Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:56 pm

<< Week of July 26, 2016 >>
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
26 Day Month

27 Day Month

28 Day Month

29 Day Month

30 Day Month

31 Day Month

1 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Brian Greene on the multiverse 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I issue my own library cards!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1725
Thanks: 151
Thanked: 709 times in 530 posts
Gender: Male

Post Brian Greene on the multiverse
I am skeptical of the multiverse idea. Of course I am a complete amateur, but other scientists are too. As Brian Greene says,

Quote:
Many... find this explanation unsatisfying, silly, even offensive, asserting that science is meant to give definitive, precise, and quantitative explanations, not “just so” stories.


He does defend the possibility, and even though falsifiability will be difficult, he goes on,

Quote:
...the multiverse falls squarely in the domain of high-risk science. There are numerous developments that could weaken the motivation for considering it, from scientists finally calculating the correct dark-energy value, or confirming a version of inflationary cosmology that only yields a single universe, or discovering that string theory no longer supports a cornucopia of possible universes. And so on.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... verse.html



Mon May 21, 2012 11:03 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Oddly Attracted to Books

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1546
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 42
Thanked: 473 times in 370 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Brian Greene on the multiverse
If you like that article, you may enjoy his latest book, which I listened to on audio.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hidden-Realit ... 826&sr=1-1

Most of it is over my head, so a lot of techno-jargon had to wash over, but still enjoyable. In the book, Greene summarizes about 9 different multiverse theories. One involved imagining a cubic mile of swiss cheese where our universe was only one of the bubbles. In a truly infinite space, this means somewhere/elsewhere an identical twin to myself is typing this reply to your topic at this moment. :P

I was particularly interested in questions as to whether some (not all) of these "theories" are even part of science as mentioned in this quote from the article.
Quote:
Years ago, Carl Sagan emphasized that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, can we gather evidence supporting a proposal that invokes other universes?

Because the other universes would lie beyond what we can observe, it might seem that the answer is no, placing the multiverse outside the bounds of science. But that’s too quick.

Greene doesn't mention it, but a multiverse computer might provide evidence - a system that accesses computers in other universes to solve problems in less than a second that would take a decade on our systems alone? I bet the NSA already owns one. :?

Some of the numbers Greene bandies about are insane.
Quote:
Today, the tally of possible universes stands at the almost incomprehensible 10^500, a number so large it defies analogy.

For comparison, the number known as Google 10^100 exceeds the number of sub-atomic particles in the known universe.

After reading that book about all I can really say is:
:261:



Mon May 21, 2012 10:32 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I issue my own library cards!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1725
Thanks: 151
Thanked: 709 times in 530 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Brian Greene on the multiverse
I read Hawking's book The Grand Design which defends the multiverse. I quoted some critical reviews of the book before, essentially saying it's a bunch of unfalsifiable speculation.

I'm going to be a holdout like Einstein was about some of the implications of quantum theory, until someone gives me a good reason otherwise.



Tue May 22, 2012 4:08 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Oddly Attracted to Books

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1546
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 42
Thanked: 473 times in 370 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Brian Greene on the multiverse
My recollection from Greene's book is some of the multiverse theories are unfalsifiable, but others could indeed be proved by certain observations or experiments.

You mention "unfalsifiable speculation", which leads me to a related topic, the use of the word "theory" in science. Remember a frequent critique of Evolution is "it's only a theory", therefore completely unproven. But this is rejected by scientists saying those critics do not understand the technical use of the word "theory" in science, that it really means a huge amount of data and experimentation supports any given scientific theory.

However it seems when we move to "theoretical physics", this definition of the word breaks down. We have String "theory" even though no one knows if a string exists. Or several multiverse "theories" which are completely outside of any detection system that can be imagined and therefore questionable as to whether they are even science.

So doesn't this tend to weaken the defense of Evolution as a "theory"? Shouldn't these areas of physics be considered "hypothetical physics"? Even that may not be enough, since a hypothesis implies some method of experimentation or proof. Perhaps the term "speculative physics" would preserve the scientific definition of "theory" instead of negating it?



Tue May 22, 2012 3:37 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I issue my own library cards!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1725
Thanks: 151
Thanked: 709 times in 530 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Brian Greene on the multiverse
LanDroid wrote:
So doesn't this tend to weaken the defense of Evolution as a "theory"? Shouldn't these areas of physics be considered "hypothetical physics"? Even that may not be enough, since a hypothesis implies some method of experimentation or proof. Perhaps the term "speculative physics" would preserve the scientific definition of "theory" instead of negating it?


I haven't read this book, but see this description:

Quote:
In Not Even Wrong, [Peter Woit] shows that what many physicists call superstring "theory" is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish.
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Fa ... 0465092756


I think if anyone is trying to argue that evolution is "only a theory" they are indicating that they don't know much about it, and are just trying to score a rhetorical point. There's not much you can do there.



Tue May 22, 2012 4:38 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank