Multiverse

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Something about multiverses....

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0g9hhcg/four-ways-to-understand-the-multiverse

All these stuff are serious possibilities of reality... but the soul and after-life are just our imagination and wishful thinking!!!!   

Cheers.

Sriram

[Outrider]

Hi everyone,

Something about multiverses....

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0g9hhcg/four-ways-to-understand-the-multiverse

All these stuff are serious possibilities of reality... but the soul and after-life are just our imagination and wishful thinking!!!!   

Cheers.

Sriram

These are possibilities. Souls are possibilities.

These are possibilities where there is a potential to test the claims. Souls are a possibility where no-one is providing a potential test to confirm or deny.

Neither of these ideas is established as a reliable explanation for reality, despite what you sometimes assert.

O.

[SteveH]

These are possibilities. Souls are possibilities.

These are possibilities where there is a potential to test the claims. Souls are a possibility where no-one is providing a potential test to confirm or deny.

Neither of these ideas is established as a reliable explanation for reality, despite what you sometimes assert.

O.

How can multiverse theory be tested?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

All these stuff are serious possibilities of reality... but the soul and after-life are just our imagination and wishful thinking!!!!   

Yes. Multiverse conjectures are based on well-established scientific principles. "Soul" and an afterlife on the other hand are just notions that make sense in your head – just as, say, leprechauns may make sense in mine.

Would you say that leprechauns are "serious possibilities of reality" or "just our imagination and wishful thinking"?

Hope that helps.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

Yes. Multiverse conjectures are based on well-established scientific principles. "Soul" and an afterlife on the other hand are just notions that make sense in your head – just as, say, leprechauns may make sense in mine.

Would you say that leprechauns are "serious possibilities of reality" or "just our imagination and wishful thinking"?

Hope that helps.   

I think you mean established mathematical principles rather than scientific principles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you mean established mathematical principles rather than scientific principles.

Then, as with so much else, you think wrongly.

More to the point though can you see Sriram's mistake with conflating conjectures based on scientific principles with whatever pops into his head?

[torridon]

On the subject of a multiverse, a proponent of the idea explains his thinking :

https://www.quantamagazine.org/are-there-reasons-to-believe-in-a-multiverse-20230517/

[Sriram]

These are possibilities. Souls are possibilities.

These are possibilities where there is a potential to test the claims. Souls are a possibility where no-one is providing a potential test to confirm or deny.

Neither of these ideas is established as a reliable explanation for reality, despite what you sometimes assert.

O.

First of all...how do you test the multiverse ideas as you claim?!

Secondly, its all mathematical wishy-washy stuff on pieces of paper. It could all be reduced to rubbish a few years down the line. And yet.....its all very very serious stuff discussed in seminars and conferences.

Souls and after-life on the other hand, are long held ideas that provide meaning and purpose to life and are validated by NDE's, OBE's and ghost sightings etc. over centuries across the world....!  And yet....it is all just delusional nonsense.   

How ironical can this get?! The two boxes syndrome.

[Gordon]

First of all...how do you test the multiverse ideas as you claim?!

Secondly, its all mathematical wishy-washy stuff on pieces of paper. It could all be reduced to rubbish a few years down the line. And yet.....its all very very serious stuff discussed in seminars and conferences.

Argument from ignorance.

Souls and after-life on the other hand, are long held ideas that provide meaning and purpose to life and are validated by NDE's, OBE's and ghost sightings etc. over centuries across the world....!  And yet....it is all just delusional nonsense.   

It's a mix of psuedoscience, woo and superstition - but I suppose 'delusional nonsense' is apt shorthand (though I'd be inclined to replace 'nonsense' with 'bollocks', which is even more apt). By the way you are begging the question, again.

How ironical can this get?! The two boxes syndrome.

Just no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then, as with so much else, you think wrongly.

More to the point though can you see Sriram's mistake with conflating conjectures based on scientific principles with whatever pops into his head?

To suggest that the multiverse is well established scientifically is misleading and ignores the problems of observation and test ability multiverse has. The debates in the scientific community as to whether multiverse is science is well known.

If you resort to the usual scientismatists retort that someday science will find away to observe and test multiverse then that is hardly well established science.

Science, physicalism or even Scientism do not demand the existence of a multiverse but when we here
Public atheists like Carroll and Dawkins talk of the fine tuning “problem” and advocating Smolin’s Darwinian theory of universes birthing new universes we can be sure that atheism might.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

To suggest that the multiverse is well established scientifically is misleading and ignores the problems of observation and test ability multiverse has. The debates in the scientific community as to whether multiverse is science is well known.

I suggested no such thing.

If you resort to the usual scientismatists retort that someday science will find away to observe and test multiverse then that is hardly well established science.

I’ve never said any such thing.

Science, physicalism or even Scientism do not demand the existence of a multiverse but when we here
Public atheists like Carroll and Dawkins talk of the fine tuning “problem” and advocating Smolin’s Darwinian theory of universes birthing new universes we can be sure that atheism might.

Incoherent.

The Canadian Straw Farming Association just called me by the way. Apparently what with all those forest fires they’re struggling to keep production going, so asked me to ask you whether you could maybe slow down a bit. Ta.

[Outrider]

How can multiverse theory be tested?

I'm at work at the moment, so I can't find the best links, but amongst other ideas there was a suggestion that parallel universes might result in gravitational anomolies that should be detectable - Scientific American article.

O.

[Outrider]

First of all...how do you test the multiverse ideas as you claim?!

As above, at least one conjecture was related to gravitational waves - Scientific American

Secondly, its all mathematical wishy-washy stuff on pieces of paper.

That you might not understand it doesn't invalidate it.

It could all be reduced to rubbish a few years down the line.

It would have to establish something, first - at the moment it's just conjecture. But, yes, it could be fundamentally undermined by some future discovery.

And yet.....its all very very serious stuff discussed in seminars and conferences.

Yes.

Souls and after-life on the other hand, are long held ideas that provide meaning and purpose to life and are validated by NDE's, OBE's and ghost sightings etc. over centuries across the world....!  And yet....it is all just delusional nonsense. 

It's not delusional nonsense. At best, though, it's conjecture on a level with multiverse concepts, except that they have a mathematical theoretical validation and potential experimental validation methods, whereas souls has... nothing. The problem isn't that you don't believe in a multiverse, or that you believe in souls, it's that you treat the notion of souls as something that's somehow been demonstrated and should be widely accepted by science despite the fact that you've been shown time and time again that science doesn't just take your word for it.
 

How ironical can this get?! The two boxes syndrome.

It's one box. You're presuming we've somehow already accepted the multiverse as a fact, and we haven't. You've also somehow convinced yourself that 'soul' is a scientifically valid concept, and it isn't.

There aren't two boxes, there's one box, you just can't appear to differentiate between the inside and the outside of it.

O.

[Sriram]

As above, at least one conjecture was related to gravitational waves - Scientific American

That you might not understand it doesn't invalidate it.

It would have to establish something, first - at the moment it's just conjecture. But, yes, it could be fundamentally undermined by some future discovery.

Yes.

It's not delusional nonsense. At best, though, it's conjecture on a level with multiverse concepts, except that they have a mathematical theoretical validation and potential experimental validation methods, whereas souls has... nothing. The problem isn't that you don't believe in a multiverse, or that you believe in souls, it's that you treat the notion of souls as something that's somehow been demonstrated and should be widely accepted by science despite the fact that you've been shown time and time again that science doesn't just take your word for it.
 
It's one box. You're presuming we've somehow already accepted the multiverse as a fact, and we haven't. You've also somehow convinced yourself that 'soul' is a scientifically valid concept, and it isn't.

There aren't two boxes, there's one box, you just can't appear to differentiate between the inside and the outside of it.

O.

It is not about mathematics invalidating a idea....it is just that maths alone is not enough. There has to be real physical evidence besides just maths.

I am glad that you accept the idea of a soul and after-life as conjectures and not as delusional nonsense to be dismissed outright. That is all I am arguing for. The idea of souls and after-life are definitely within the realm of possibility and there are enough reasons to believe in them. They may not be scientifically validated....but that is too much to ask for  given that science does not have necessary tools to investigate such phenomena.

You seem to have managed to get out of the 'two boxes syndrome' and are probably able to see both phenomena labeled as 'science' and those not labeled as 'science' using the same yard stick. That is nice.

But as can be seen above, many other posters here clearly are unable to do that. They still view the ideas of soul and after-life as supernatural religious beliefs or what you people call 'woo'....

[Outrider]

It is not about mathematics invalidating a idea....it is just that maths alone is not enough. There has to be real physical evidence besides just maths.

Which is why no-one is saying 'this is the case', they're saying 'this is an intriguing possibility'.

I am glad that you accept the idea of a soul and after-life as conjectures and not as delusional nonsense to be dismissed outright. That is all I am arguing for.

Perhaps it's the way you use the language, but you come across as having a lot more confidence in those conjectures then the evidence warrants - certainly you depict them, for instance, as significantly more credible claims than, say, the idea of the multiverse.

The idea of souls and after-life are definitely within the realm of possibility and there are enough reasons to believe in them.

And thats where the discord happens. Are they a possibility? Yes. Is there sufficient reason to overcome the myriad problems that arise from accepting the premise? Not even close, for me.

They may not be scientifically validated....but that is too much to ask for  given that science does not have necessary tools to investigate such phenomena.

Which brings us back to - OK, fine, but if (arbitrarily) you've decided that this phenomenon is somehow beyond science, what alternative methodology are you applying to come to some sort of valid determination? Pure logic? Mathematics? There are options, but none of them seem to hold up the confidence in this claim that you do, and when pressed for what you're methodology is you tend to revert to 'but science can't do this'. Let's take that as a given, for the moment - it's not a scientific claim. So what sort of claim is it?

You seem to have managed to get out of the 'two boxes syndrome' and are probably able to see both phenomena labeled as 'science' and those not labeled as 'science' using the same yard stick. That is nice.

At the ideological level that's nothing new. Science tends to be the default because of its continued success and the lack of any specific alternative being mentioned. If you want to make claims like 'souls are a more credible claim than a multiverse' then you need to explain why you feel justified in making that statement. So far you haven't.

But as can be seen above, many other posters here clearly are unable to do that. They still view the ideas of soul and after-life as supernatural religious beliefs or what you people call 'woo'....

And in the absence of any sort of justification those claims which range far beyond what can be justified will continue to be woo.

O.

[Sriram]

If multiverse and soul are both possibilities and equally valid conjectures....then, if one is woo...the other should also be woo. If one is a serious proposition the other should also be so.

Maths does not make one conjecture more valid and anecdote does not make the other less valid.. In fact, going by anecdotal evidence a soul is more valid and is certainly more relevant in a personal sense, than a multiverse.

[Outrider]

If multiverse and soul are both possibilities and equally valid conjectures....then, if one is woo...the other should also be woo. If one is a serious proposition the other should also be so.

Yes and no. If they're both equally unsubstantiated possibilities (which is debatable) then to lend credence to one over the other for essentially arbitrary personal preference is woo. The notion isn't woo, your peddling of one over the other is woo.

Maths does not make one conjecture more valid and anecdote does not make the other less valid..

I'd argue that in fact a mathematical basis for one versus anecdotal evidence of subjective experience during extreme physiological duress very definitely makes one more viable than the other.

In fact, going by anecdotal evidence a soul is more valid and is certainly more relevant in a personal sense, than a multiverse.

Absolutely. If you put credence is demonstrably questionable subjective understanding of neurological symptoms over mathematics then you will feel that way. If that's your 'methodology' that we've all been waiting for, then all I can say is that woo has been confirmed.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

If multiverse and soul are both possibilities and equally valid conjectures....

They’re not. The multliverse(s) conjecture is aligned with established scientific principles. The claim “souls” on the other hand is epistemically equivalent to the claim "leprechauns" – ie, white noise.   

…then, if one is woo...the other should also be woo. If one is a serious proposition the other should also be so.

Wrong – see above. The multiverse(s) conjecture may or may not in due course be shown to be wrong, but “woo” is not even wrong.

Maths does not make one conjecture more valid and anecdote does not make the other less valid.. In fact, going by anecdotal evidence a soul is more valid and is certainly more relevant in a personal sense, than a multiverse.

Wrong again. Anecdote is fundamentally about the subjective; maths is fundamentally about the objective. If you want to demonstrate an equivalence you need to find a path from the former to the latter.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

They’re not. The multliverse(s) conjecture is aligned with established scientific principles.

And yet the same could be said of Leprechauns in that they are small, bipedal, primates...there...the analogy between multiverse is made. The pots of gold and ends of rainbow aspects deliberately conferred to tip us off that we are not to take Leprechauns at all seriously. Beyond that Russell’s teapot seems relevant . As has been demonstrated you do not have the luxury of another hand

The claim “souls” on the other hand is epistemically equivalent to the claim "leprechauns" – ie, white noise.

Oh dear .... multiverse is analogous to the Leprechaun. There is also the question of the falsifiability of multiverse and getting round the problem of observing multiverse rather than the effects of the multiverse.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And yet the same could be said of Leprechauns in that they are small, bipedal, primates...there...the analogy between multiverse is made. The pots of gold and ends of rainbow aspects deliberately conferred to tip us off that we are not to take Leprechauns at all seriously. Beyond that Russell’s teapot seems relevant . As has been demonstrated you do not have the luxury of another hand

Weird. Lerprechauns are not aligned with established scientific principles at all, there is no such analogy, Russell’s teapot has no relevance here and “As has been demonstrated you do not have the luxury of another hand” is incoherent. 

Oh dear .... multiverse is analogous to the Leprechaun.

Oh dear. No it isn’t.

There is also the question of the falsifiability of multiverse and getting round the problem of observing multiverse rather than the effects of the multiverse.

These are problems in practice, which is why no-one “suggests that it’s well established scientifically” (ie, the straw man you attempted in Reply 9 and have forgotten to apologise for and withdraw) and it’s also why multiverse(s) is/are just a hypothesis at this stage. Souls, leprechauns etc on the other hand are just white noise because there’s nothing to examine even in principle – they’re just white noise. Not even wrong. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Weird. Lerprechauns are not aligned with established scientific principles at all, there is no such analogy, Russell’s teapot has no relevance here and “As has been demonstrated you do not have the luxury of another hand” is incoherent. 

Oh dear. No it isn’t.

These are problems in practice, which is why no-one “suggests that it’s well established scientifically” (ie, the straw man you attempted in Reply 9 and have forgotten to apologise for and withdraw) and it’s also why multiverse(s) is/are just a hypothesis at this stage. Souls, leprechauns etc on the other hand are just white noise because there’s nothing to examine even in principle – they’re just white noise. Not even wrong.

As always I recommend readers read the Wikipedia entry on multiverse. Particularly the view that any multiverse idea that suggests evidence in this universe, cannot be a true multiverse theory.

[Outrider]

As always I recommend readers read the Wikipedia entry on multiverse. Particularly the view that any multiverse idea that suggests evidence in this universe, cannot be a true multiverse theory.

As with most of what's written about the notion, that's a distinct possibility, but it still lacks anything definitive to elevate it above any of the other ideas.

O.

[jeremyp]

If multiverse and soul are both possibilities and equally valid conjectures....then, if one is woo...the other should also be woo. If one is a serious proposition the other should also be so.

They aren't equally valid conjectures because the multiverse has a mathematical model that describes it. The multiverse can be shown to be consistent with the laws of physics as we know them. The other stuff cannot. Until you come up with a model of the soul that works within the framework of scientific law as we know it, it is not as serious a concept as the multiverse.

Maths does not make one conjecture more valid and anecdote does not make the other less valid.. In fact, going by anecdotal evidence a soul is more valid and is certainly more relevant in a personal sense, than a multiverse.

If the maths works within our scientific framework, it makes the concept more plausible, if not necessarily valid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As always I recommend readers read the Wikipedia entry on multiverse. Particularly the view that any multiverse idea that suggests evidence in this universe, cannot be a true multiverse theory.

Evasion noted.

[Stranger]

As always I recommend readers read the Wikipedia entry on multiverse. Particularly the view that any multiverse idea that suggests evidence in this universe, cannot be a true multiverse theory.

Apart from the irrelevance of this to the post you were replying to, I can't imagine why you would do such a thing. The term 'multiverse' is pretty vague to begin with, as it refers to so many different conjectures, so the phrase 'true multiverse' is entirely subjective. Additionally, if you read the actual paper referenced to support this, the authors themselves point out that others strongly disagree with them.

In truth the many and varied conjectures that have been described as multiverses are just that: conjectures, not established science, just possible extrapolations of current theories or hypotheses.

It is the basis of the conjectures in science that distinguish them from baseless myths like like souls, gods, and afterlife.