Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

No attempt to obfuscate, merely a straight forward rejection of the idea of "intelligent design" as having nothing of value to offer more then say reading chicken entrails.

In the past, at various times, I have worked, both as a consultant and as an employee, for corporations, and universities. I also was a consultant to the NIH for a number of years. Except for the later role, I have never worked directly for the U.S. Government, however I have worked for State governments.

Exactly. You are unable to think outside the box. When talking about the cosmos that is the only way progress in understanding is made. To reject 'intelligent design' is a sign that you are not up to the challenge of understanding the mysteries of the universe.

Instead you are fixated on chicken entrails. LOL pie.

You didn't mention your field of consultation.

 

[jem]

Quote from nitro:

#3, otherwise known as The Anthropic Principle, is for me intimately tied with #4, and is likely the right answer.

Susskind... he has an fascinating lecture about the possibility our existence is like a hologram.


this is a shorter q&A on the subject.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jJqT357ofuE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


I would not be surprised if we are the part of the projection (or part of the light) of a thought that caused the big bang.

 

[pspr]

Quote from jem:

Susskind... he has an fascinating lecture about the possibility our existence is like a hologram.


this is a shorter q&A on the subject.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jJqT357ofuE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


I would not be surprised if we are the part of the projection (or part of the light) of a thought that caused the big bang.

I think some of what he talks about will eventually be disproven but this is an excellent example of the need for theoretical physicists and other cutting edge scientists to be able to think outside the box. Without such thinking, human understanding of the universe and even the innerverse (as I like to call it) will be stymied.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from pspr:

Exactly. You are unable to think outside the box.

You've hit on a key point here. I am a prisoner of my education and that undoubtedly has put me in a sort of figurative box. So, given the choice between I don't know, and a Creator did it (or it's Christian, right-wing equivalent "Intelligent Design," I reject the latter as having no evidence to support it, and prefer to stick with "I don't know."

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

You've hit on a key point here. I am a prisoner of my education and that undoubtedly has put me in a sort of figurative box. So, given the choice between I don't know, and a Creator did it (or it's Christian, right-wing equivalent "Intelligent Design," I reject the latter as having no evidence to support it, and prefer to stick with "I don't know."

Let me know when man is able to create a living creature out of the firmament and then maybe I will believe your version. Until then I'll trust what evidence I and others have seen, since the other side has none.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from pspr:

Let me know when man is able to create a living creature out of the firmament and then maybe I will believe your version. Until then I'll trust what evidence I and others have seen, since the other side has none.

So what are the sides, modern science or ancient mythology?

 

[stu]

On the upside, modern science, thinking outside the box.
On the downside, creationism/intelligent design and other similar piffle, mindlessly throwing the whole f'kn box away.


"Firmament".....Lol

 

[nondescript]

Quote from pspr:

Let me know when man is able to create a living creature out of the firmament and then maybe I will believe your version. Until then I'll trust what evidence I and others have seen, since the other side has none.

"Firmament" Your thinking box was built by Moses and later given an addition by a rogue carpenter and his apprentices.

Thank you for clarifying the evidence you have "seen".

 

[jem]

that is the point I have been making...

there is scientific evidence to support a Tuner.
you are just keeping yourself ignorant of the science.

The real statement is...

While there is evidence of a Tuner I choose to have faith that it will be explained away such as if we find evidence there are almost infinite other universes.




“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)

Quote from piezoe:

You've hit on a key point here. I am a prisoner of my education and that undoubtedly has put me in a sort of figurative box. So, given the choice between I don't know, and a Creator did it (or it's Christian, right-wing equivalent "Intelligent Design," I reject the latter as having no evidence to support it, and prefer to stick with "I don't know."

 

[stu]

Don't know is an honest answer.

A tuner ? Sure why not. Scientifically known as Gravity.
Also scientifically, it's math and physics that indicate multiverse, not faith.

Tuner/Creator/God - nothing more than blind faith, and of course, a singular failure in human reasoning.