversial. Multiverse 2 is more controversial still, and yet it is a necessary result both multiverses 1 and 3 given a fundamental theory with multiple metastable vacua.

Agreed, even cosmologists have difficulty rendering any sense to it.

 

[marcus]

...
So if his new results overturned this I’m sure it would be big news.
... Have you spoken to Aurélien Barrau about it? I think he’s going to be at loops 2013 so if you are going to be there , it will very interesting to see what he has to say. If not maybe Ill email him, let me know.

I've been slow to respond. Got distracted with other things. I haven't communicated with Barrau and now that you mention it, it seems to be a really good idea.
Given your background as science communicator he is sure to respond---to be very glad to respond should think. I don't have any special standing or entrée to offer that would make it more natural for me to inquire. So I think it would be an excellent idea, if you have the time and inclination.

I seem to remember that he is a fairly young guy who likes motorcycles and the outdoors. Grenoble is in southern France, more or less. Southeast, mountains? Not too far from Cern. He should be a great guy to be in contact with!

I suddenly am realizing that it is late here after 1AM and I let the time slip by, got distracted with some other stuff. Not the best time for me to be trying to answer. I'll get back to this tomorrow.

I am coming around closer to your perception that it would actually be "news" in a sense to have some type of inflation under study that would not follow the earlier pictures of eternal or chaotic---that kind of deemphasized the "multiverse" aspect.

I'm not expert enough to be sure about this or to think it through, but I'm getting curious.

Something I read in a George Ellis paper also evoked the idea of inflation without multi, and an argument he was having at a March 2013 workshop at cambridge. I'm getting curious about this myself now. But more important to get some sleep. Will try to think about it tomorrow.

 

[skydivephil]

Okay cool, I've emailed him , will let you know if I get a reply.

 

[marcus]

Good! Bojowald is another person to keep track of. I forget if you have interviewed him or not.
He has a very interesting paper "loop quantum multiverse?". I think you may have given the link (or someone has) already:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5150

You probably already know this but in case anyone reading this thread does not, it should be summarized briefly.
Bojo has reasons to believe that at high energy density, above some critical level, 4D geometry has no causal "direction" (no lightcone structure) but is completely Euclidean symmetric. As it cools this symmetry is broken and it picks out a causal orientation and goes down to Lorentzian symmetry (which preserves the lightcones which have crystallized in). So there is this phase transition.

So if you look on page 8 you see what he is driving at. He does away with the usual LQC bounce.
And he also does away with one of the multiverse scenarios that people imagine where in a collapse some regions bounce EARLIER than other.
"the picture of dense collapsing patches bouncing first is not realized."
Complete causal disconnect. If there is more than one, they don't know about each other.
He says "it may seem more appropriate to talk of separate universes instead of one...larger structure."
A given expanding classical phase does not even know anything about its antecedent, it is causally disconnected from the prior collapsing phase. So no Smolinian CNS evolution possible either. The Euclidean phase does not propagate information, impervious barrier. So bojowald has some interesting ideas regarding multiverse topics. Could be wrong of course but I find them fresh and intriguing.

Here's more about it: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4429854#post4429854

 

[DennisN]

Hi, I just read some things I thought I might share in this thread.

Frank Wilczek's paper "Multiversality" has caused some debate (abstract, paper):

• http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/352421/description/Belief_in_multiverse_requires_exceptional_vision (Tom Siegfried comments on Wilczek)
  
• "Belief in multiple universes requires exceptional vision. So does belief in telepathy." * (Ashutosh Jogalekar comments on Siegfried)
  
• "Belief in multiverse requires exceptional vision" (Peter Woit comments on Siegfried)
  
• "Multiversing around" (Sabine Hossenfelder's blog post, mentioned in the Woit comment thread)

(* the title made me laugh.)

After reading and thinking about this, I'm starting to realize that one of the main problems (perhaps the main problem at the moment) seems to be that people can't even agree on what multiverse means. So, in my view, the multiverse can't be considered a hypothesis - it is a set of hypotheses. So we've got ourselves a multitude of multiverses, oh dear.

I'm trying to sum up the main ideas as I understand them; multiverse can be

1. a set of universes that have different physics, and can not interact with each other
2. a set of universes that have the same physics, and can not interact with each other
3. a set of universes that have different physics, and can interact with each other
4. a set of universes that have the same physics, and can interact with each other

1 and 2 are versions that can not interact, so we will not get any observational support from them. 3 and 4 are versions that can interact, so this will boil down to what we mean by same/different physics - and - how we define a universe. Should a universe be defined as

1. everything that obeys the same set of physical laws and physical constants
2. everything that belongs to the same spacetime continuum
3. or both 1 and 2?

Of course, I don't expect any definite answers to this , since I don't believe there are any yet. I just wanted to share some of my frustration. I now think I understand the term multiverse mania.

 

[rbj]

I have to agree on that, I'm also one that prefers answers to our own universe. As opposed to quoting multiverse as an answer to questions we cannot yet answer.

Then how do you deal with the fact that if we do live in a multiverse, then certain features of our universe might only possibly make sense if understood in that context?

To take an example, consider the cosmological constant. If we live in a multiverse where an extremely large number of different values of the cosmological constant are realized in different contexts, then there is nothing to explain: we see the value we do simply because life requires a small cosmological constant.

Noth, i realize you might not like me pointing out the obvious, and i am not sure what Mordred's position is, but the nature of the question/challenge you make is a purely epistemological one, yet, similarly to the IDers, you begin with restrictions or axioms that support your worldview.

you're relying on the presumption of the multiverse to use selection bias to explain away anthropic coincidences. a sort of Multiverse-of-the-gaps theory.

an IDer could ask the same question within the domain of epistemology by use of substitution of a word or two. what might be different is that the IDer might admit that faith in the Undetectable and Unverifiable is necessary.

 

[Chalnoth]

Noth, i realize you might not like me pointing out the obvious, and i am not sure what Mordred's position is, but the nature of the question/challenge you make is a purely epistemological one, yet, similarly to the IDers, you begin with restrictions or axioms that support your worldview.

you're relying on the presumption of the multiverse to use selection bias to explain away anthropic coincidences. a sort of Multiverse-of-the-gaps theory.

There is absolutely no comparison. The designer of ID is, by definition, more complex than that which it purports to explain. It is more complex because it is fundamentally impossible to derive any specific observation from the nature of the designer: each specific observation must be independently assumed. The designer of ID is, therefore, to be considered highly unlikely by Occam's Razor.

By contrast, models which include a multiverse are inherently simpler than models which do not, because it requires additional assumptions to restrict the universe to one realization, in the same way that it requires more assumptions to fully-describe the set [1,2,3,4,5] than it does to describe the set of all integers.

Even more stark, the proponents of ID often rely upon designers which are in principle undetectably by any potential experiment. Sometimes they come up with designers that make testable claims, but those are trivially proven false through very simple observations.

By contrast, many multiverse models are very much testable. Sometimes those tests are extremely difficult to perform, but they are in principle possible. This is rooted in the fact that such models are by necessity mathematical in nature, and that nature allows one to produce very specific predictions of the model. Whether or not those predictions can be accessed by current observation shouldn't bias us for or against any particular theory.

The simple fact of the matter is that by excluding a priori models which you don't like, based upon nothing but your dislike for those models, you are biasing your potential answers for the nature of the universe. And no, there is absolutely no valid reason to exclude multiverse ideas a priori.

 

[rbj]

There is absolutely no comparison. The designer of ID is, by definition, more complex than that which it purports to explain.

according to the Prophet Dawkins, i s'pose. "by definition" here is quite dependent on who is defining.

It is more complex because it is fundamentally impossible to derive any specific observation from the nature of the designer: each specific observation must be independently assumed. The designer of ID is, therefore, to be considered highly unlikely by Occam's Razor.

right outa Chapter 3.

By contrast, models which include a multiverse are inherently simpler than models which do not, because it requires additional assumptions to restrict the universe to one realization,

just because an equation that describes reality has many solutions, does not mean that every solution exists in reality. it only means (if such equation really does describe reality) that the solution we observe in reality must be one of those many solutions. in a simple sense, it's like the 4 modes of the solution of a 4th-order diff eq. the solution can be any of the 4 (or any linear combination, if the diff eq is homogeneous) but, say it's waves on a string, it doesn't mean that if there are 3 other strings.

in the same way that it requires more assumptions to fully-describe the set [1,2,3,4,5] than it does to describe the set of all integers.

concepts (like whole numbers) are not physical things. maybe there's an infinite amount of physical stuff out there, or maybe it's finite (and much bigger than you and me). we don't know. still doesn't tell us diddley about whether or not there are other universes (that we can't measure).

Even more stark, the proponents of ID often rely upon designers which are in principle undetectably by any potential experiment. Sometimes they come up with designers that make testable claims, but those are trivially proven false through very simple observations.

By contrast, many multiverse models are very much testable. Sometimes those tests are extremely difficult to perform, but they are in principle possible.

so in principle, it's possible to test the state of something outside of the observable universe? even just the existence of the thing with the state?

This is rooted in the fact that such models are by necessity mathematical in nature, and that nature allows one to produce very specific predictions of the model. Whether or not those predictions can be accessed by current observation shouldn't bias us for or against any particular theory.

The simple fact of the matter is that by excluding a priori models which you don't like, based upon nothing but your dislike for those models, you are biasing your potential answers for the nature of the universe. And no, there is absolutely no valid reason to exclude multiverse ideas a priori.

i am not excluding models. i don't really like or dislike any of these different cosmological models. some components of some models are testable and potentially falsifiable. yea!

still doesn't clue us in on a falsifiable reality of universes outside our own.

Noth, i sort of like multiverse theories. i think, for as little as we know and can know, that the existence of other universes is as plausible as the lack of such existence. but i don't need that imagined reality to be true (it might be true, for all we know) to make some sense of the reality that i do observe myself in.

but if you're going to use selection bias to write off some otherwise difficult to explain anthropic coincidences regarding some critical universal constants, there isn't a causal logic to get you there without first the assumption of many "experiments" (universes), most of which fail (to be observed by anyone) but we (by definition) can only observe an "experiment" that succeeds. the "substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." the nasty 5-letter F-word.

 

[Chalnoth]

just because an equation that describes reality has many solutions, does not mean that every solution exists in reality.

Sure. But you have to add additional, unevidenced assumptions to the theory to make it so that those solutions don't exist.

so in principle, it's possible to test the state of something outside of the observable universe? even just the existence of the thing with the state?

It's often possible to test a model which unambiguously predicts a multiverse only by reference to its effects in our own observable universe. The thing which is being tested is not the multiverse directly, but the model which underlies it.

i am not excluding models. i don't really like or dislike any of these different cosmological models.

You clearly do, or you wouldn't be trying to tar some models with associations to creationism.

 

[skydivephil]

Noth, i realize you might not like me pointing out the obvious, and i am not sure what Mordred's position is, but the nature of the question/challenge you make is a purely epistemological one, yet, similarly to the IDers, you begin with restrictions or axioms that support your worldview.

you're relying on the presumption of the multiverse to use selection bias to explain away anthropic coincidences. a sort of Multiverse-of-the-gaps theory.

an IDer could ask the same question within the domain of epistemology by use of substitution of a word or two. what might be different is that the IDer might admit that faith in the Undetectable and Unverifiable is necessary.

The comparison between the multiverse and ID is not a good one.
Unlike ID , the multiverse is well motivated in contemporary cosmology.
Read Alan Guth's paper here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
He gives a very reasonable argument for a mutiverse in my opinion.
Moreover inflationary cosmology has strong evidence in favour of it.
According to the leading inflationary theorists inflation has to be eternal therefore there is multiverse.
Guth gave a talk about that here at the British Institue of Physics:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxa911BYBA
There is nothing like this for ID, there is no seriosus debate in biology as to whether ID or evolution is right. But there is a serious debate in cosmology about eternal inflation and hence the multiverse. If people only thought there was a multiverse for anthropic purposes then maybe you have a point, but that just isn't the case.
Of course whilst the evidence for inflation is good, there is still room for doubt. Similarly its always possible that inflation is right but Guth has it wrong on the way the inflaton field evolves.
For this reason the mutliverse is not a fact and could be wrong. But it is a serious scientific proposal unlike iD.

 

[Tanelorn]

Intelligent Design, in which certain initial conditions and Physical Constants are intelligently predetermined is an interesting idea, rather like setting the oven temperature for a specific cake recipe. Perhaps our reality and our existence are all the result of some very large science experiment. However, I believe that specific results or details of "the Universe experiment" are indeterminate and also non repeatable. I have been searching for opinions whether the Universe is indeterminate or if we could have all been intended, designed or planned in some way here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=706541&page=4Another remote possibility, either ID or not, is that our top level, largest scale Universe and Physical reality could be following, through some mechanism, a predetermined or preset trajectory, like the predetermined trajectory of a river from its simple beginnings in the hills, flowing down valleys, on its way to the ocean. The river's course is preset by Physical geography, but relatively small scale details, perhaps equivalent to features in our Universe up to at least the size of Galaxies remain completely random and indeterminate. Could something like this for example explain why the expansion rate of the Universe has been observed to change over time?

I am not saying I agree with ID, it is just an interesting possibility which probably cannot be proven one way or the other. However as I say in the thread above, I believe that even with a complete understanding of all the Physics and QM in the Universe, the detailed features of our Universe, up to at least the size of Galaxies are completely indeterminate. Anything smaller than a Galaxy, and probably features even bigger, have all happened solely as a result of random chance, and therefore not designed and not likely to ever happen again.

 

[rbj]

The comparison between the multiverse and ID is not a good one.
Unlike ID , the multiverse is well motivated in contemporary cosmology.

there are other disciplines of thought and study (than astrophysics) that have a "contemporary cosmology".

For this reason the mutliverse is not a fact and could be wrong. But it is a serious scientific proposal unlike ID.

ID is not a serious scientific proposal. it is an epistemological proposal. it's at a philosophical level below science, if you're visualizing causality as concepts being built "on top" of other concepts. epistemology is foundational. "science" and "religion" and perhaps other disciplines of thought rest on that foundation.

science, as best as i can tell, is an epistemological branch that is axiomatically materialistic.

religion, as best as i can tell, is an epistemological branch that is axiomatically extra-materialistic.

the only part of ID that may have anything to do with science (and it isn't particularly good science, IMO) is about the question of whether some observed order in nature has its root in design or undirected process. those IDers are trying to make a case (and not succeeding, IMO) that there are scientific reasons to believe that this apparent order cannot be the result of undirected processes or, is not likely to be the result of undirected processes.

i, personally, disagree with Gould about non-overlapping magisteria. i think that it is clear that many or most religions make fact claims that overlap in the domain of science. (e.g. we better the hell not ever see a reference to resurrection in a physiology textbook.) cosmology is an overlapping area, also.

now science has no choice in what to do about unanswered (and possibly unanswerable) questions. perhaps we can label these questions as "mysteries". science cannot be science and appeal to or look for non-material causes of mysteries. so it must look somewhere else (essentially, it must look only in the material).

but religion can and often does look outside of the material, and it is still legitimate epistemology. just not science.

the issue for me, is whether or not either branch (or other fundamental branches, say about art or sociology or ethics) has sufficient humility to embrace mysteries, rather than to make unfalsifiable claims to dispel them. in that, hardcore materialists make the same mistake that IDers do (and i don't see much willingness to own up to that).

 

[Chalnoth]

Intelligent Design, in which certain initial conditions and Physical Constants are intelligently predetermined is an interesting idea, rather like setting the oven temperature for a specific cake recipe. Perhaps our reality and our existence are all the result of a very large science experiment.

Interesting in terms of interesting to chat with somebody over a beer with. Not interesting in the sense of being able to do any real theoretical or scientific work with the idea.

I'd also point out that Intelligent Design as a concept is purely a rebranding of creationism, one that coincided with a court case that ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public school classrooms. This was uncovered to great effect in the recent Dover trial, where the main textbook put out by ID proponents, "Of Pandas and People," had all of its revisions subpoenaed. They found that the revision immediately before Edwards v. Aguillard and the immediately following revision essentially consisted of a search-and-replace of references to "creationism" with "intelligent design" (as well as changing other related terms). There was even a mistake in this initial revision, with "creationists" changed to "cdesign proponentsists".

 

[Tanelorn]

Interesting in terms of interesting to chat with somebody over a beer with. Not interesting in the sense of being able to do any real theoretical or scientific work with the idea.

I'd also point out that Intelligent Design as a concept is purely a rebranding of creationism, one that coincided with a court case that ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public school classrooms. This was uncovered to great effect in the recent Dover trial, where the main textbook put out by ID proponents, "Of Pandas and People," had all of its revisions subpoenaed. They found that the revision immediately before Edwards v. Aguillard and the immediately following revision essentially consisted of a search-and-replace of references to "creationism" with "intelligent design" (as well as changing other related terms). There was even a mistake in this initial revision, with "creationists" changed to "cdesign proponentsists".

I totally distance myself from that nonsense, I am surprised that you even brought that up. I am just talking about this from the angle that the Physical constants appear fine tuned to allow complexity, which obviously proves nothing.

 

[Chalnoth]

I totally distance myself from that nonsense, I am surprised you even brought that up.

I don't think it's possible to meaningfully disassociate Intelligent Design from its creationist roots.

 

[Tanelorn]

I don't think it's possible to meaningfully disassociate Intelligent Design from its creationist roots.

Well its not what I was talking about. I am not even saying I agree with what I was discussing, I am just saying that it is an interesting remote possibility which can never be proven. It is like trying to prove or disprove a theory with only a single measurement, since this is the only Universe that we have ever observed. Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

[skydivephil]

there are other disciplines of thought and study (than astrophysics) that have a "contemporary cosmology".



ID is not a serious scientific proposal. it is an epistemological proposal. it's at a philosophical level below science, if you're visualizing causality as concepts being built "on top" of other concepts. epistemology is foundational. "science" and "religion" and perhaps other disciplines of thought rest on that foundation.

science, as best as i can tell, is an epistemological branch that is axiomatically materialistic.

religion, as best as i can tell, is an epistemological branch that is axiomatically extra-materialistic.

the only part of ID that may have anything to do with science (and it isn't particularly good science, IMO) is about the question of whether some observed order in nature has its root in design or undirected process. those IDers are trying to make a case (and not succeeding, IMO) that there are scientific reasons to believe that this apparent order cannot be the result of undirected processes or, is not likely to be the result of undirected processes.

i, personally, disagree with Gould about non-overlapping magisteria. i think that it is clear that many or most religions make fact claims that overlap in the domain of science. (e.g. we better the hell not ever see a reference to resurrection in a physiology textbook.) cosmology is an overlapping area, also.

now science has no choice in what to do about unanswered (and possibly unanswerable) questions. perhaps we can label these questions as "mysteries". science cannot be science and appeal to or look for non-material causes of mysteries. so it must look somewhere else (essentially, it must look only in the material).

but religion can and often does look outside of the material, and it is still legitimate epistemology. just not science.

the issue for me, is whether or not either branch (or other fundamental branches, say about art or sociology or ethics) has sufficient humility to embrace mysteries, rather than to make unfalsifiable claims to dispel them. in that, hardcore materialists make the same mistake that IDers do (and i don't see much willingness to own up to that).

Of ocurse science allows for mysteries, if we knew everything why do any more research?
I don't agree religioon is looking anyhwehre, it just assumes. How do you look for the non material?
We both agree ID does not succeed in making a good case for a designer, so the question is do Guth and freinds make a good case for the multiverse? I think he does, not a slam dunk, he might be wrong. But I think there's a clear difference .
The controversey over ID a social controversey, its manufactured to look like a scientific contrvoersey. But when you read through the biological liteature there is no controversey over Id, its just nto taken seriously in biology, it is not discussed, its ot part of the scienitifc dialogue.
The same is not true for the multiverse, here there is a very real scientific controversey with communtiies of scientists making good argument on both sides. So people should not put the two on the same footing at all.

 

[DennisN]

So people should not put the two on the same footing at all.

I agree with this. ID is creationism; creationists tried to smuggle it into mainstream science by giving it a new name. And there is no serious creator hypothesis in physics/cosmology nor biology AFAIK. And I have no ID why this discussion turned into this, shouldn't we be talking multiverse hypotheses instead of polytheism?

 

[Tanelorn]

I also agree that ID should not be taught in schools. It is one very small non provable possibility in a very large number of possibilities. I didn't get taught any Cosmology at all in school, so if Cosmology is being taught now ID should probably not take up any more than 0.1% of the time spent on Cosmology. Which probably amounts to no more than the first paragraph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Anyone who disagrees with this is clearly heavily biased and wants to distort children's knowledge for their own agenda. Hardly a "good" motive for anything.