Martin Rees On The Multiverse, Scientific Research & Reality

There's an interesting piece by Martin Rees about the nature of the Uni/Multiverse, as well as some of the underlying mechanics. Also, a good bit on the nature of scientific research. You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.

Comments

I thought this was interesting

[spumoni_fettuccini]

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

Re:I thought this was interesting

[harrkev]

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!

Info about dark matter and extra dimensions

[zaneIO]

Here is some info about dark matter and extra dimensions.

Parallel Universe article in Scientific American

[ciphertext]

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.

Re:Multiverse theories scientific?

[ciphertext]

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.

Re:philosophy

[jkauzlar]

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.

You are living in a Computer Simulation

[pyramis]

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 creationist must be wrong!

[croftj]

"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.