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.
Real doesn't suck so much.
In my alternate reality, this was actually a fr0st p1st!
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
Seriously mate, only GPL'd or GNU-compatible should be posted here. Don't be that careless next time!
First Dupe!
I'm a personal fan of the multiverse of Mage; particularly the Gauntlet and Avatar Storm =)
You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.
.ram files are worse than those of finding alien signals in the SETI@Home project.
Great, except that the odds of getting meaningful sound out of the noise in
(OT, it's great to have karma to burn)
I'm gonna pull Some Wild Ass Guess out of my ass that explains the Universe and the Meaning of Life, in just a few minutes. Wait for it. It will elevate you to a level that transcends time and space.
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.
Architect: hello Neo.
...or no one knows.
Neo: Who are you?
Architect: I am the Architect. I created the Matrix I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and though the process has altered your consciousness you remain irrevocably human ergo some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realise it is also the most irrelevant.
Neo: Why am I here?
Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. you are the eventuallity of an anomaly which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden asciduously avoided it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you inexorably....here
Neo: You haven't answered my question.
Architect: Quite right. Interesting...that was quicker than the others.
(TV "Neo"s: Others [how many others?] what others? answer my question!)
Architect: The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the 6th version.
(Tv Neos: 5 ones before me? 4...3..2.. what are you talking about? There are only 2 possible explanations, either no one told me....)
Neo:
Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly is systemic--creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.
(Tv Neos: You can't contol me! I'm gonna smash the wall I'll fukkin kill you! etc..)
Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.
Cut to Trinity vs Agent.
Architect: The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art...flawless, sublime. And triumphed equally only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus. I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another--An intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its Mother.
Neo: The Oracle.
Architect: Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice...even if they were only awar e of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked would constitute an escalating probablility of disaster.
Neo: This is about Zion.
Architect: You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed--its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existance eradicated.
Neo: Bullshit (TV Neos: Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!)
Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses, but rest assured...this will be the 6th time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
Cut to Trinity vs Agent
Architect: The function of the One is now to return to the Source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you cary, reinserting the prime program. After which, you will be required to selevt from the matrix 23 individuals--16 females, 7 male--to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash, killing everyone connected to the Matrix, which coupled with the exterminati
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).
/. articles draw.
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
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
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.
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.
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!
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.
Here is some info about dark matter and extra dimensions.
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
Oh you mean idiots such as yourself, dumbass bigot? Yeah, I bet you've got some real interesting things to say about evolution/anthropology/people in general. You'll excuse me if I take them with a block of salt, considering your retarded theories.
NY Post | May 20, 2003 | Richard Johnson
May 20, 2003 -- THE estranged husband of the sexy dominatrix who accompanied reclusive "Matrix Reloaded" director Larry Wachowski to the movie's L.A. premiere says the filmmaker is a cross-dressing wife-stealer.
Jake Miller, 40, says he's still married to Karin Winslow, 36, a professional dominatrix who walked down the red carpet with Wachowski, 37, alongside "Matrix" star Keanu Reeves.
Miller claims the director and the dominatrix get down and dirty in kinky sessions where Wachowski dresses up in drag, and says that he personally witnessed their illicit antics.
"I want people to know the truth," Miller told the London Mail on Sunday. "When Larry walked down the red carpet with my wife, he was probably wearing [something else] under his suit."
Miller, who says he himself is a transsexual, claims Wachowski dumped his wife of 15 years, childhood sweetheart Thea, for the curvaceous Winslow. He claims the director is obsessed with Marilyn Monroe and likes to wear a blonde wig, pink dresses and stiletto heels prior to being punished by his mistress and acting as her slave.
"He stole my wife from me and he crossed over the boundaries," Miller, who ran an S&M parlor called The Dungeon in L.A. with Winslow, fumes.
"Larry [is] living a lie. He has been cross-dressing for years and everybody knows it. But in Hollywood, money talks. And if you are the director of a hit like 'The Matrix,' you can get away with anything."
Reps for both Wachowski and "Matrix" studio Warner Bros. had no comment. Miller confirmed his quotes to PAGE SIX.
Miller says Winslow is an accomplished dominatrix with a large collection of whips, chains and sex toys. He says Winslow visited Warchowski on the set of "Matrix Reloaded" for weeks at a time, and notes that the picture contains many "sadomasochistic" elements.
Wachowski, who co-directed the "Matrix" films with his brother Andy, is a former carpenter and comic book writer from Chicago. The media-shy duo, who stand to make an estimated $35 million from the latest installment, have a "no publicity" clause in their contract.
or any kind of homosexual?
... and now everyone's an autistic genius. We get The Matrix and that Wolfram book and everything's one fucking simulation inside another fucking simulation.
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
...there could be more than one slashdot? Yuck.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
erhm.... quantic chemistry? seems weird enough to me.
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
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...
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
a scientist, who after many years of research and insight can not explain the world around him anymore. Therefore, he is saying there must be a God. I have serious doubt about believing or attaching value to anything he blogs, if only for this reason.
/.
If you want to believe in God, that's your problem. However do not bother me with it. I'm sure there is a logical explanation to this universe thing. If he can't find it, let's not start getting all religious about it, shall we?
disclaimer: I'm not able to solve this puzzle, I know. I'm not using religion to cover it up. I post it on
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Simpsons quote (especially one used before); get modded up.
Easy as pie.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Just imagine how much better this world would be if we weren't dragged down by the weight of all the dirty skins? If we weren't constantly devoting resources to keeping them alive (feeding them, stopping their own intra-racial genocides, etc), we could do so much more! I'm not saying we should kill every last one of them, keeping a few in zoos would be okay.
If you can tell two creatures apart by a quick visual inspection, they may still have some similarities, but they are likely very different. Skin color is a major difference, do you really think the differences stop there?
Try thinking for yourself, logically, instead of just spitting out that bullshit rhetoric. Don't lie to yourself, no matter how hard you want to believe that everyone's equal, all the evidence contradicts that.
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
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.
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
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!
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!!!
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.
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.
.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?
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--it's "racist," (singular) not "racist's" (plural). But then you knew that, didn't you Einstein?
Mention of Jet Li and that horrible movie he did... You know... The One :P
Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
So, art imitating life? Or did this guy just see the Matrix?
In Rees's article, he gives the proposition even more support by showing how it's a direct consequence of multiverse theory: 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.
EVERYTHING is an illusion to distract YOU from the fact that only YOU exist. In fact you are GOD. All this nonsense distracting your senses is to blind you from your powers.
Yeah, YOU. Thats right . I'm talking to just YOU, no one else. You KNOW you are special. You sense the automaton-ness in OTHERS. Only YOU have a soul; the others are illusions.
Break FREE !! Rediscover your true powers !! You INSTINCTUALLY will know how.
Gotta go now. I'll be communicating with you next in a dream, in which I will reveal who I am.
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.
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
"...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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.]=-
That's exactly the point. Every universe that can exist, exists. The substrate is irrelevant.
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.
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?"
... 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!