Re: [asa] The Multi verse - Physics or Metaphysics?

So .. are we not saying that Koonin's paper is making a philosophical
commitment to a theory that we don't even know if we can test?

The standard definition of the MWI is that the parallel universes can never
interact; in which case one could never directly test the hypothesis.

And my other problem with the whole thing is that even given we could devise
a test that proved beyond all doubt that the multiverse was true, that
nonetheless invoking the multiverse as an explanation (via the anthropic
principle) of why we're here isn't good science. Since anything, however
unlikely can happen with probability 1 in some rare universe, we can explain
everything simply by saying "that's the universe we happen to be in".

The situation is the same as in my field (statistical modelling of data),
that if I have, say a sequence of 1000 numbers, then I can always fit a
degree 999 polynomial to go exactly through all the points. Because my
model is so flexible, it can "explain" anything, and therefore it explains
nothing. For a polynomial fit to have any explanatory power, it would have
to be a lower degree. If a quadratic fitted pretty well through my 1000
points, then I'd be saying something interesting about the data.

Likewise, a proper theory, like evolution, for example, is actually telling
us something interesting - one can make predictions and see if they come
true. But to invoke the multiverse to explain the apparently incredibly
unlikely event of a primitive replicator assembling by chance tells us
nothing from which other predictions can be made. There could be any number
of bizarrely unlikely events that might also be explained by the multiverse,
and there would be no connection between them or no pattern. (One of my
favourites was in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, where
the event of all the molecules in the hostesses dress at a party
simultaneously moved one metre to the right. Adams used an "infinite
improbability drive" to achieve this, but in a Many Worlds multiverse, the
even happens not only once, but infinitely many times).

Iain.

On 9/7/07, Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>I wonder if people on the list would agree with me that "God did it"
> and "The multiverse did it" appear to be equivalent statements, and neither
> is satisfactory from a scientific viewpoint?>>
>
> No, they are not equivalent. The second of these may be testable, although
> with our present state of knowledge it does not appear to be so. But ask the
> question again in 100 years! <G>
>
> The first is not satisfactory from a scientific point, of course. The
> second just appears bizarre, and on that count is, at least for now, not
> "satisfactory."
>
> Burgy
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.