Multiverses Require Faith For Belief

[pantheory]

Belief in religion requires untestable faith. Likewise, is the belief in the multiverse: a form of blind faith? (akin to untestable religious beliefs?) (Speculations in) "Physics and cosmology have veered down a non-scientific cul-de-sac, a leading physicist (Lee Smolin) has argued"  (paretheisis added)

 

Apr 2, 2015, The Irish Times

 

Science writer William Reville, according to an article in New Scientist and other writings by Lee Smolin, a prominent, well-known theoretical physicist.

 

Most all would agree that the validity of religions will forever be untestable, being one of the many reasons why they should be considered man-invented, having no basis in reality. In science “Physicist Lee Smolin contends that cosmological hypothesis (theories) should likewise be verifiable against the properties and history of our universe to rightfully be considered scientific.

 

A common scientific interpretation proposes that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, the “multiverse”, with each universe endowed with its own unique physical laws and constants. Not so, says eminent physicist Lee Smolin in a New Scientist article called “You think there’s a multiverse? Get real”. Smolin argues that physics and cosmology of the structure, origin and dynamics of the universe, have taken a wrong turn into a non-scientific cul de sac. Our universe is very special, being larger, emptier, smoother and flatter than a “typical” universe that would be predicted by the known laws of physics in Big Bang and Inflation scenarios.  

 

Cosmology introduced the concept of Inflation and (Multiverses) to explain some puzzling properties of our universe, for example its uniformity. Inflation proposes that, soon after the Big Bang, our expanding universe went through a phase of exponentially fast inflation. However, Smolin argues that inflation merely moves the problem of the specialness of our universe back in time. Physicists must still assume the initial conditions of our single universe and fine-tune them in order to make inflation happen at all, and unless inflation is very finely tuned and constrained, it produces a runaway creation of many universes.

 

Therefore, many cosmologists have contended / contend  that there is an infinite number of universes, each with its own peculiar properties that fell out randomly. Some (supposedly are like our universe and could support life, most are not and could not, but all the other universes in (such a) multiverse would forever be unobservable to us and there never could be any experimental evidence for their existence.

 

Smolin reasonably contends that cosmologists should test hypotheses against the properties and history of our universe, the only universe we know to exist for sure; and that, since we cannot test the multiverse hypothesis experimentally, taking it seriously means going beyond science into the realm of faith and science fantasy. 

 

At the deepest level many consider our universe to be fully comprehensible through mathematics. Einstein memorably expressed his awe at the power of mathematics when he said: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” However, as impressive as mathematics may be, we cannot conclude that the world of reality consists of mathematics alone. But physicists seem to have reached this conclusion in the rarefied corridors of superstring theory.

 

Superstrings are postulated to be tiny vibrating loops that lie at the heart of every fundamental particle. How these strings vibrate supposedly determines the nature and behavior of the particle. But in order to make the theory work, physicists must assume a world of at least nine dimensions and an infinite number of universes, not a small assumption.

 

Superstrings and their extra dimensions are so small it must be assumed that they can never be seen and all other universes will forever be unobservable to us. It is also assumed by most that no tests or observations of any of this will ever be possible. To accept the conclusions of string theory you must believe in the mathematics alone. This is not scientific. A proper scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable by what we can find in nature.

 

Smolin says the multiverse hypothesis neither makes firm or observable predictions of any sort nor do they allow us to deduce anything new about our universe we do not already know. He also suspects we are also making a number of wrong assumptions concerning the laws of nature. One such assumption is that the laws of physics are timeless, which Smolin believes is wrong. He proposes that these laws change with time. We need to understand how the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe were selected.

 

Smolin proposes that in order to make further progress in cosmology, physicists must discard certain assumptions and develop a new paradigm for doing science at the level of the universe as a whole. One such assumption is that we can explain the universe by scaling up the laws that work on small subsystems of the world.

 

This simply leads to breakdown in predictability, as in the multiverse. The new paradigm must operate on certain principles, and Smolin suggests three that would allow new hypotheses to open to experimental test. 1) The first principle is that there is just one universe. 2) The second is that time is real and the laws of physics are not timeless but evolve. 3) And the third is that mathematics is limited in its predictive scope.

 

(parenthesis, underlines, enlarged text has been added for emphasis)

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/belief-in-the-multiverse-a-form-of-blind-faith-1.2153271

[mymistake]

That isn't what faith means.  This is misleading.  I'm so sorry if you hate science but the cutting edge does not suggest religious dogma.

[wellnamed]

The difference between MWI as a possible interpretation of the measurement problem in QM and religious faith is that there really is a scientifically well-established "measurement problem" in QM, in the sense that it is difficult to derive a coherent ontological theory from the formalism of the mathematics. MWI isn't properly a scientific hypothesis at the moment in that we have no way to test it, but it at least is supported by an abductive argument that is based on scientific data and well-established theory.

 

Whether speaking of faith purely in terms of epistemology or whether dealing with other religious connotations of the term, MWI is very different in this respect from (for example) "faith" in the resurrection of Christ. In order to properly compare the two propositions (A=There are multiple worlds, B=Jesus resurrected from the dead) you're going to need a philosophy of science and epistemology a bit more sophisticated. It's as if you're dealing with only two buckets, one for "facts" and one for "conjecture", and dumping both the resurrection and MWI into the second bucket, but while they are both conjecture (in some sense), there is quite a lot of difference between how rational they are as conjectures.

[midniterider]

If lots of scientists say multiverses exist then they exist. If lots of scientists say they don't exist, then they don't exist. Always remember, lots of people thinking the same way...is truth.

[bornagainathiest]

Belief in religion requires untestable faith. Likewise, is the Belief in the multiverse: a form of blind faith? (akin to untestable religious beliefs?) (Speculations in) Physics and cosmology have veered down a non-scientific cul-de-sac, a leading physicist has argued  (paretheisis added)

 

Apr 2, 2015

William Reville, emeritus professor of biochemistry at UCC.

 

Most Physicists and Cosmologists today would agree that religions will forever be untestable, being one of the many reasons why they should be considered man-invented, having no basis in reality. In science “Physicist Lee Smolin contends that cosmologists should test (scientific) hypotheses against the properties and history of our universe.

 

A common scientific interpretation proposes that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, the “multiverse”, with each universe endowed with its own unique physical laws and constants. Not so, says eminent physicis Lee Smolin in a New Scientist article called “You think there’s a multiverse? Get real”. Smolin argues that physics and cosmology of the structure, origin and dynamics of the universe, have taken a wrong turn into a non-scientific cul de sac. Our universe is very special, being larger, emptier, smoother and flatter than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics.

 

Cosmology introduced the concept of Inflation and (Multiverses) to explain some puzzling properties of our universe, for example its uniformity. Inflation proposes that, soon after the Big Bang, our expanding universe went through a phase of exponentially fast inflation. However, Smolin argues that inflation merely moves the problem of the specialness of our universe back in time. Physicists must still assume the initial conditions of the universe and fine-tune them in order to make inflation happen at all, and unless inflation is very finely tuned and constrained, it produces a runaway creation of universes.

 

Therefore, many cosmologists have contended / contend  that there is an infinite number of universes, each with its own peculiar properties that fell out randomly. Some (supposedly are like our universe and could support life, most are not and could not, but all the other universes in (such a) multiverse are unobservable to us and there is no experimental evidence for their existence.

Smolin reasonably contends that cosmologists should test hypotheses against the properties and history of our universe, the only universe we know to exist for sure; and that, since we cannot test the multiverse hypothesis experimentally, taking it seriously means going beyond science into the realm of faith.

 

At the deepest level the world is comprehensible through mathematics. Einstein memorably expressed his awe at the power of mathematics when he said: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” However, as impressive as mathematics is, we cannot conclude that the world is mathematics. But physicists seem to have reached this conclusion in the rarefied corridors of superstring theory.

 

Superstrings are postulated to be tiny vibrating loops that lie at the heart of every fundamental particle. How these strings vibrate determines the nature and behavior of the particle. But in order to make the theory work, physicists must assume a world of nine dimensions and an infinite number of universes.

 

Superstrings and their extra dimensions are so small that they can never be seen and all other universes are unobservable to us. No tests or observations of these are possible. To accept the conclusions of string theory you must believe in the mathematics alone. This is not scientific. A proper scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable by what we can find in nature.

Smolin says the multiverse hypothesis neither makes firm predictions nor allows us to deduce anything about our universe we do not already know. He suspects we are making some wrong assumptions about the laws of nature. One such assumption is that the laws of physics are timeless, which Smolin contends is a mystical idea. He proposes that these laws change with time. We need to understand how the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe were selected.

 

Smolin proposes that, in order to make further progress in cosmology, physicists must discard certain assumptions and develop a new paradigm for doing science at the level of the universe as a whole. One such assumption is that we can explain the universe by scaling up the laws that work on small subsystems of the world.

 

This simply leads to breakdown in predictability, as in the multiverse. The new paradigm must operate on certain principles, and Smolin suggests three that would allow new hypotheses to open to experimental test. 1) The first principle is that there is just one universe. 2) The second is that time is real and the laws of physics are not timeless but evolve. 3) And the third is that mathematics is limited.

 

(parenthesis, underlines, enlarged text has been added for emphasis)

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/belief-in-the-multiverse-a-form-of-blind-faith-1.2153271

 

I would be interested to know how # 1 is open to experimental testing.

 

Anyone know?

[pantheory]

I would be interested to know how # 1 is open to experimental testing.

 

Anyone know?

 

 

Since the ideas and text come from Lee Smolin one could only guess at such tests or related criteria that he might suggest. Lee Smolin chooses to call them "principles." One such unlisted principle is to never propose or assume something complicated having little or no evidence to support it, when something simpler is better supported by the evidence. The three stated principles are:

 

1) that there is just one universe.

 

3) And the third principle is that mathematics is limited.

This third principle seems obvious for those familiar with the inner workings of today's theoretical physics.

 

The second principle/ assumption is more confounding IMO.

 

2) The second principle is twofold, first assuming that time is real rather than a concept created by man, and the second part of this principle is that the laws of physics are not timeless but evolve.

 

We would need to know the definition of the word "real" being used/ proposed to better understand the principle. The laws of gravity, magnetism, quantum mechanics, may be wrong, or not totally known or understood, for instance,  but can these laws evolve over time?  Some of my best agreements with science writings come from Lee Smolin, but I too would like to hear his arguments in favor of these three starting principles/ assumptions he has proposed.

[mwc]

     It doesn't matter if multiverses ever exist if the model allows things to work.  At some point it will be superseded by something that better describes things.  Just like the geocentric model worked until it was strained and replaced.  Then the Newtonian stuff (which still works fine for lots of things).  And so on.  If it works use it.  Use a flat earth model if that works for the task at hand.  In that case the Earth really is flat.  I don't have to have personal faith that it really is since every other fact points away from that being the truth.

 

     The problem is that religion doesn't work like this.  Whatever the religious nonsense you're indoctrinated with is the model and the reality and the truth.  That's pretty much it.  Updates are few and far between.

 

          mwc

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory,

 

Could you help me out with something here, please?

 

 

I would be interested to know how # 1 is open to experimental testing.

 

Anyone know?

 

 

Since the ideas and text come from Lee Smolin one could only guess at such tests or related criteria that he might suggest. Lee Smolin chooses to call them "principles." One such unlisted principle is to never propose or assume something complicated having little or no evidence to support it, when something simpler is better supported by the evidence.

 

1) The first principle is that there is just one universe.

 

Can you please help me reconcile Smolin's, 'Just-One-Universe' principle...

 

3) And the third is that mathematics is limited.

The third principle seems obvious for those familiar with the inner workings of today's theoretical physics.

 

The second principle/ assumption is more confounding IMO.

 

2) The second is that time is real and the laws of physics are not timeless but evolve.

 

We would need to know the definition of the word "real" being used/ proposed. The laws of gravity, magnetism, quantum mechanics, may be wrong or not be totally known, for instance,  but can these laws evolve over time?  Some of my best agreements with science writings come from Lee Smolin, but I too would like to hear his arguments in favor of these three starting principles/ assumptions.

 

 

...with his Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis, as described here?

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-logic-and-beauty-of-cosmological-natural-selection/

.

.

.

The logic problem I have is this.

 

How can he say that there is just one universe (ours), if in his CNS, he relies upon black holes to create 'baby universes', each evolving differently from their 'parent'?

 

Unless he's using the words, 'our universe' to mean the entire ensemble of 'baby universes' birthed from their 'parent' universes.

 

To me, this is just a multiverse, in all but name.

 

The one major difference being that in Smolin's CNS hypothesis, all parent and baby universes are causally connected, unlike other mutliverses, where they are not.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

Pantheory,

 

Could you help me out with something here, please?

 

 

I would be interested to know how # 1 is open to experimental testing.

 

Anyone know?

 

 

Since the ideas and text come from Lee Smolin one could only guess at such tests or related criteria that he might suggest. Lee Smolin chooses to call them "principles." One such unlisted principle is to never propose or assume something complicated having little or no evidence to support it, when something simpler is better supported by the evidence.

 

1) The first principle is that there is just one universe.

 

Can you please help me reconcile Smolin's, 'Just-One-Universe' principle...

 

3) And the third is that mathematics is limited.

The third principle seems obvious for those familiar with the inner workings of today's theoretical physics.

 

The second principle/ assumption is more confounding IMO.

 

2) The second is that time is real and the laws of physics are not timeless but evolve.

 

We would need to know the definition of the word "real" being used/ proposed. The laws of gravity, magnetism, quantum mechanics, may be wrong or not be totally known, for instance,  but can these laws evolve over time?  Some of my best agreements with science writings come from Lee Smolin, but I too would like to hear his arguments in favor of these three starting principles/ assumptions.

 

 

...with his Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis, as described here?

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-logic-and-beauty-of-cosmological-natural-selection/

.

.

.

The logic problem I have is this.

How can he say that there is just one universe (ours), if in his CNS, he relies upon black holes to create 'baby universes', each evolving differently from their 'parent'?

Unless he's using the words, 'our universe' to mean the entire ensemble of 'baby universes' birthed from their 'parent' universes.

To me, this is just a multiverse, in all but name.

The one major difference being that in Smolin's CNS hypothesis, all parent and baby universes are causally connected, unlike other mutliverses, where they are not.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

My guess is that it is a matter of semantics.  Smolin's CNS hypothesis was proposed in 1992.  Black holes creating vast quantities of matter was proposed by the Quasi-State Theory, Hoyle et. al., about the same time. Some kind of bounce was also proposed for both as I recall.

 

Since such "baby universes" would be causally connected they could be considered part of the same single universe. In 1992 Smolin may have chosen the words "baby universes" but today he may prefer a different description of them because of the hype by others concerning a multiverse.

 

In my own model all matter in the entire universe was created by "black holes" from material in the ZPF. Not the vacuous point version of Black Holes but an unknown kind of matter derived from the ZPF, compressed smaller than a neutron star. There would be no BB, no observable expansion of our universe, no Inflation, no dark matter, no dark energy, accordingly nothing un-explainable in the entire universe.

 

As for Smolin, my guess is that it is simply a matter of changing semantics concerning his use of the word "universe," as you also have suggested.

[older]

Just thought I'd throw in the fact that William Reville is a biochemist, not a cosmologist. His research includes, "Soluble protein in cheddar cheese." (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hhSQAZcAAAAJ&hl=en)

[bornagainathiest]

A matter of semantics, Pantheory?

 

Well, as you and I both know, the devil is in the details.

 

Now, I'm sure that when you posted the IrishTimes article, you were only motivated by the honest and altruistic desire to impart knowledge to others in this forum in as clear and easily-understood way as possible.  You did this without any kind of personal agenda or ulterior motive.  You did this in a spirit of openness, transparency and complete honesty.  You simply wanted the folks here to know and understand more about Smolin's work.

 

Therefore, since you are clearly motivated by such high ideals, you'll definitely want to prevent anyone reading this thread to come away from it with any misunderstanding about Smolin's three Principles. 

 

1.

You won't want anyone to misunderstand his statement, "There is only one universe" and to mistakenly think that he means that THIS universe is the only one that exists.  His CNS hypothesis clearly contradicts that false understanding.  To prevent the possibility of anyone misunderstanding what he means, you'll no doubt be at pains to explain about 'parent' and 'baby' universes that are physically separate from ours.  That an ensemble of such separate universes is a necessary requirement for his CNS hypothesis to function.

 

2.

You'll also be very keen to make sure that nobody misunderstands what he means when he says that, "Time is real".

That his notion of time is not limited to our universe but extends across the entire ensemble of separate parent and baby universes.  So that, just as a population of animals evolves over time, here on Earth - so the population of separate universes evolves over time too.  Thus making time a necessary property of Smolin's entire ensemble of separate universes.

 

3.

And, you'll also want to be certain that nobody draws a false conclusion from his stastement, "The laws of physics evolve", mistakenly thinking that he means they evolve within only this universe.  Again, just as biological evolution only takes place across generations of an animal population (and not within the lifetime of a specific animal), so Smolin's CNS requires the laws of physics to evolve over time and across the entire population of parent and baby universes.  Ridding any members of this forum of the false idea that Smolin is talking about cosmological evolution within only this universe, is no doubt a very high priority of yours.

 

I therefore look forward to you going to whatever lengths are needed to make sure that everyone here is quite clear about these three vital points, Pantheory.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[pantheory]

I put this in the Science vs. Religion section because it seemed tailor-made for this section, and much of the article I agree with. As to the article, I disagree with your interpretation of it. To the contrary it seems obvious to me that Smolin was expressing derision concerning the belief in a multiverse. He said:

 

“You think there’s a multiverse? Get real”, or the title of the article  "Belief in the multiverse: a form of blind faith."

You think there's a multiverse? Get real | New Scientist

https://www.newscientist.com/.../mg22530040-200-you-think...............

 

from a New Scientist article:

"Positing that alternative universes exist is just disguising our lack of knowledge of the cosmos. It's time to move on," says physicist Lee Smolin.

 

1) I think the article obviously derides the belief in a multiverse.

 

2) As far as time being real, I agree that time is not just an illusion of man but all realize that the concept was invented by man. In the absence of human-like intelligence the concepts of time do not exist. The reality of time is one of Smolin's suggested assumptions of three. I understand that Smolin's concept of time is necessary for his CNS hypothesis.

 

3) "The laws of physics evolve." This assumption I disagree with but again understand that it is needed for his CNS hypothesis. 

 

Along with the general gist of the article, I especially agree with the statement that those that believe in a multiverse "have veered down a non-scientific cul-de-sac.

[pantheory]

Just thought I'd throw in the fact that William Reville is a biochemist, not a cosmologist. His research includes, "Soluble protein in cheddar cheese." (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hhSQAZcAAAAJ&hl=en)

 

Reville is just the science writer of the subject article discussing the ideas/ writings/ hypotheses of Lee Smolin.

[bornagainathiest]

I put this in the Science vs. Religion section because it seemed tailor-made for this section, and much of the article I agree with. As to the article, I disagree with your interpretation of it. To the contrary it seems obvious to me that Smolin was expressing derision concerning the belief in a multiverse. He said:

 

“You think there’s a multiverse? Get real”, or the title of the article  "Belief in the multiverse: a form of blind faith."

You think there's a multiverse? Get real | New Scientist

https://www.newscientist.com/.../mg22530040-200-you-thi...

from a New Scientist article:

"Positing that alternative universes exist is just disguising our lack of knowledge of the cosmos. It's time to move on," says physicist Lee Smolin.

 

1) I think the article obviously derides the belief in a multiverse.

 

This all-too-brief comment really doesn't do justice to Smolin's use of parent and baby universes in his CNS hypothesis, Pantheory.

Since you'll be wanting to leave nobody confused about the difference between a multiverse and Smolin's paradigm, please go into... MUCH MORE DETAIL ...about how the laws of physics have evolved over time and across the ensemble of the many, many parent and baby universes in the CNS hypothesis.  To be on the safe side you'll want to explain how the many, many generations of physically separate universes in Smolin's paradigm are different from the many, many physically separate universes in a multiverse.  You see, if you don't do that, there's a chance that other members will think that they are either very, very similar or even the same.  And you wouldn't want anyone thinking that, now would you?  So please take as much time and as much effort as is needed to explain the difference between these very similar things.  Thank you.

 

2) As far as time being real, I agree that time is not just an illusion of man but all realize that the concept was invented by man. In the absence of human-like intelligence the concepts of time do not exist. The reality of time is one of Smolin's suggested assumptions of three. I understand that Smolin's concept of time is necessary for his CNS hypothesis.

 

Indeed it is.  

And you'd be doing everyone here a great service Pantheory, if you went into much more detail about how time is necessary for there to be evolution across the many, many generations of the many, many physically separate, parent and baby universes in Smolin's paradigm.  Since he calls it Cosmological Natural Selection, why don't you draw a parallel between the CNS and Darwin's BNS, that is Biological natural Selection?  In both cases, large populations change and evolve over time, with the fittest surviving and the unfit dying out.  In biological natural selection, large populations of animals change and evolve, with the fittest surviving and the unfit dying out.  In Smolin's CNS, it's not animals but very, very large populations of parent and baby universes (billions, trillions or uncountably many?) that undergo cosmological natural selection.  

 

So please, when explaining further, be sure to stress the vast numbers of physically separate universes that Smolin requires for his hypothesis to work.  I know I can rely on you for that!

 

3) "The laws of physics evolve." This assumption I disagree with but again understand that it is needed for his CNS hypothesis. 

 

Yes, again.  It's fundamental and integral to Smolin's CNS.

 

Along with the general gist of the article, I especially agree with the statement that those that believe in a multiverse "have veered down a non-scientific cul-de-sac.

 

 

Curious, don't you think that Smolin's CNS hypothesis and the multiversal paradigm share so very much in common?

 

They both require a vast population of universes.

 

They both require vast periods of time.

 

They both require that universes give 'birth' to other universes.

 

They both require that once a new universe had been 'born', it becomes causally disconnected from it's parent universe.

 

They both require a mechanism to cause changes between different 'generations' of universes.

 

They both seek to address the fine-tuning problem of the conditions in this, our universe.

.

.

.

Care to comment on these similarities, Pantheory?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

Curious, don't you think that Smolin's CNS hypothesis and the multiversal paradigm share so very much in common?

Care to comment on these similarities.....? (as posited below)

They both require a vast population of universes.

 

They both require vast periods of time.

 

Yes, they have some similarity. 

 

They both require a vast population of universes.

 

They both require vast periods of time.

 

They both require that universes give 'birth' to other universes.

 

Smolin does not believe in a multiverse, period. He believes there is, and always has been just one universe. I think his present usage of the word "universe" has become more exact as apposed to being misunderstood by some concerning his original explanations of his CNS hypothesis.

 

They both require vast periods of time.

 

 

Yes

 

They both require that universes give 'birth' to other universes........................They both require a mechanism to cause changes between different 'generations' of universes.

 

 

Again, Smolin does not believe in a multiverse. His statements on this are unambiguous. He said: "you think there is a multiverse, get real," "Physics and cosmology have veered down a non-scientific cul-de-sac ... and "Positing that alternative universes exist is just disguising our lack of knowledge of the cosmos. It's time to move on."

 

They both require that once a new universe had been 'born', it becomes causally disconnected from it's parent universe.

 

I believe your interpretation of this is wrong. If you continue to think your statement is true concerning Smolin's statements please post the link and Smolin quote from the source.

 

They both seek to address the fine-tuning problem of the conditions in this, our universe.

 

.

I expect this is true, although I would phrase it differently by adding the words "presently-perceived" fine-tuning problem, since I don't believe there ever was a fine-tuning problem as many others believe.

 

There is also these statements and quotes concerning Smolin's book: The Singular Universe and the Reality of time:

 

"Unger and Smolin have also just gone into print with a monumental book – The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time – which systematically takes apart contemporary physics and exposes much of it as, in Unger’s words, “an inferno of allegorical fabrication.” The book says it is time to return to real science which is tested against nature rather than constructed out of mathematics. Physics should no longer be seen as the ultimate science, underwriting all others. The true queen of the sciences should be history – the biography of the cosmos."

 

"The multiverse has, in fact, been used three times to plug a gap – in the Inflationary theory of the universe, in quantum theory and in string theory. Each time it is an attempt to explain why our universe just happens to be the way it is (the fine-tuning problem). But, surely, this is cheating. If, say Unger and Smolin, our theories don’t work, then we should ditch the theories, not invent imaginary and forever undetectable worlds." (parenthesis added)

 

http://bryanappleyard.com/physics-superstitions-and-allegories/

 

 

 

.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory wrote...

 

Smolin does not believe in a multiverse, period.

He believes there is, and always has been just one universe. I think his present usage of the word "universe" has become more exact as apposed to being misunderstood by some concerning his original explanations of his CNS hypothesis.

 

As you said earlier in this thread, Pantheory... it's a matter of semantics.

Smolin's 'just one universe' is, when examined more closely, composed of a vast ensemble of parent and baby universes, as he says, here...   http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0612185v1.pdf

 

The main hypothesis of cosmological natural selection are as follows:

• O The world consists of an ensemble E of universes, each of which is characterized by a point x ∈ L and hence by a point p = Ix ∈ P.

• I. Black hole singularities bounce and evolve to initial states of expanding universes[12]. Hence there is a fitness function f on P where f(p) is equal to the average number of black holes produced by a universe initiated in such a bounce transition, which has parameters p.

• II. At each such creation event there is a small change in x leading to a small random change of x in P. Small here means compared to the step size under which f(p) changes appreciably.

 

Please note that he uses a singular term (world) to describe what he later calls an ensemble (plural) of universes.

This is exactly the same kind of semantic wordplay we use when referring to "Man".  It's clearly understood that Man can mean a single human being OR the multitude of the entire human race.  Smolin uses the phrase, 'just one universe' in a singular sense, to describe the pluralistic whole.  This is a semantic singularity, not a literal, actual or physical one.

.

.

.

Massimo Pigliuci reports on the above paper, here... http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-cosmological-natural-selection.html 

 

In plainer language, collapsing black holes spawn baby universes, and these newly formed universes are characterized by combinations of parameters similar but not identical to the one of the “mother” universe. The process therefore includes physical analogies of both reproduction (new universes are formed) and mutation (the physical parameters of the progeny universes is variable). 

.

.

.

http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes)

 

According to CNS, black holes may be mechanisms of universe reproduction within the multiverse, an extended cosmological environment in which universes grow, die, and reproduce. Rather than a ‘dead’ singularity at the center of black holes, a point where relativity theory breaks down and spacetime and matter-energy become unmodeled, what occurs in Smolin’s theory is a 'bounce' that produces a new universe with parameters stochastically different from the parent universe. Smolin theorizes that these descendant universes will be likely to have similar fundamental physical parameters to the parent universe (such as the fine structure constant, the proton to electron mass ratio and others) but that these parameters, and perhaps the laws that derive from them, may be slightly altered in some stochastic fashion during the replication process. Each universe therefore potentially gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.

.

.

.

Pantheory wrote...

 

Again, Smolin does not believe in a multiverse. His statements on this are unambiguous. He said: "you think there is a multiverse, get real," and "Positing that alternative universes exist is just disguising our lack of knowledge of the cosmos. It's time to move on."

 

Yet the difference between a multiverse and his ensemble of universes is one of semantics, Pantheory.  

He is choosing to call it a 'world' (singular) or just one universe (again, singular) but, by his own description and definition, this singular entity is actually subdivided into a multitude of regions that he calls parent and baby universes.   Please note that this nomenclature is of his choosing, not mine.  If his 'singular' universe were just that - one singular and undivided entity - then his entire CNS hypothesis wouldn't work.  Just as Darwinian natural selection only affects large populations of animals over many generations and not single organisms over only their lifetimes - so Smolin's cosmological natural selection affects a large population of universes over a much longer period than just the lifetime of one of them.  Natural selection (either cosmic or biological) requires plurality, not singularity.   So it is entirely untenable to maintain that Smolin is advocating some kind of physical singularity, when he is only using that concept semantically. Smolin believes in the plurality of universes, but chooses to refer to that paradigm in a singular sense.

 

 

There's a simple enough way of concluding this, Pantheory.

 

If you can describe Darwinian natural selection without referring to large animal populations and without referring to evolutionary changes happening over generations, then please do so.

To do that you'll need to describe natural selection happening to just one animal, over the course of it's lifetime.  You and I both know you can't do this -because that's not the way natural selection works.  And nor is it the way that Smolin's cosmological natural selection works either.  Both require pluralities. 

 

But please take up my challenge if you feel like trying to do the impossible!

 

BAA

 

 

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

I agree that we are just talking semantics concerning someone else theory, which can involve both misunderstandings and theory evolution over time.

 

Here is one more link I found to support whatever you think it does. Discussion after this, I think, would solely be semantic. For this I think we would need an exact definition of the words "multiverse" and "universe" according to Smolin, but still it does not appear that Smolin is very fond in general of multiverse theories and expect he does not consider his own model a multiverse model based upon his leading quote: "You think there is a multiverse?  get real."

 

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2009/07/lee-smolin-argues-against-timeless.html

[Guest Furball]

Belief in religion requires untestable faith. 

Faith absolutely can be tested. Jesus makes all kinds of statements about what faith can do, such as moving mountains etc. In fact hebrews gives a whole laundry list of ways faith can be tested such as stopping the mouths of lions and so on. The whole new testament makes countless claims about faith that can be tested in reality....which when it is, ultimately shows faith to be make believe. 

 

"Most all would agree that the validity of religions will forever be untestable"

 

That simply isn't true. That is a false statement. All religions can be tested thoroughly. 

[Joshpantera]

So now has Smolin taken up the cosmological faith by suggesting parent and baby universes? Are these baby universes observed and empirically proven? 

[midniterider]

So now has Smolin taken up the cosmological faith by suggesting parent and baby universes? Are these baby universes observed and empirically proven?

I dunno. Never seen a big bang either.

[pantheory]

Alien,

 

(my quote) "Most all would agree that the validity of religions will forever be untestable"

 

(your statement) That simply isn't true. That is a false statement. All religions can be tested thoroughly.

 

"tested thoroughly," really? How can you test or prove the existence of something that isn't real? Beliefs such as god  or gods? How can you test the validity of miracles professed by one bible or another, one prophet/ healer or another, one religion or another?

 

Are you a believer in one of today's religions? One cannot argue with a person who has professed to talk with god. Either it happened, or it is a fantasy or lie. In any case there can be no argument or valuable discussion if assertions cannot be verified.

[pantheory]

So now has Smolin taken up the cosmological faith by suggesting parent and baby universes? Are these baby universes observed and empirically proven? 

 

Smolin's related hypothesis was proposed by him in 1992 where he used the words "baby universes."  I think today he would choose a different description of them in that he has recently said in the subject New Scientist article: If "you think there's a multiverse, get real."

[bornagainathiest]

Josh,

 

Please don't take Pantheory's Smolin quote at face value, but read it in the context of what I've written in this thread. 

Just as biological evolution works across large populations and many generations of animals, so Smolin's theory of Cosmic Evolution works across a vast population and many, many generations of 'parent' and 'baby' universes.  Such a scenario is a Multiverse in all but name.

 

But Smolin opts to draw a semantic difference and NOT call his theory a multiversal one. 

However, once one of his parent universes has given 'birth' to a baby one (via a black hole) the parental universe becomes just as spatially and causally disconnected from it's child as any of the causally-separate universes of Inflationary Multiversal theory. 

 

Pantheory has already agreed with me that the difference between Smolin's paradigm and the Inflationary Multiverse is one of semantics.  Once we get past that initial difference, both paradigms strongly resemble each other.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[pantheory]

Josh,

 

Please don't take Pantheory's Smolin quote at face value, but read it in the context of what I've written in this thread. 

Just as biological evolution works across large populations and many generations of animals, so Smolin's theory of Cosmic Evolution works across a vast population and many, many generations of 'parent' and 'baby' universes.  Such a scenario is a Multiverse in all but name.

 

But Smolin opts to draw a semantic difference and NOT call his theory a multiversal one. 

However, once one of his parent universes has given 'birth' to a baby one (via a black hole) the parental universe becomes just as spatially and causally disconnected from it's child as any of the causally-separate universes of Inflationary Multiversal theory. 

 

Pantheory has already agreed with me that the difference between Smolin's paradigm and the Inflationary Multiverse is one of semantics.  Once we get past that initial difference, both paradigms strongly resemble each other.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Welcome back BAA. Hope you had a good Christmas vacation

[Joshpantera]

Is Smolin suggesting a black hole to white hole exchange? Where material going into a black hole in one universe jets out of a white hole creating a new universe, and perhaps a new big bang in a birthing universe? Anything like that would require the same faith that Smolin accuses the multiverse proponents of having. And at the end of the day even the faith allegation has no bearing in these cosmological circles because obviously everyone knows that they're theorizing and hypothesizing and not blindly believing in the concrete existence of extra universal realities without substantial evidence to support it.