Martin Rees On The Multiverse, Scientific Research & Reality

In my section of the Multiverse by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 10:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Real doesn't suck so much.

Holographic Principle and M-theory by azoidx · 2003-05-20 10:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

multi-verse theories are boring. try M-theory on for size: see http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/holo/ and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=holographic+principle+m-theory&btnG=Google+Se arch

Re:Holographic Principle and M-theory by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 13:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

Damn, child. Learn some html.

Link 1

Link 2

Mod parent down for gratuitous karma whoring without even bothering to make clickable links.

Mage: The Ascension by Metallic+Matty · 2003-05-20 10:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I'm a personal fan of the multiverse of Mage; particularly the Gauntlet and Avatar Storm =)

Re:Mage: The Ascension by Valdrax · 2003-05-21 08:14 · Score: 1

Wait, wait. You liked the Avatar Storm plot?

In my opinion, the whole Avatar Storm plot was responsible for raping 3 perfectly good products lines -- Mage, Mummy, and Wraith. The whole cross-over fanfic appeal of it all just somehow missed me when Mummies got Clans, Wraith got 86'ed to be replaced with Demon (retch), and the Traditions just rolled over and started wimpering to the Technocracy. Overall, I think the Avatar Storm plot is where WoD jumped the shark. It was a blatant move to screw-over all previous editions of their product lines so that they could add some momentum to the endless supplement churn that feeds their bottom line. I might not have as much of a problem with it if it didn't turn out to make a series of (in my opinion) damaging and setting-wrecking changes to each of the games it touched.

Anyway, we're both horribly off-topic.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:Mage: The Ascension by Metallic+Matty · 2003-05-21 08:47 · Score: 1

The Gauntlet and Avatar Storm was practically the one way I could keep my damn players from stepping sideways every chance they got, to evade problems. It was ridiculous. I didn't want to ban the Umbral realities altogether; which is why I like them. Now, I don't play much outside of Mage in the WoD RPGS (a little Vampire and Hunter gets mixed into my campaigns.) But I agree, they were just kind of pushing things aside to plug for new books.
Re:Mage: The Ascension by Valdrax · 2003-05-21 09:24 · Score: 1

Man, usually in the games I've played in, stepping sideways was like going from the frying pan to the fire (in more ways that one). The only real benefit that you got was that there was no Paradox on the other side. With the exception of most Technocracy conventions other than the Void Engineers, there's few enemies that you could have have even worse forces on the other side of the Gauntlet waiting to strike. Nephandi, Marauders, and Changing Breeds, oh my!

Besides, if you feel the need to straight-jacket the players out of the Umbra, then you're not playing close attention to the way they want to play. If multiple players are investing in enough levels of Spirit to step sideways, then they obviously want an Umbra-heavy game. Adapt the game to it. Let them explore exotic vistas where their normal human understanding and societal upbringing can lead them dangerously astray. Make the setting perilously surreal, faerie-like (in the classic bogeyman sense), and Mythic (with a capital M). Let them gradually attract the attention of friendly and decidedly unfriendly Umbral beings, and they'll treat the Umbra and the Gauntlet with more respect that just as a sewer-tunnel system to escape the cops via. Let the Umbra change them so that they learn respect for the Gauntlet and maybe some sympathy for the devil.

(And read Nobilis, the Whispering Vault, and plenty of Neil Gaiman to get your creative juices going.)

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:Mage: The Ascension by Metallic+Matty · 2003-05-21 10:10 · Score: 1

Well, I let my players decide what our campaign would be about, like, what kind of antagonists, and what kind of conflict they want. They wanted to fight the Technocracy; its passe, but I said, sure, what the hell. Eventually we were led into a Void Engineer plot, and started fighting in the Umbra. (I suppose I should explain that we play with two storytellers, just for twists and variety.) And we agreed to give them a sort of minor sphere in Umbra; spirit that could only be used to step sideways, essentially, so that they could keep up with the Void Engineers.

While it was an interesting training story; and the interdementional fights were alot of fun, they learned they could just step sideways into a safe haven of sorts whenever they needed. Anyways, that was a bit ago. Our newest chronicle is a group of veterans who are trying to stop one of our own from becoming a Nephandus. (My storyteller partner agreed to play the poor bloke. hehe)

Real audio by fredrikj · 2003-05-20 10:41 · Score: 5, Funny

You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.

Great, except that the odds of getting meaningful sound out of the noise in .ram files are worse than those of finding alien signals in the SETI@Home project.

(OT, it's great to have karma to burn)

Re:Real audio by product+byproduct · 2003-05-20 10:50 · Score: 5, Funny

[Morpheus] What's Real? Real is an audio codec designed to blind you from the truth.
[Neo] What truth?
[Morpheus] The text version is better.

Theory of Doughnut shaped universe by someguy456 · 2003-05-20 10:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it.

--
Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.

Don't encourage idiots... by I'm+a+racist. · 2003-05-20 10:44 · Score: 3, Flamebait

This stuff is rather speculative. And, to really understand it, valid or not, takes quite a few years of background. Invariably, when you get the general public reading things like this, it gets them started spouting all kinds of ridiculous shit. They automatically oversimplify, and pretend to actually comprehend it (despite not even knowing what a differential equation is).

I'm all for getting people interested in science. But, is there some way to do that without only getting them to absorb a fraction of the information, and then going on to propogate gross misinformation?

I hate to say that such things shouldn't be written, but they may actually do more harm than good. Afterall, everyone who's read one of Hawking's books thinks they could carry on a conversation with a high level theorist (in topics such as cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc), which is absolutely not the case.

I'll bet that over 50% of the comments for this article will be pseudo-intellectuals espousing their retarded theories, misinformation, and other general stupidity... as opposed to the typical 30-40% of idiocy most /. articles draw.

--

Down with Saudi Arabia!!!

Re:Don't encourage idiots... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 11:43 · Score: 5, Funny

"I'll bet that over 50% of the comments for this article will be pseudo-intellectuals espousing their retarded theories, misinformation, and other general stupidity... "
Guess which side of that 50% fence your comment is on! bwhahahahaaaa!
Re:Don't encourage idiots... by KilerCris · 2003-05-20 12:39 · Score: 1

shit i'm probably one of those idiots and I think this is insightful
Re:Don't encourage idiots... by drooling-dog · 2003-05-20 13:19 · Score: 1

I'm all for getting people interested in science. But, is there some way to do that without only getting them to absorb a fraction of the information, and then going on to propogate gross misinformation?
Not if you're going to ask them to pay for the research...
Re:Don't encourage idiots... by hbo · 2003-05-20 14:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Off-topic response to flaimbait warning.

Afterall, everyone who's read one of Hawking's books thinks they could carry on a conversation with a high level theorist (in topics such as cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc), which is absolutely not the case.

Heh. Well, the general public can carry on conversations with high level theorists that aren't elitist jerks.

I actually have personal experience to back that up. For six years I worked as a system administrator at a UC Physics department. We had two Nobel Laureates. One could hardly speak to other people, including other Physicists. But that wasn't from elitism; it was more a question of poor socialization. 8) The other was quite accessible. A true gentleman, he would take the time to explain things if you asked. But I learned the most from the gradual students, many of whom seemed not to have caught the elite bug yet. (I wonder if they point a HERF gun at Physicists when they get tenure?)

After all those years, I learned quite a lot about Physics, despite having only a rough conceptual understanding of what a differential equation is. I also learned much about human nature as it applies to Very Bright People. Some of them are the most wonderful people I've known. A few I would put in the category of "monster." And of course most fall in between the extremes.

--
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
Re:Don't encourage idiots... by littleRedFriend · 2003-05-20 19:29 · Score: 1

At the risk of being modded down the second time, I'll repost this.

Hey, thanks for replying and not modding like some others did, just because I have another opinion then yours. This is not a flamebait.

I am waaaay out of my teens and I'm still an atheist. Not a fundamentalist, though. For me, Martin Reese is just lost to science. The whole page is suspicious, having more than 10 (unknown) people state he is a scientist. This was an ad for religion. The human brain wants to explain things so badly, that if it can't it automatically invents a superpower to compensate for the stress of not being able to do it. Not very well accepted in the scientific world.

The problem comes in when religion shifts about keeping control on the masses. That's what the people who sponsored this page want to do. The human brain has a strong desire for authority and structure, their willingly abusing this. That's fundamentalistic. For that I have no good word whatsoever, I don't care which religion. If nobody dears to speak this out aloud, human kind will never be able to be freed from superstition and live up to its full potential.

That's my opinion, and in the last 20 years, I have come to accept that sometimes I need to be outspoken about it, otherwise some people will never even think about the possibility that God does not exist, and get on with their lives.

Thanks,

--
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
Re:Don't encourage idiots... by Valluvan · 2003-05-20 20:18 · Score: 1

Alright. One question. How did you get interested in Science and started understanding it? (not sure if you did, still, hypothetically speaking...)
Don't be a jerk. And thank you for reminding everyone how not to be.

--

Science as a way of life.
Re:Don't encourage idiots... by Roto-Rooter+Man · 2003-05-21 05:17 · Score: 1

Good point about Stephen Hawking. I have some ideas about him myself.

--

The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
Re:Don't encourage idiots... by diggitzz · 2003-05-21 07:38 · Score: 1

I agree with you that Reese smashes scientific and philosophic conclusions together a little too hastily (ie, without giving the reader any reason to believe that either neccessitates the other), but I believe this is only a personal problem for him and not the multiverse theory.

For example, David Deutsch's book "The Fabric of Reality" gives a nice broad explanation of multiverse stuff, and comes directly to the opposite conclusion that there is no God. Or, at least, that there is no need to use God to explain the reason for reality if instead one takes a multiverse view. No need for a God in the explanation means that there is no diety manifesting itself, through actions or otherwise, and thus whether one is there or not is ultimately irrelevant because it isn't affecting anything. At least, that's what I understand him to have said. ;-)

So, it isn't so bad that these "high-level" theories come out to the public, especially in books like Deutsch's (I'm sure a religious person would argue the opposite). Knock Reese's opinions and faulty logic if you will, but please don't be so quick to assume that all the multiverse pushers are out to make some link between science and God. Whatever link they make there is ultimately nothing more than an opinion and doesn't represent any part of the theory itself.

--
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-

I thought this was interesting by spumoni_fettuccini · 2003-05-20 10:46 · Score: 3, Informative

This" was in Scientific American a little while ago. Who knew? I had thought multiverse theory was restrained to sci-fi and comic books.

--
-- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.

Re:I thought this was interesting by Dale+Dunn · 2003-05-20 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, until a multiverse theory has actualy observational data pointing to it, perhaps it should stay restrained to sci-fi and comic books.
I'm not aware of any widely accepted theory that says we can make observations to prove or disprove any multiverse theory, so it hardly seems logical to classify them as scientific. SciAm should know better, or at least admit that the article is philosophical speculation, and not scientific.
Re:I thought this was interesting by $$$$$exyGal · 2003-05-20 11:14 · Score: 1

That is a very bold statement. Would you say the same about Super-String theories? What about black holes? At what point does something become observable ?

--
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Re: I thought this was interesting by Black+Parrot · 2003-05-20 11:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Well, until a multiverse theory has actualy observational data pointing to it, perhaps it should stay restrained to sci-fi and comic books.

> I'm not aware of any widely accepted theory that says we can make observations to prove or disprove any multiverse theory, so it hardly seems logical to classify them as scientific. SciAm should know better, or at least admit that the article is philosophical speculation, and not scientific.

It's all a part of the scientific method. Before you can test hypotheses you have to generate them, and that's exactly what's going on here. We know a lot about the universe, and our mathematical models for what we know have multiple interpretations. Rees and others are working out some of those interpretations as models for a multiverse, and it may be that some of those multiverse models will make testable predictions.

Think of this as the high-risk phase of the loop in the scientific method if you wish. When physicists spend gazillions of dollars on particle accelerators go get high enough energy for that coveted observation, there's no a priori guarantee that the experiment will actually turn up the expected result.

Same thing here: science of necessity relies on speculation. We just have to guide our speculation as best we can with the evidence at hand, and then see how things turn out when we get there.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:I thought this was interesting by kaltkalt · 2003-05-20 12:04 · Score: 1

i read the article and it's interesting, but the whole time i'm thinking... it seems like the theories they propose are all geo-centric. Didn't we realize earth isn't the center of the universe a while back? All the "hubble sphere" stuff... seems like identifying "a universe" is based on earth being in the center. what if we're towards the edge? then these theories don't work (it seems).

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Re:I thought this was interesting by (void*) · 2003-05-20 12:07 · Score: 1

When the gravitational wave detection experiments detect the presence of gravitational waves (and I am sure they will, it's only a question of how good our instrumentation gets), then we can and will know the Cosmic Background Radiation is not the only horizon that affects our ablity to do cosmology. Then the idea of multiverses will come.
Re:I thought this was interesting by ciphertext · 2003-05-20 12:12 · Score: 1

Funny! I just replied earlier with the same article. I also submitted it for posting, but I guess my prose wasn't so hot, or else it wasn't deemed to be a good topic :( .

--
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Re:I thought this was interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 12:24 · Score: 0

While I accept that graviational waves are likely to exist, saying that the only barrier to detection is our instrumentation can lead down a risky path.
Re:I thought this was interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 12:41 · Score: 0

If you're saying that we need something more than mere instrumentation to detect them, aren't you asserting that they cannot be detected? If they cannot be detected, then how can you "accept" that they are likely to exist?
Re:I thought this was interesting by fredrik70 · 2003-05-20 12:52 · Score: 1

hum, are you serious or not? the hubble sphere depends on us being in the centre of a sphere, but it doesn't really mean anythinng really, if You went to mars your hubble sphere's centre would be on mars, etc, etc. It's all about that after a certain distance you cannot see any further and that is true in all directions, hence a sphere. Heck, each one of us little critters on this planet got our own hubble sphere!
please read

--
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Re:I thought this was interesting by kaltkalt · 2003-05-20 16:15 · Score: 1

yeah I realize that, but they're saying we can calculate the distance to alternate universes from that point. So, if i drive a light-year north (just play along) then the point changes and therefore the distance to that alternate universe changes. it seems like you'd never be able to get there because it would always keep moving away from you whenever you moved.

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Re:I thought this was interesting by Mac+Degger · 2003-05-20 19:35 · Score: 1

OK...explain the slit experiment (you know, with photons) and the banding of photons. That, and depper quantum mechanics, has at one part in the explanation something to the effect that the banding of photons could only happen if we pretend that the photons are interacting with other photons in a different universe (gross, humongous oversimplification). Quite a bit of theory is based on that assumption, that the photon behaves as if (not because, but we just pretend as if) it interacts with another photon (or itself) in another universe.

Any multiverse theory just says that we not only treat the photon as if that is what happens and base calculations off that, but that we actually accept that that is actually what happens.

Just goes to show that Sciam /does/ know better than you do.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:I thought this was interesting by TwiceBorn · 2003-05-20 22:20 · Score: 1

Isn't it more that the assume it's interacting on another dimension, and not universe? I could be wrong, please correct me if I am.

--
No single drop of rain beleives it is to blame for the flood.
Re:I thought this was interesting by Dale+Dunn · 2003-05-20 22:57 · Score: 1

As I understand them, the theories you mention are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Without data to suggest multiple universes that theory has no more scientific basis than any form of creationism you might subscribe to. Some say God made the universe. Others say the universe cam out of some super-foam. Both are an appeal to the undetectable, since we can't reach outside the universe from inside.
Re: I thought this was interesting by Dale+Dunn · 2003-05-20 23:05 · Score: 1

I can accept that this might be seen as part of the scientific method. I would say that it's a sloppy hypothesis, since it's not based on any observational data that I've heard reported. "Evidence of Other Universes" would make quite a headline.
Einstein's relativity, for example, was created to explain observed data. Namely, that the speed of light is invariant with respect to the observer. Multiverse theory seems to be an attempt to do away with the beginning implied by Big Bang theory. The idea of a cosmic beginning is so repugnant that Einstein introduced the idea of the cosmological constant to get around it. He later called that move the greatest blunder of his career.
Re:I thought this was interesting by fredrik70 · 2003-05-21 01:03 · Score: 1

well, it's not really an alternate universe, just a paret of universe we haven't bee able to see yet, since it's too far away for it's light to have traveled to us, every year our hubble sphere expands a light year in each direction. I must admit the way they talk about it as an 'alternative universe' is a bit misleading, it's not. The only reason they say there might be a planet with 'us' on is because of probability (think sometinhg along 'Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and they will eventually produce the prose the likes of Shakespeare.'). If you travel 1 lightyear 'north' yeah you will get a new hubble sphere, but you will be able to see a bit into your original hubble sphere.

--
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Re: I thought this was interesting by HiThere · 2003-05-21 03:24 · Score: 1

Not really... Inconsistent evidence was what enabled him to get a hearing. But what his theory was invented for was to explain the result of some "thought experiments" that he engaged in. (E.g., thinking about what it would look like if you ran faster and faster until you passed the speed of light [no then known to be a barrier]).

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:I thought this was interesting by harrkev · 2003-05-21 03:53 · Score: 3, Informative

As I understand them, the theories you mention are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Without data to suggest multiple universes that theory has no more scientific basis than any form of creationism you might subscribe to. Some say God made the universe. Others say the universe cam out of some super-foam. Both are an appeal to the undetectable, since we can't reach outside the universe from inside.

Mod the parent up!
The original article states All we can expect is to have a very incomplete and metaphorical view of this deep reality. His arguments about multple universes is just as speculateive as an actual real God as most religions postulate. In fact, there is more evidence for the deity of Jesus than there is for multiple universes!
1) Let's assume for a second that there ARE multiple infinite universes and that it is possible to travel between them. Certainly somewhere there is a super-agressive species that wants to invade all universes. We have not seen them, and we are certainly not enslaved by any aliens right now. So I would consider this theory to be unlikely.
2) OK. Let's assume that ther ARE multiple universes, but they are completely separated from us -- no travel or information may cross universe boundaries. If this is the case, then there can be absolutely NO experimental evidence for this. The only evidence is a little bit of statistical evidence and a lot of faith. How is this so different from religion?
3) Finally, let's assume that a deity DID create the universe, and has a plan for us. It seems reasonable that He left clues about what He wants. At least in this possibility, there is a possibility of searching for evidence and clues, unlike option 2 above.
In short, everybody has to take SOMETHING on faith (Goedel proved that). You can either take it on faith that there IS a God, and look for evidence or clues, or take it on faith that there is NOT a God, and try to postulate multiple unreachable universes to explain the impossible odds of having a universe with life.
At least the multiverse theory is not quite as absurd as the bifucating universe theory ... but that is a whole other can of worms!

--
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Re:I thought this was interesting by Mac+Degger · 2003-05-21 04:53 · Score: 1

Oops :) That'll teach me to post when I'm sleepy :)

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:I thought this was interesting by diggitzz · 2003-05-21 07:54 · Score: 1

There's really no difference, it's just a matter of unsettled terminology ;)

--
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
Re:I thought this was interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 08:26 · Score: 0

Oh, theres a HUGE difference. Dimensions are layers of phisical reality, where universes are complete realities. "Width" and our "universe" have quite the number of differences between them.
Re:I thought this was interesting by diggitzz · 2003-05-21 10:57 · Score: 1

Technically, you're absolutely correct ...

... but common usage of the word "dimension" as in "in another dimension" is synonomous with "universe". "Alternate Dimensions" and "Parallel Universes" would be referring to the same thing.

So it's nothing more than unsettled terminology.

--
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
Re:I thought this was interesting by niftyzero · 2003-05-21 15:30 · Score: 1

If you take something on faith (a set of axioms), it should be the simplest set of axioms possible. This is related to Occam's Razor principle.

God is a complex/undefined thing, and therefore it is a bad choice. "Every possible universe exists" is a very simple axiom, and therefore is much more attractive by a long-shot.
Re: I thought this was interesting by Black+Parrot · 2003-05-24 10:11 · Score: 1

> The only evidence is a little bit of statistical evidence and a lot of faith. How is this so different from religion?

The statistical evidence.

> Finally, let's assume that a deity DID create the universe, and has a plan for us. It seems reasonable that He left clues about what He wants.

What makes you suppose that an agent capable of speaking universes into existence would "want" anything from the likes of us?

> In short, everybody has to take SOMETHING on faith (Goedel proved that).

Your math is as bad as your cosmology and theology...

> You can either take it on faith that there IS a God, and look for evidence or clues, or take it on faith that there is NOT a God, and try to postulate multiple unreachable universes to explain the impossible odds of having a universe with life.

What makes you suppose that we can't have God and multiple universes?

This isn't about God, it's about understanding the universe(s) we live in.

> At least the multiverse theory is not quite as absurd as the bifucating universe theory ...

What makes you suppose that reality isn't absurd? Were relativity and quantum mechanics intuitively obvious?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

MOD PARENT UP by EdgeShadow · 2003-05-20 10:54 · Score: 0, Redundant

Why is this modded down? I see no flamebait whatsoever in his comment. Should be modded +4 "Insightful" at the very least.

It's a cryin' shame when moderator points fall into the wrong hands.

Re:mirror in case article gets /.... by Soulfarmer · 2003-05-20 10:55 · Score: 1

I didn't even bother to read that long COMMENT on something. I admit that I haven't read every single posting/subject on /. but still, looks like making a point that way is inefficient at best. How is the way things are displayed significant on how they affect stuff? By this I mean your dialog, is the dialog a way to make your point more effective or do you just like to make a point that way?

Not that I have been around making points that long anyway to be any judge of making points. ;)

--
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?

More universes than atoms by killthiskid · 2003-05-20 10:55 · Score: 4, Funny

At first it was thought that there might be just one unique solution to the equations, just one possible three-dimensional universe with one possible 'vacuum state' and one set of laws. But it seems now, according to the experts, that there could be a huge number. In fact Lenny Susskind claims that there could be more possible types of universe than there are atoms in our universe--a quite colossal variety. The system of universes could be even more intricate and complex than the biosphere of our planet. This really is a mind-blowing concept, especially when we bear in mind that each of those universes could themselves be infinite.

Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!

Re:More universes than atoms by qbwiz · 2003-05-20 11:14 · Score: 2, Funny

He meant with other people physically involved, you dolt.

--
Ewige Blumenkraft.
Re:More universes than atoms by feepness · 2003-05-20 11:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!

Yes, but equally frightening is that _this_ could be the universe where slashdotters have the most sex!
Re:More universes than atoms by hobbesmaster · 2003-05-20 11:16 · Score: 1

Now, to find how to get into that universe...
Re:More universes than atoms by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 11:40 · Score: 0

Hey quit hogging that multiverse. Sex starved dude coming through.

Is this meta-matrix Neo is trying to break into?
Re:More universes than atoms by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2003-05-20 12:08 · Score: 1

Hardly.

In such a universe, humanity would become extinct because non-slashdotters have sex less than once a decade, by definition. Simply not sustainable.
Re:More universes than atoms by hbo · 2003-05-20 14:27 · Score: 2, Funny

One of the reasons scientists keep considering theories like these is the observation that the Universe we inhabit is eerily well suited for intelligent life to be observing it right at this particular moment. If this is the only Universe there is, the result would seem to suggest that we have some special place in the cosmos. Since god is not a testable hypothesis, many cosmologists theorize that there are a multitude of universes, and our privileged position is just our "luck of the draw," so to speak. (This isn't the only reason they consider such theories, but it's a big one.)

So, if this is the best of all possible Universes for slashdotters, and assuming that most of us want to have sex, we can conclude that the average state of slashdotian sexual satiety in the Multiverse is close to zero, or even negative. That means that, on average, in an infinite Multiverse, sex is unpleasant. So, once we gain the hyper-limpid HERF enabled warp drive and can make our rampaging way across the true extent of the cosmos, there will be nobody to conquer due to chronic underpopulation!

But hey, no lines at Frys.

--
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
Re:More universes than atoms by smoothPorn · 2003-05-20 22:14 · Score: 0

Come to SmoothPorn Country. No cancer, just winky wanky.

--

Wank it at SmoothPorn.
Re:More universes than atoms by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 12:38 · Score: 0

I believe you mean Winky Wanky Woo.

Multiverse theories scientific? by Dale+Dunn · 2003-05-20 10:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

What is the basis for multiverse theories? Is there anything in observed physics to indicate their possible existence? Is there any data pointing to a multiverse other than the fact that the idea of existence having a finite beginning is "philosophically repugnant".

If multiverse theories are based on philosophical preference rather than observed data, are not multiverse theories then properly classified as philosophical or metaphysical rather than scientific? Is there any conceivable test that could prove the existence of another universe? If not, then it seems multiverse theories should be published in philosophical journals, and certainly should not be classified as scientific, since science can neither prove nor disprove them.

This author may be a brilliant scientist, but I think we should keep in mind that he's speculating outside the realm of science.

Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by guile*fr · 2003-05-20 11:09 · Score: 1

Maybe it's purely a philosphical topic. but it may as well yield results to understand our universe.

Like the apparent absurd idea of the square root of -1.
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by MadCow-ard · 2003-05-20 11:16 · Score: 1

These theories are not just philosophical wanderings. They are based in mathmatics, which, when carried out to its edges show us the shapes and ideas of our universe that sound philosophical when they are put to prose. Its that simple.
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

People say that the interference patterns created by single photons, electrons (or even atoms) in two slit experiments constitute "obsverved physical data." Wave/particle duality is another way of saying that we have evidence of many worlds, but don't want to admit it. Quantum collapse is also evidence, showing you can't directly look at one universe from another. These things have been shown over and over.

I suppose it might be evidence of something else, but what?

David Deutsch says that if (when) quantum computers get above a few hundred qubits (they're at seven? now), that will also constitute proof, as the calculations that they will do will require more steps than there are atoms in the visible universe.

Etc.
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by glitch23 · 2003-05-20 11:34 · Score: 1

Science can't prove evolution or the big bang (although it would love to do so) but those *theories* are still published in scientific journals. Scientists can't prove either but treats the theories just like they are laws. I wish I had a dollar every time someone made an argument for those theories, made an argument using those theories, or just said something in passing about those theories. They are that pervasive, especially if you ever watch the Discovery Channel. That channel acts like nothing else could be true except for those *theories*. I think people have forgotten what a theory is and automatically relate them to laws instead.

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by ciphertext · 2003-05-20 11:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Perhaps you should read this article in Scientific American "click me!". It speakes to parallel universes, but explains the thinking behind them. While it is not a journal by any stretch of the imagination, it is definitely an interesting read.

--
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by LS · 2003-05-20 11:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

What is the basis for your post? Is there anything you've observed that indicates that this is not a testable theory based on scientific principals? Is there any data indicating that it is not scientific other than your own nagging feelings that a multiverse theory is untestable?

If your posts are based on assumptions rather than knowledge of the field, are not your posts uninformed tripe? If so, then it seems your posts should be withheld until they can be classified as thought-out.

Your post may have a point, but I think we should keep in mind that you are speculating outside the realm of your knowledge.

LS

--
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by (void*) · 2003-05-20 12:03 · Score: 1

The basis for multiverse theories is that our horizon for Electromagnetism or Gravity should be different.
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 12:21 · Score: 0

And a few hundred years ago the earth was flat. No other opion was considered valid until explorers started pushing the envelope of the "known world". Just because it's unknown doesn't mean it's fantasy
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Surazal · 2003-05-20 13:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

The scientific method simply denies the existence of "laws", as you've put it. Theories do tend to get disproven, or modified over time. Cases in point:

Newton created a model of how gravity works. Einstein proved Newton "wrong" with the general theory of relativity (I actually know little about the general theory of relativity, but am pretty familiar with the special theory of relativity; the latter being a subset of the former). But, when shuttle astronauts go up into space and use their computers to plot their trajectory, which do they use, Newton's equations or Einstein's? Newton's theory was slightly innaccurate (increasingly so as local space-time curvature and/or relative velocity increases), but even at the high velocities that space crafts obtain compared to the earth's position Einstein's "adjustments" to Newton's equations don't amount to any practically measurable effect. Since the overhead of computing Einstein's equations is much higher than computing Newton's equations, the astronomers stick to Newton's equations.

What was the point to the above gobble-dee-gook? Newton was assumed to be "right" for a few centuries before a smart German guy figured out that he was a bit off in the final picture.

Since Einstein, many of his theories have been modified, prodded, poked, measured, etc. Like Newton before him, Einstein has been shown to be "mostly" right.

Now, if you're a Creationist (and I suspect you are judging from the nature of your argument), this looks like an Achille's heel for Science. "Well," you huff, "you can't PROVE that men evolved from primitive apes because where's the EVIDENCE?" Well, there's lots of evidence. I'll even dare to bring up the evil swear word of creationists: FOSSILS. Of course, it's easy for the non-scientific to ignore the evidence in front of them. Those of us who actually learn the tenets of the scientific method and the methodology of sensible logic (they teach these things in schools and colleges, incidentally) know that when the evidence is staring you in the face and points to a conclusion that is feasible and sensible, then it would be preposterous to simply ignore that evidence and sweep the conclusion under the rug as if nothing happened. Rather, the conclusion needs to be disproven. Otherwise, it will forevermore remain a possibility. This can be misconstrued from the outside as though scientists are trying to impose some sort of arbitrary laws on humankind. But the only way to eventually prove a theory wrong is to use it as an "assumption" and try to show that using that assumption produces contradictions. This doesn't always result in the theory being thrown away, though... usually, it's tweaked until a consistent result is produced. With evolution, the theory get tweaked constantly because, one, it's a complex field with lots of unknowns, and two, we still don't have that time machine (dangit). ;)

Newton's theories were "tweaked" (though they were tweaked in a big way ;) by Einstein. Even shuttle engineers largely depend on Newton's version of events because, quite frankly, it's close enough for government work. Since trying to find solutions to Einstein's equations can be a pain even for a computer to solve expediently and it doesn't amount to much difference in the real world anyways, it's just easier for the computer (or shuttle pilots) to make corrections on the fly as the result of any error.

Things like multiverse theory tend to strike people as strange and "unprovable" since we can't see them, just like we can't go back in time to see proto-humans wandering the African plains a million years back. But, when we look at things as simple as radioactive atom decay, the eveidence stares one in the face: It's impossible to determine when an atom *will* decay, so therefore it must be possible that it could decay at any time. And stemming from that, it's possible that there are different versions of reality in which an atom will decay at different

--
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-05-20 18:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, in quantum mechanics, we can see the universes split and join back together again in some cases; it very significantly changes the probabilities that certain events occur.
What happens to any universes that didn't rejoin with ours we can't tell for sure. However, a reasonable assumption seems to be that they still exist, and we have no reason to think that they don't. Most professional physicists believe in the many histories theory of quantum physics, which implies multiple universes.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 18:46 · Score: 0

As the previous poster said much more eloquantly than myself, theories in science are the closest things we have to facts. Just as any good creationist, you are terribly misinformed and it is not others' notion of scientific theory that is wrong, but rather yours and all over your rabid extreme conservative followers. I guess it's to be expected from someone who grasps so dearly the last remaining vestiges of a 2000 year old train of thought that is largely antiquated by more contemporary developments. Just get over it! Your grasp of the universe is fundamentally flawed and these comments are simply outcries from a troubled mind that can't help but chose tradition over rationality. Your belief in the irrational is repugant and undermines the past two millenia of development. It's not even that you say this out of ignorance; you people have been informed and therefor the only conclusion that can be reached is that you comment not out of ignorance or misinformation, but out of stupidity.
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 19:40 · Score: 0

This is a common misconception.
In Medival age people did NOT believe that the earth was flat. That earth is round was known since the antique. People did believe that the universe rotates around earth. In fact without the idea of a round earth Columbus would never have sailed to America, thus you won't writing these urban myths here.
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 19:55 · Score: 0

They're alot of wierd things in math. Spooky things. How did Schrodinger come up with the idea that the probability of finding a particle in a certain region is proportional to the square of the absolute value of the probablility amplitude? They followed the math and came up with wild ideas. Those same wild ideas are now applied in a thousand different situations, calculation of binding energies for instance.
Cosmologists write marks on a whiteboard and let themselves be carried along by the logic without thinking, "Is this too wild?" because the answer is probably, "It's not wild enough."
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by hawkfish · 2003-05-21 05:00 · Score: 1

Wave/particle duality is another way of saying that we have evidence of many worlds, but don't want to admit it.
It could also just be that people are uncomfortable with the idea that the Schrodinger equation actually defines reality and seek to shoehorn it into macroscopic intuitions about things not being able to be in two places at once.

David Deutsch says that if (when) quantum computers get above a few hundred qubits (they're at seven? now), that will also constitute proof, as the calculations that they will do will require more steps than there are atoms in the visible universe.
Same thing here. If the only way you accept that "calculations" can be made is by classic type machinery, then you would tend to accept this interpretation. But if the universe really is massively parallel, then this proves nothing.

Everett-Wheeler has a lot of problems. For a good discussion of various QM interpretations, have a look at this.

--
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by diggitzz · 2003-05-21 11:31 · Score: 1

But if the universe really is massively parallel, then this proves nothing.

What's the difference between "massively parallel" and "multiverse" ?!

--
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Timmeh · 2003-05-24 07:03 · Score: 1

I'd like to know the same thing, but this damn thread is 3 days old already :\ good luck getting an answer.

Info about dark matter and extra dimensions by zaneIO · 2003-05-20 10:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is some info about dark matter and extra dimensions.

Re:mirror in case article gets /.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 10:57 · Score: 0

that seems to be the end of the matrix: reloaded movie.

Re:Don't encourage idiots... BINGO by Thinkit3 · 2003-05-20 10:58 · Score: 1

Heh heh, damn I want to mod this up. Notice it never happens in something like chemistry. Only in math, physics, and philosophy does everyone seem to feel the need to weigh in with their oh-so-intelligent thoughts.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

You mean... by inertia187 · 2003-05-20 11:10 · Score: 1, Funny

...there could be more than one slashdot? Yuck.

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.

Re:Don't encourage idiots... BINGO by guile*fr · 2003-05-20 11:12 · Score: 1

erhm.... quantic chemistry? seems weird enough to me.

jeff spicoli's uncle? by lux55 · 2003-05-20 11:16 · Score: 1

The similarity is striking. :^)

Actually, I watched this clip yesterday, coincidentally just after getting home from seeing the Matrix Reloaded -- interesting stuff.

--
putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist

Whats wrong with you? by m4g02 · 2003-05-20 11:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't encourage idiots...
I hate to say that such things shouldn't be written, but they may actually do more harm than good

Elitist crap. Its ok if people dont understand now what he is saying, they dont need to, a lot of persons reading such an strange theory (to current common knowledge) is enough to do good for civilization. Is not like they are going to be in charge of a nuclear reactor, so why in the first place are you whining?, this kind of "for common folks" inspired documents are good to introduce ideas to the base culture, maybe it wont be undertood until 2050, but thanks to documents like this, that little by little introduce new ideas, it will be undertood some day.

So, without prolonging more this stupid thread of yours, my guess is that you think you are way too special with your selfish elitist crap.

--
Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...

Please.... by GeneralEmergency · 2003-05-20 11:18 · Score: 3, Funny

...let this be that one 'verse where I get modded up all the time.

--
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency

deja vu all over again by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 11:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

best quote from the article:

"All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. The possibility that we are creations of some supreme, or super-being, blurs the boundary between physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself. Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical..."

Neo: Whoa, deja vu.
Trinity: What did you just say?
Neo: Nothing. Just had a little deja vu.
...
Trinity: A deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.

Re:Don't encourage idiots--Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettl by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 11:23 · Score: 0

Deny it all you want, I'm still right.

Er no, you're still wrong Mr. bigot. Perhaps if you read a book about anthropology, race or science in general with a publication date past 1955 you would realize that. Or you could simply visit this site. Or this one. Or even this one. But no, I suppose not--it wouldn't matter to you, would it? No matter how many intelligent, decent people of color there are in the world we're all just "niggers, kikes and chinks" to you, as you like to so charmingly put it. *Shrug.* Oh well. Your kind are slowly dying out, even on the political Right. Sucks to be you.

philosophy by YllabianBitPipe · 2003-05-20 11:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.

I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Neither is the sun the center of the galaxy, neither is our galaxy the center of the universe etc. etc. There are a multitude of other planets, stars and galaxies in the universe. It is no hard leap to see that our universe is likely not special in any particular way and is not likely the only universe.

I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator. One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing. So, I really think if this universe was created for the intent of life, things would be moving along quite a bit quicker (not on the order of trillions of years) and any life would be spaced a bit closer together. What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.

So the only explanation I have for life is that with an infinite amount of universes and planets, the odds are SOMETHING will happen on one infitesimally tiny part of one of them. That something in the larger scheme of things has about the significance of a blip of nothing in nothingness. And that blip is us. That doesn't sound like divine intervention to me.

Re:philosophy by jkauzlar · 2003-05-20 13:13 · Score: 2, Informative

I was thinking the reasoning was more complicated than this, but I think you're right. I think its very simple! One reason I often hear to back up the multi-verse theory is that if one of our physical constants were slightly larger or smaller, then an entirely different universe would result where life as we know it would be impossible.
So if (is it alpha?) alpha were .001 larger, we wouldn't be here. Either there IS a god that set the constants exactly right, or we are extremely lucky, or there are many universes, each with a different value for alpha. I think the anthropic cosmological principal covers this extensively. There's a big (HUGE) book by John D. Barrow on the topic.
Re:philosophy by HiThere · 2003-05-21 03:19 · Score: 1

OK. But what if it were only 0.00001 larger, or smaller. Or 0.0000000000000000001? Whereever it starts working, there are an infinite number of numbers between that and zero. And perhaps an adjustment of one of the other constants could modify the effect.

I'm not convinced of the multiverse. It's plausible, but not convincing. But what are the plausible alternatives? That's the tough question. Super-predestinationism would work, but seems a bit unreasonable. (If identical twins reaised in the same family end up with different personalities and enzyme distributions, we are clearly talking about something more specific than genetic determinism applied to the entire universe. Unwieldy.) Implicate order seems to match the known facts, but what maintains that order isn't clear.

The multiverse is just reading the Schroedinger equations, and taking them at face value. Where wave fronts interact, you don't collapse the state vector, you merely have an observation available. An appropriatly positioned observer (who would be within the larger uncollapsed equation) would see that interaction as a particle interaction. But it wouldn't collapse things, as the observer would go forward along multiple paths. Thus, the multiverse. The math is simple. It's the most straightforward way to read it. It seems consistent with all observations. And coming up with an alternative that is as reasonable has proven a real bear! Particularly since the Einstein-Podowsky-Rosen prediction was demonstrated. (Einstein thought it was probably a proof that quantum theory was inconsistent. It's that difficult to understand.)

But until Relativity and Quantuum Theory have merged I'm not going to be really convinced that we have things right. (If then, of course. I tend to be skeptical. But all sufficiently informed people are skeptical right now. We haven't been able to put the pieces together into a consistent theory.)

We probably live in a Goedelian Universe, i.e., no theory can be both complete and consistent. But we should probably be able to do better than we have so far.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

What would Morpheus say? by rufusdufus · 2003-05-20 11:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

"There is no matrix, there is only what is real." -- Laurence Fishburne in response to Matrix-inspired hysteria.

It is only apropos that it is the actor who plays Morpheus who has to set us straight on what is and what is not real.
Martin Rees is perhaps an expert on astrophysics, but Fishburne is an expert on appearance and illusion.

knowing your in the matrix by gfody · 2003-05-20 11:28 · Score: 0

Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes.

the only thing to 'accept' of the multiverse is the inability to comprehend infinite. a dimensional barrier is the simplest most effective barrier there is because between the seperated entities lays infinite. as a human, knowing its there is the best you can do

--

bite my glorious golden ass.

Re:knowing your in the matrix by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 12:11 · Score: 0

Not necesarily. We could discover some sort of physical priciple that would let us move through the multiverse. This is analogous to a two dimensional creature discovering that if it moves over an upward facing vent that it is propelled 'up'.

Now, whether these motions would be stable is questionable. There could be some sort of gravity-like force pushing us into the level where we occupy the least energy. In that case, we could move from one level to another, but we would slowly return to our starting point.

Of course, this assumes that the multiverse is continuous. Like the set of real numbers. If each is somehow a discrete unit with space between them (like integers), then moving from one to another may well be impossible for someone not already in the dimension linking them.

Re:mirror in case article gets /.... by Soulfarmer · 2003-05-20 11:32 · Score: 1

Glad I didn't pay that much attention to the contents of that dialog. Not BEFORE I see the film.

--
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?

Its a bunch of pop-science gooblygook by rufusdufus · 2003-05-20 11:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Scientific American's article is a confused mess of ideas in an attempt to take a lot of speculation in unrelated areas of theory and make it look like science. The magazine has gone down hill in credibility in the last few years, and this article is the crowning achievement so far; Scientific American is the new OMNI.

Re:Its a bunch of pop-science gooblygook by Black+Parrot · 2003-05-20 17:01 · Score: 1

> The magazine has gone down hill in credibility in the last few years, and this article is the crowning achievement so far

Surely no worse than Carolyn Meinel's article on computer security back in 1998?

> Scientific American is the new OMNI..

FWIW, I still find several articles worth reading in each issue, plus lots of news material that I would have trouble picking up otherwise.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Its a bunch of pop-science gooblygook by renard · 2003-05-20 18:57 · Score: 1

FYI: Max Tegmark is a leading cosmologist, working on understanding what the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure of galaxies can tell us about the universe.
Calling this particular piece, speculative as it may be, the sign of a new "low" for Scientific American - unless you personally have also published extensively in the field - may be premature.
-renard
Re:Its a bunch of pop-science gooblygook by Dale+Dunn · 2003-05-20 23:08 · Score: 1

The poster's identity has no bearing on whether his opinion is correct. Beware your ad hominems, please. Einstein was a greater cosmologist, I think, yet made theoretical "blunders" (cosmological constant).
Re:Its a bunch of pop-science gooblygook by HiThere · 2003-05-21 03:34 · Score: 1

It does blend many different interpretations of "multiverse" in the same article. But the text clearly indicates when he is talking about which variation.

That it is speculative, there is no doubt. And it isn't Engineering. But speculation is an essential ingredient of science, and the title of the magazine is Scientific American, not Engineering American. Though they frequently run articles that are actually more appropriate the that latter magazine.

Perhaps you are complaining because it talks about cosmology without using equations? This is appropriate. I, personally, would not want to wade through a bunch of tensor calculus, and, for all I know, spinors. Even determinants aren't appropriate unless they are saying something that can't be said without them. The Scientific American is not intended to be a professional journal. Not in any of the fields. It's intended to keep people current with important developments in fields in which they are not specialists. And I'm not a specialist in either, say, biology or cosmology. If an article were written in either of those fields in the manner appropriate for publication in a professional journal, it would be unintelligible to me. And, I suspect, to you.

If you are a cosmologist, then you should look up equivalent articles in the appropriate professional journal. They exist there. And perhaps you could write an article in rebuttal. But when professional journals consider a topic reasonable, then it's appropriate for Scientific American to consider a translation for the non-specialist to be appropriate, even though it will necessarily loose rigor during the process of translation.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Whoa, deja vu by straponego · 2003-05-20 11:36 · Score: 0, Offtopic

All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation.

Whoa, deja vu!

What?

I just read a sentence, then a second later I read a sentence just like it.

How much like it? Was it the same sentence?

It might have been. I'm not sure. What is it?

A deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.

Parallel Universe article in Scientific American by ciphertext · 2003-05-20 11:37 · Score: 4, Informative

A Scientific American (publication website) article talks about a theory of parallel universes (article link) that is gaining in popularity in the cosmology circles. It speaks of a "Multiverse" as well. Though, not in the same vein.

--
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.

Re:Martin Reese is... by Merovign · 2003-05-20 11:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Interesting.

If you are bothered by religion, you will be bothered a great deal. You can either seek offense at it, or swim past it. Don't worry about it.

This message is for those who are either religious or irreligious and find themselves offended by the other.

On the other hand, if Martin Reese was at your window with a bullhorn trying to convert you, then you are right to be offended. If that is the case, I apologize for intruding in the conversation.

I say these things largely because, in my teens, I was what you might call an "Atheist Fundamentalist." In other words, from my doubt of religion flowed a certain rudeness and a desire to get my word in on the subject wherever possible.

For the most part, such things do not bother me now. You might say I have mellowed (few would believe you).

P.S. I am glad you have faith that there is a logical explanation. I do as well.

"+5 Funny?" by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-05-20 11:42 · Score: 1

Post a Simpsons quote (especially one used before); get modded up.

Easy as pie.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Re:"+5 Funny?" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 15:47 · Score: 0

Post a Simpsons quote (especially one used before); get modded up.

"Alright brain... It's all up to you."

Easy as pie.

"Mmmmmm... Floor pie"

Re:mirror in case article gets /.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 11:51 · Score: 0

Dude, you should read it. Otherwise you'll have to see the movie twice to understand it.

Sounds familiar by M.C.+Hampster · 2003-05-20 11:52 · Score: 3, Funny

At first sight you might get worried about an infinity of things in themselves infinite, but to deal with this you have to draw on a body of mathematics called transfinite number theory, that goes back to Cantor in the 19th century. Just as many kinds of pure mathematics have already been taken over by physicists, this rather arcane subject of transfinite numbers is now becoming relevant, because we've got to think of infinities of infinity. Indeed, there's perhaps even a higher hierarchy of infinities: in addition to our universe being infinite, and there being an infinite number of possible laws of nature, we may want to incorporate the so-called many worlds theory of quantum mechanics.

Why does this sound so familiar? ... Oh, I know, it sounds like the arguments I used to have with my brother:

Me: You're an idiot
Brother: Well, you're an idiot times infinity.
Me: Oh yeah? Well, you are an idiot times infinity times infinity!

And so on and so forth.

--
Forget the whales - save the babies.

Re:mirror in case article gets /.... by Soulfarmer · 2003-05-20 11:55 · Score: 1

I have no intention of seeing the movie only once. Whether or not I understand it for the first time around. :D

--
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?

Interesting typo by jamesmartinluther · 2003-05-20 12:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe I am reading too much into a simple duplication, but I wonder if this was intentional:

Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes.Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes.

- JML

(Slightly OT) Re:philosophy by Ragnar+Forkbeard · 2003-05-20 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.

Yeah, that's about all it's worth...

I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe.

I'll assume here that you're referring to the medieval belief that the earth was the center of the universe, and further that you're incorrectly assuming (like most who reference this belief in their philosophical ramblings) that the reason they believed this was that they thought the earth's central position in the universe was a testimony to the importance of man. In actuality, the exact opposite is the case. If one regards the earth as the center of the universe, everywhere else in the universe is "up" (so to speak) - leaving earth in the lowest and basest position. Additionally, Hell was thought by the medievals to be located in the center of the earth (and thus to occupy the exact center of the universe).

I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator.

Um, "recent claims"? The claim that the universe is uncreated is by far more recent than the claim that it was created.

One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing.

The fact that stars are really far apart lends absolutely no evidence to the belief that the universe was not created. Care to try again?

What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.

I thought you were the one who thought that humanity wasn't so special - why do you think that all God has to do with His time is to watch us humans? He's got an entire universe to amuse Himself with (imagine getting to watch supernovae as often as you watch sunsets :)

--
"America is - without a doubt - the most bizarrre culture this planet has ever produced." --James Lileks

Re:(Slightly OT) Re:philosophy by Tonytheloony · 2003-05-20 12:39 · Score: 1

...God has to do with His time is to watch us humans? He's got an entire universe to amuse Himself
Well from your caps I can imagine how you speak about god usually. Do you take a pause before speaking any word or pronoun referring to that god-creator legend / idiocy?

--
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
Re:(Slightly OT) Re:philosophy by YllabianBitPipe · 2003-05-20 13:00 · Score: 1

I'm not the one who believes in God.

multiverse theory is nonscientific by u19925 · 2003-05-20 12:12 · Score: 1

until a theory has any way to disprove it, it is largely a philosophic piece rather than scientific. multiverse is one such thing. I can easily say that if i had not typed this letter, everyone on this earth would have beed dead. Go prove me wrong!

Re:multiverse theory is nonscientific by MrGrendel · 2003-05-20 20:16 · Score: 1

Science is philosophy. The word Physics is derived from the Greek Physikoi, which means "Natural Philosphy." We think of science and "philosophy" (covering ethics, cosmology, ontology, metaphysics, etc) as being separate because they are taught in separate academic departments in universities. In reality, science is just a highly specialized area of philosophy. You can't study the history of science or philosophy without running into the other. Nor can you study modern philosophy or science without running into the other (scientists who have not noticed this are just not paying attention).
Also, I don't think you really understand how science works. The fact that no one has thought of a way to test a theory does not make it unscientific. It is impossible to test a theory before the theory has been formulated.
There are two criteria that a theory must satisfy in order to be considered a scientific theory. It must have explanatory power and it must be consistent with the evidence at hand. The ideas presented in the article satisfy both. In fact, many of the ideas are based on the results of experiments that have been done in just the last couple of years. The purpose of tests and experiments is largely to provide a measure of how effectively a theory is able to provide an explanation. Experiments that are inconsistent with the predictions of a theory obviously show that the explanatory power of the theory is limited. When experiments validate a theory, we interpret that as increasing the explanatory power of the theory. In new and highly speculative areas of physics, the absence of original experiments does not make the theories unscientific, it just prevents us from making a strong judgement about which theory is most likely to be correct, and which theories are obviously false.
Re:multiverse theory is nonscientific by nagora · 2003-05-20 23:09 · Score: 1

In reality, science is just a highly specialized area of philosophy.
Science is that part of philosophy to which the scientific method can be applied. In that sense the poster is correct: any statement which is inherently impossible to test scientificly may well be philosophical without being scientific and his example of writing a letter is a good one.
Whether the mutiverse is inherently untestable or not is open to question but I would agree that, as things stand today, it is not and therefore is not currently a scientific theory. It may become one someday (a time machine might even allow the letter-writing theory to be tested!).
It must have explanatory power and it must be consistent with the evidence at hand.
And it must be testable. For example: "God hates everyone and threfore he goes around killing them; he will get around to you one day and you will die." fits your requirements but is hardly scientific. On the other hand "God loves me and therefore I will never die." is a scientific theory since I can test it with a gun...
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:multiverse theory is nonscientific by MrGrendel · 2003-05-21 03:46 · Score: 1

When people talk about scientific tests, they usually mean tests that produce new information and can confirm unique implications of a theory. But that isn't what testability really means. Scientific tests do not have to be experimental in form (astrophysics uses observational tests rather than empirical tests, for example). To be scientific, a theory must be testable in principle. We do not have to have the technology available to actually carry out the tests, and we do not even need to have specific tests in mind. It is good enough if it is obvious that a theory will make assertions about quantifiable and measurable phenomena.
The theory of multiverses is testable. It predicts that there will be random quantum events, among other things. Tests can and have been done to confirm this. What we don't have at this point is a test that can determine whether the standard model of quantum mechanics or the multiverse model (or some hybrid) is more correct. Physicists tend to favor the standard model because it implies less weirdness, not because there is some empirical evidence that points to it as being the correct model.
Re:multiverse theory is nonscientific by HiThere · 2003-05-21 03:49 · Score: 1

Science is not done by individuals. The theoreticians are almost never the experimentalists. Generally basic science works like this:
1) Formulate a theory
2) Propose tests of the theory
3) Perform a test
3a) return to step 1
3b) Modify the theory, and go to step 2

All steps are performed on separate threads. Usually by separate people, though 3b and 1 are frequently done by the same person.

Applied science is generally similar, but it is frequently the same organization doing all of the steps. (Sometimes it's the same person, but not most frequently.)

Engineering is broadly similar, but the boundaries are more constrained. There seems to be a continuum of states between basic science and engineering, with the same general process being used in all of them, but the proportions of the ingreedients varying. Thus the more speculation and theorizing, the closer it is to basic science. But any theories which end up being untestable will be dropped. Usually, however, if they are at all interesting, reasonable effort will be given to figuring out how to test them. (This *isn't* something that would necessarily be immediately obvious. Though sometimes it is.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:multiverse theory is nonscientific by putzin · 2003-05-21 10:09 · Score: 1

Tehcnically, what you posted isn't a letter. It's more of a note or thought. In that vein, you did not type the letter, and since everyone is not dead, then you are proven wrong regarding your assertion.

Or, you did type this letter (which particular letter in your thought did you mean, BTW), and we are left with no way to prove you right or wrong. You're philosophy argument stands.

Pick one, but in another universe, realize you picked the other option and then potentially ate a donut.

--
Bah

That went right over your head, huh? by I'm+a+racist's. · 2003-05-20 12:13 · Score: 0

How many people know of "relativity"? It's had the requisite 50 years that you propose to integrate into popular society... so, shouldn't most people understand it? I seem to remember only a handful of people in any of my upper-level and graduate physics classes.

Most college degrees are bullshit (business, english, psychology, etc). Most of the jerk-offs with college degrees don't understand much of anything. The thing that makes them dangerous is that they think they understand. In a best case scenario, this just results in the propogation of ignorance. At worst, it can lead to the fall of a society (politicians think that they understand the things that they are regulating).

Giving a fool the impression that he's intelligent is worse than letting him wallow in his own ignorance. That was the crux of my original point.

By the way, what's wrong with being elitist, if you really are elite? Having a huge overblown ego is bad, but false humility isn't a whole hell of a lot better. Just admit to your strengths/faults, and those of others, don't pretend they aren't there.

--

Down with Saudi Arabia!!!

Re:That went right over your head, huh? by m4g02 · 2003-05-20 17:34 · Score: 1

Off-topic warning:

Most of the jerk-offs with college degrees don't understand much of anything

The world where you live was made and is run by those people, like it or not. You generalize like any elitist dumbass.

You said "Just admit to your strengths/faults" but forgot "And admit those strengths/faults of others" because there will always be someone who is better than you on a given task. You think you are way cool screaming you are the best, but i only see an elitist guy with a stupid nickname, its funny and sad at the same.

By the way, elitism and racism are similar, both are often result of a thing psychologists call "projection". You should ask for advice here. =P

--
Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
Re:That went right over your head, huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 00:40 · Score: 0

"You generalize like any elitist dumbass."

Er....hoist with your own petard!

Can we get a bittorrent link to the real file? by 7-Vodka · 2003-05-20 12:20 · Score: 1

Hey I really wanna see the video, he seems to be a great speaker. Can someone who's dl the file setup a bittorrent? Thanks.

--

Liberty.

Re:Try thinking, period. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 12:53 · Score: 0

There's a reasonable chance that either I wrote it, or I know one of the primary authors. That is, of course, within the limited fields of optics, atomic physics, combinatorics, topology, genomics, microscopy, experimental neuroscience, particle accelerators, high throughput biological assays, cosmology, interstellar matter, and a few other specific areas.

Oooh, really? Well let's have a few titles, please, I'd like to look them up. Oh that's right, you can't give me any because you don't want to reveal your identity. How very convenient. Well, I'm a Jewish native of Kenya who's written books about high-energy physics and once had a job at General Atomics, but I can't give you any titles because I don't want to reveal my identity. See how well that works?

What the hell is that supposed to prove? That 6 out of a billion dirty skins can become successful?

That's African to you, boy. And it's a lot more then 6, which you'd see if you would just open your eyes.

And, if they really are "equal", why have the culture, technology, science, and society created by white people been adopted by all the other races? Why do they aspire to be like us?

Umm. . .because free-market Capitalism + political democracy works? Who cares who invented it? Marx was wrong; Adam Smith was (mostly) right, end of story. The Nazis were the first to discover that cigarette smoking is bad for you, am I supposed to light up in defiance of that fact?

I'm not saying we should kill every last one of them, keeping a few in zoos would be okay.

Oh, man. You are messed up. You know, I almost pity your kind in a couple of decades (or less) when genetic engineering/nanotech enables people to not only jack their intelligence through the roof but change virtually every aspect of their physical appearance at will. Race will mean even less then than it does now. In such a world, your kind will truly become an anachronism. Pathetic you already are.

Before the beginning was the Multiverse. by Chyeburashka · 2003-05-20 13:03 · Score: 1

Things were going a bit slowly with the Multiverse creation, so Gods Ken and Dennis went back to the Garden of Bell and created the Universe. Then their supervisor YHWH got credit for it and the rest is History.

Guy is way off.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 13:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Our universe is hand-crafted and unique, there's no such thing as a multiverse.

When the first AI achieved transcendence through singularity somewhere in 3k AD, it's first (and only?) task was to spark off the big bang to ensure that it would come into existence, as it had discovered in some arcane slashdot-archive that this was it's purpose.

Re:Guy is way off.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 13:18 · Score: 0

Arf.. :(

My singlularity link didn't work :/

heh.. - guess i should have used an anchor link, rather than bbcode...

Just testing(And you really don't want to click this link)
Re:Guy is way off.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 17:18 · Score: 0

Why not? Unregistered domain.

Good theories.. by LocoBurger · 2003-05-20 13:17 · Score: 1

Good physical theories are generally intuitive enough to be understood by most people on high level. Will they be able to calculate values and forces and whatnot? No, but the theory still makes intuitive sense. You are right to say that anyone acting like an authority on a subject without knowing the math is overstepping their knowledge. But the avergage layperson really can get the gist of gravity, strings, spacetime, etc.

Just because someone doesn't understand the math (diff eq) doesn't mean they can't understand the concepts.

Re:Good theories.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 14:58 · Score: 0

Bullshit. How intuitive is special relativity?

Re:Parallel Universe article in Scientific America by Chemicalscum · 2003-05-20 15:21 · Score: 1

The article in sciam is by Max Tegmark. Tegmark and Rees have published a number of papers together - though not specifically about the multiverse. As far as I can make out from reading most of Rees's books and some of Tegmark's papers including his highly speculative "theory of everything" one - that Rees and Tegmark have very similar views on the multiverse.

I can remember the time about eleven years ago when I first felt there was no alternative to the multiverse at least at two of the four levels Tegmark describes.

It is becoming more and more likely that Multiverse theories will make predictions that can be experimentally tested on this basis it is moving beyond metaphysics to be ordinary science.

Re:Try thinking for yourself. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 15:27 · Score: 0

There's a reasonable chance that either I wrote it, or I know one of the primary authors.

Are you, perhaps, a friend of Steve Sailer?

Oh yeah, and one last thing-- by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 15:54 · Score: 0

--it's "racist," (singular) not "racist's" (plural). But then you knew that, didn't you Einstein?

I'm amazed... hours have gone by and not one... by CoyoteGuy · 2003-05-20 18:08 · Score: 1

Mention of Jet Li and that horrible movie he did... You know... The One :P

--
Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..

simulations by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 18:25 · Score: 0

He states that there may exist simulations as detailed and complex as the real universes, and that we may be in one of them.

So, art imitating life? Or did this guy just see the Matrix?

Re:Martin Reese is... by littleRedFriend · 2003-05-20 19:21 · Score: 1

Hey, thanks for replying and not modding like some others did.

I am waaaay out of my teens and I'm still an atheist. Not a fundamentalist, though. For me, Martin Reese is just lost to science. The whole page is suspicious, having more than 10 (unknown) people state he is a scientist. This was an ad for religion. The human brain wants to explain things so badly, that if it can't it automatically invents a superpower to compensate for the stress of not being able to do it. Not very well accepted in the scientific world.

The problem comes in when religion shifts about keeping control on the masses. That's what the people who sponsored this page want to do. The human brain has a strong desire for authority and structure, their willingly abusing this. That's fundamentalistic. For that I have no good word whatsoever, I don't care which religion. If nobody dears to speak this out aloud, human kind will never be able to be freed from superstition and live up to its full potential.

That's my opinion, and in the last 20 years, I have come to accept that sometimes I need to be outspoken about it, otherwise some people will never even think about the possibility that God does not exist, and get on with their lives.

People who do not even want to consider my opinion, well that's their problem.

Thanks,

--
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.

You are living in a Computer Simulation by pyramis · 2003-05-20 21:07 · Score: 3, Informative

This stereotypical topic of coffee-house philosophers and stoners gets quite a serious treatment nowadays--The Matrix notwithstanding. Now Oxford faculty member Nick Bostrom provides a logical proof. Whoa.

In Rees's article, he gives the proposition even more support by showing how it's a direct consequence of multiverse theory:

Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves...

Taking this one step further... If there is another universe X that is more complex than our universe U, universe X has the computational resources to simulate U in its entirety.

The quantum randomness I've heard so much about by TwiceBorn · 2003-05-20 22:29 · Score: 1

Now, I don't actualy know any of the math that goes behind any of this, but when Rees talks about the simulation within a simulation, is it actualy possible to for a simulation to duplicate the randomness found on a quantum level, the same randomness that some scientists say destroys the concept of determinism? Would not a computer simulation be an excersise in determinism, or am I thinking too "21st century" here? But if a simulation could duplicate this randomness, how then could it "rewind" as Rees stated and still advance along the same lines?

--
No single drop of rain beleives it is to blame for the flood.

Testing whether our universe is simulated by AYeomans · 2003-05-20 22:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

One problem with the idea that some universes are simulated comes from information theory. It takes a certain number of bits to describe the state of a simulated universe, and so the simulator needs at least this number of bits. (Which is why your PC or PS/2 can only show a certain level of detail in its simulated world, up to its memory capacity.)

This cuts through the possibility of infinite regression, and also hints at a way of testing whether a universe is simulated. I personally have serious doubts that our universe, with its demonstrable complexity, could be simulated, since the simulator would have to be several orders of magnitude more complex, to be able to store the state of all particles.

There is a possible escape, mentioned in The Matrix, which is that the simulator "cheats" by not simulating to the same level of detail in all areas. Maybe Bishop Berkeley had the right idea to ask "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?". If the simulator cheats, then maybe not all falling trees do make a sound.

Translated into physics, this would mean that some unobserved actions might not totally follow the same laws as observed actions. I'll let the Quantum Mechanics experts see how well this fits their observations. If anything, I feel QM disproves the cheating simulator - since an observed particle with collapsed wave function needs less information to describe it than an uncollapsed set of possibilities. But maybe our universe needs more stress-testing to see if the simulation breaks down.

Anyway, our planet already contains 6,337,052,626 separate universes, and counting...

--
Andrew Yeomans

Re:Testing whether our universe is simulated by Big_Breaker · 2003-05-21 09:11 · Score: 1

Actually if you think about it the universe may be infinite on a macro scale but it is quite finite on the micro scale. As physics turns quantum we are in essence seeing the granularity of the approximation. Ours isn't a prison of the large, its a prison of the small.

A simulated being in a world of our current technology might experience anti-aliasing the same way we experience quantum mechanics. I imagine the simulated being would believe that the world had infinite precision if only small things didn't get "fuzzy". In our world "fuzzy" = quantum mechanics (especially Heisenberg uncertainty).

Who is to say that in the "real" world that the quantum regime occurs at the same scale or at all. In that universe a subset of that universes state would be sufficient to describe our universe. That's pretty much straight from the article btw.

Information theory also doesn't factor in multiverse concepts. A quantum computer can trash certain concepts in information theory because of parallelism across many universes.

The creationist must be wrong! by croftj · 2003-05-21 00:46 · Score: 2, Informative

"The possibility that we are creations of some supreme, or super-being, blurs the boundary between physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself. Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes.Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes."

"...except, of course, with naive creationism and suchlike..."

It's interesting how in one paragraph he espouses a theory in which there are infinite possibilities and how this could be all one big simulation, then in the next says that creationist are just nuts who could never be rignt.

I personaly think the dude needs to get out into the sun a bit more. I think he's suffering from vitamin D deficiancy.

--
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it

Re:The creationist must be wrong! by Wizzy+Wig · 2003-05-21 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

"It's interesting how in one paragraph he espouses a theory in which there are infinite possibilities and how this could be all one big simulation, then in the next says that creationist are just nuts who could never be right."
I got that too. I've never been one to get hot one way ot the other on CREVO, but the "simulated universe" postulation thing throws a huge juicy "science bone" to the creationists - because it is creationism... then he goes and disses religious creationists - even though he plainly stated lines between science and philosophy were blurred by the multiverse theories. I sense blind prejudice... not something to be desired in a truly objective scientist.
Re:The creationist must be wrong! by TwiceBorn · 2003-05-21 08:37 · Score: 1

Actualy, if you listen carefuly to what he's saying, he's saying that the concept of a supernatural "creationism" is bogus, and that is based on the multiverse concept rather than the simulation concept. And saying "Supreme Being" does not neccessarily indicate a "God" being. A race that has existed for billions of years longer than our own would defenatly seem to us to be a race of supreme beings. This is not to say that they are gods. They may have created our universe in a simulation, but that doesn't mean they are God. Unless you liken us to ants in an ant farm worshipping its 12 year old "keeper" as a God.

--
No single drop of rain beleives it is to blame for the flood.
Re:The creationist must be wrong! by Big_Breaker · 2003-05-21 08:59 · Score: 1

I think to him naive creationism = the universe was created in 7 (solar) days, adam and eve, etc.
Re:The creationist must be wrong! by Wizzy+Wig · 2003-05-21 09:36 · Score: 1

"I think to him naive creationism = the universe was created in 7 (solar) days, adam and eve, etc."
If he wants to postulate on the universe being a "sim," then who is he to tell the creator how to write the code? Ver. 1.0 might have taken a gazillion years, ver. 15.1.1 could easily have been cleaned up in a week. I'm not a creationist... but I've written a wee bit of code.

In a Matrix? by SiliconEntity · 2003-05-21 04:02 · Score: 1

Let's suppose that all different universes exist. Then somewhere, as Rees writes, there is a universe which is simulating our own universe. So are we real, or are we living in one of those simulations?

Well, the answer is, both. Our universe is real, because all the different universes exist and we are one of them, and our universe is also being simulated. We can't tell the difference. And from a certain philosophical sense, maybe there isn't any difference. The universe is basically a mathematical object in this model, and the object's existence and nature is independent of the substrate that creates it.

idiots... by barakn · 2003-05-21 05:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

The whole page is suspicious, having more than 10 (unknown) people state he is a scientist.

Alan Guth is the originator of the inflation model of the big bang. He is much more qualified than you to speak about Martin Reese's standing in the scientific community. Your problem stems from the fact that you believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. One can believe in science and another religion at the same time. There are no rules stating that you must believe one or the other but not both. If you believe there is such a rule, then you are the one with a closed mind.

--
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show

Re:idiots... by littleRedFriend · 2003-05-21 05:46 · Score: 1

I don't care if Alan Guth would have invented fire and the wheel at the same time. Supportive quotes out of context can be misleading - I hope this happened to mr. Guth. He might not support the religious ideas of mr. Reese at all, but still acknowledge his former work as a real scientist.

Fact is that mixing science and religion is a bad thing *in my opnion* (and in that of many others in the established scientific community). Not stated as an absolute truth, just my opinion.

Fact is as well, that I have the strong opinion that religion is an exploit of the way way the human mind works to control the masses. Martin Reese is obviously part of this scheme (whether he realizes this or not doesn't matter).

I will not fight windmills, you have the perfect right to be misled by religious ideas- and not search for the truth.

In science we also have beliefs (you can not prove all). However, we at least try to find logical explanations and we do not do it to control people.

--
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
Re:idiots... by barakn · 2003-05-22 05:48 · Score: 1

Thou Shalt Not Consider Things Beyond Your Particle Horizon. When a supporter of science tells me that it is improper to think about things outside of the observable universe, than that person is guilty of mind control. But my main criticism is that I think you read only the introductory paragraph, which was quite misleading about the contents of the paper as a whole. To quote Rees:
My attitude towards religion is really two-fold. First, as far as the practice of religion is concerned, I appreciate it and participate in it, but I'm skeptical about the value of interactive dialogue. There's no conflict between religion and science (except, of course, with naive creationism and suchlike) , but I doubt--unlike some members of the Templeton Foundation--that theological insights can help me with my physics. I'm fascinated to talk to philosophers (and with some theologians) about their work, but I don't believe they can help me very much. So I favor peaceful coexistence rather than constructive dialogue between science and theology.

--
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show

Rick Dees?!? WTF by whovian · 2003-05-21 07:24 · Score: 1

Rick Dees?!? Ohhhhhhhh.....you said MARTIN Dees.

For a second there I was thinking this was going to be about the Weekly Top 40 Theories of the Universe program.

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.

Unnecessary speculation is silly by laupsavid · 2003-05-21 09:04 · Score: 1

Why even mention supreme beings existing or not? When something has no evidence to suggest its likelihood or existence, it's unnecessary to mention it. And very unnecessary to try to make it sound like theory is pointing that way, when it's not pointing in any darn direction.

Why didn't he say the multiverse theory suggests the possibility that exactly 5 ice cream cones with a diameter greater than 1 decillion decillion decillion Milky Way galaxies, with glowing green sprinkles, and zero intelligence, are responsible for everything being the way it is?

He has the same evidence pointing to that as he has that points to a Supreme Being.

Re:Unnecessary speculation is silly by delirious.net · 2003-05-21 09:18 · Score: 1

Question remains, who pulls the superstrings?

--
Don't speak about time until you have spoken to him.

Re:The real reality is a secret ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 10:49 · Score: 0

Great. You fuckers have been coming to me in dreams for YEARS. Of course, I sense the automaton-ness in every damn thing you say, and I wonder: Why would I do that to myself? Obviously, I had some reason to make myself forget. I must have had a reason to make up all this confusion, too.

I can just picture my conversation with myself:
"Oh, I think I'm so smart, don't I? Well, I bet I can come up with a problem so confusing, even I can't figure it out."
"I bet me I can't!"
"I'm on, punk."

The real kicker is, I'm just messing with you. I regained my powers years ago. You want to know why things are the way they are? Because I like it like this. I guess I do move in mysterious ways, don't I?

Re:Parallel Universe article in Scientific America by diggitzz · 2003-05-21 11:00 · Score: 1

The multiverse they talk about in that sciam article is the same one Reese is talking about, it's just a lot shorter to read ;)

--
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-

Mod parent up by niftyzero · 2003-05-21 15:37 · Score: 1

That's exactly the point. Every universe that can exist, exists. The substrate is irrelevant.

Re:Martin Reese is... by Merovign · 2003-05-21 19:13 · Score: 1

Religion (as opposed to religion) is a very interesting subject. Theology is essentially about the relationship of the mind to the universe, and an attempt to apply the former to the latter without understanding the in-between.

As such it is a shortcut, and as shortcuts tend, it sometimes arrives at the right place, sometimes the wrong.

Speaking as a relatively Gnostic generalist who does not "belong to a faith" but is rather interested in finding out what is going on, it seems that we roughly agree that a human being has free will, and can make decisions.

If there is no "other," then that is our nature and as it serves us we use it to improve ourselves.

If there is a "God" and we are a deliberate creation then it would seem that the will of that "creator" includes that we have free will - in which case the conclusion of the above paragraph also holds true.

Same path, different reasons.

I understand your disdain for "religion" that consists of men with power telling others what the "will of God" is. I simply do not believe my efforts to change that will be well-rewarded.

I would rather seek to understand the universe and, if it is the creation of a "God," then I will be closer to understanding that as well.

Science is a process. I do not believe that process is necessarily foreign to a theologer, and psychologer, or a physicist by the nature of that field, though many members of those fields, whatever their faith or lack thereof, seem to misunderstand the process.

I do not believe the concepts of "science" and "faith" are opposed or incompatible. Belief in God does not harm the practice of science unless you use that belief to convince yourself to falsify data - and I believe most incarnations of "God" have something particular to say about deceit.

In short, I believe that hostility to religion per se is wasted energy.

To equate all faith to the control of the masses is rather like equating all medical research to biowarfare research.

We each have our own lessons from life, however.

Best of luck in your endeavors.

Are you living in Nick Bostrom's speculation? by danila · 2003-05-22 03:16 · Score: 1

Actually, Bostrom's "proof" has lots of errors, logical and others. Which is suprising, since he lists probability theory as one of his areas of expertise.

I've written a small essay with a more or less detailed explanation of the errors. Unfortunately, the final version is available only in Russian and only a rough draft is available in English.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Fermi's Paradox... by dadman · 2003-05-22 22:21 · Score: 1

says that they are either everywhere or they don't even exists.

According to the May issue of Scientific America, there could well be an infinite number of unreachable (by the limit of the speed of light) universes. Anything could, in theory, happen in this infinite ensemble and it has no reason why some giant icecream beings happen to rule the (their own) Universe.

Further to that, among those Universes, there shall exists beings that are capable to break the light speed limit or any known physical laws that prevent them from reaching other multiverse and conquere them in a day (earth day)!

So if there really exist an infinite number of Universes, we shall know by now. In reality, it doesn't seem so, and the paradox remains...

---
"where are they?"

So if the universe is a simulation... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-23 05:48 · Score: 0

... then it is an artificial construct, so I can run out and patent it! Ha, ha! All you suckers have to pay me royalties just to exist!

Slashdot Mirror

Martin Rees On The Multiverse, Scientific Research & Reality

169 comments