Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
> 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
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
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