Continuing down the list of six possible explanations for the “anthropic” coincidences in nature which allow intelligent life to evolve…largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING. He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it. You can check out the Many Worlds FAQ by Michael Clive Price, for more detailed information about many-worlds. I mentioned String theory, because its huge number of possible “vacua” is often cited in conjunction with MWI to explain the anthropic coincidences. Here's “The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” by Raphael Bousso and Leonard Susskind, for a spirited defense for a multiversal expanation for quantum mechanics. And here's Martin Gardner's refreshing “Are Universes as Plentiful as Blackberries” throwing cold water (and sanity) on the whole idea. I know many-worlds refers mainly to tiny events. Still, it has implications for larger events, like the decisions you and I make from day to day, and I couldn't resist borrowing Larry Niven's argument against multiple time-tracks/“worlds” from ALL THE MYRIAD WAYS. Hawking and Weinberg seem to regard MWI as useful mathematical tools but don't seem as committed to the actuality of alternate existences as say, Sussman or David Deutsch. Many other fine cosmologists and physicists have, to say the least, doubts about the whole enterprise. Since the whole point of this is to make a reasonable case for theism, some might think it hypocritical to point out that there's no falsifiable evidence for MWI or String theory at the present time, since the same charge can be made about theism. I'll get to that. We're going to be discussing Occam's Razor a LOT. I DO think saying MWI is like the Copernican viewpoint—is a bit of a stretch. Yes, it does make things somewhat simpler in the sense as easier to calculate, as orbits are easier to calculate and explain than epicycles. But Copernicus was explaining the motion of stars and planets we could plainly observe, just trying to work out what their motions truly consisted of. MWI proposes trillions of alternate, UNOBSERVED, UNVERIFIABLE “worlds” to explain the one we observe.
Next time: DOES EVERYTHING POSSIBLE EXIST…SOMEWHERE?
Again, I don't think you can really use non-falsifiability as an argument against an option when you're core premise is that you're arguing for an (also non-falsifiable) initial creator based on the plausibility of the idea. You really need to extend alternate theories the same courtesy of measuring them by the same yardstick rather than the different one of scientific verifiability.
alschroeder at 8:16AM, March 25, 2015
That's why I later get into Occam's Razor.
irrevenant at 7:06AM, Sept. 16, 2014
Again, I don't think you can really use non-falsifiability as an argument against an option when you're core premise is that you're arguing for an (also non-falsifiable) initial creator based on the plausibility of the idea. You really need to extend alternate theories the same courtesy of measuring them by the same yardstick rather than the different one of scientific verifiability.
Niccea at 3:05PM, Aug. 9, 2014
Congratulations, your comic was nominated for a Drunk Duck Award.
KimLuster at 10:34AM, Aug. 3, 2014
To me, appealing to MWI is not really different that appealing to ID: both have their appeal, but both are also likely un-testable hypothesis...