SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (154258)2/8/2009 12:53:17 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 173976
 
You shouldn't lecture me about what I don't understand when you've previously stated you thought I was presenting a multiverse idea as proof of a god when I was actually pointing out that science had developed the multiverse idea as its alternative to an intelligent designer.

I DO understand this:

"The problem with this, as pointed out by Lee Smolin in "The Trouble With Physics" for example, is that it is not Popper falsifiable if nonlocal signals outside of the local light cones are not possible."

Though it just should have said "not falsifiable if other worlds are unobservable". Thats simpler. We can't observe anything outside of our universe. Speculation about "stable transversable wormholes" allowing such observation is in the realm of science fiction*. So anything said about any such other universes, including their very existence, is hypothetical speculation.

*Which a lot of modern physics
(string theory, superstring theory, M theory) seems to be - see Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics' and Peter Woit's 'Not Even Wrong'.

In the book, Smolin controversially claims that string theory makes no new testable predictions[3]; that it has no coherent mathematical formulation; and has not been mathematically proved finite.[4];
Smolin states that to propose a string theory landscape having up to 10500 string vacuum solutions is tantamount to abandoning accepted science ...
en.wikipedia.org

It is a striking fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this complex and unattractive conjectural theory. There is not even a serious proposal for what the dynamics of the fundamental ‘M-theory’ is supposed to be or any reason at all to believe that its dynamics would produce a vacuum state with the desired properties.
en.wikipedia.org
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News