tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post3374180475546368614..comments2015-06-13T15:07:47.396-07:00Comments on Even More Grumbine Science!: Bad Science and Bad Logicquasarpulsehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08762550806982089851noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-19385478092343905202008-12-02T22:17:00.000-08:002008-12-02T22:17:00.000-08:00um, are you there?i guess this thread is done. wh...um, are you there?i guess this thread is done. what a shameAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-85735531674259053192008-12-01T19:57:00.000-08:002008-12-01T19:57:00.000-08:00you mean the CTC's and such (you can ignore th...you mean the CTC's and such (you can ignore the God/gods discussion)? Those aren't metaphysical entitites, but interesting manefestations of the "wild side" of general relativity. There was a paper, like i said, on this verey topic, by J. Richard Gott, III and Li-Xin Li (Can the Universe create itself?):<BR/>http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F9712344.<BR/><BR/>After that discussion, cwfong gets into the whole "time is only a metaphor" argument, and i think it is important to note this beforehand:<BR/><BR/>Posted by: John Morales- #211- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/siwoti_syndrome_open_thread.php<BR/><BR/>RickrOll, I suppose cwfong seems to be saying that, if the Universe is but one of many embedded in some Metaverse, and if the Metaverse is eternal, it "says little" to investigate any given universe's origin or end.<BR/><BR/>I don't see how it follows, even granting the premises, and the light beams example doesn't seem relevant.<BR/><BR/>cwfong seems to be poo-pooing the very concept of time's arrow as relevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-70269461855773820812008-12-01T14:19:00.000-08:002008-12-01T14:19:00.000-08:00Ah :)Seriously, I honestly don't know. I have been...Ah :)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, I honestly don't know. I have been working on developing a level of understanding of the math behind the theories. From a purely conceptual point of view, I find the multiverse quite compelling, but without understanding the math I'm not really able to take a position and stand behind it.<BR/><BR/>As far as the comment thread there, I think I agree pretty solidly with you on this point:<BR/>"i have to agree that the only life we know of is us, so the universe being "primed for life" seems excruciatingly ad hoc. We don't even know if the paramenters can be changed in the first place, like jim harrison said."<BR/><BR/>However, I had a little trouble following the rest of the thread, which seemed to get bogged down with a bit too much metaphysics.<BR/><BR/>(for anyone else reading, we're talking about this post/thread:)<BR/>http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2008/11/is_the_multiverse_real.php#commentsquasarpulsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762550806982089851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-79391024396181597882008-12-01T13:23:00.000-08:002008-12-01T13:23:00.000-08:00i was agreeing with you. It is from the evolution...i was agreeing with you. It is from the evolutionblog article, which paraphrased the other. The original stated that the facts fit the theory, but it is quite ther reverse, as the multiverse hypothoses has made no predictions other than 'anything and everything.' I think that there is a multiverse, simply from a eternal inflation perspective. The "fine tuning" line of reasoning is a red herring, and should be recognized as such. <BR/>Now honestly, i don't care about your qualifications quasar, i just want to know where you stand. I have no qualifications either. In particular, what are your thoughts on my comments and those of cwfong? they are great fodder for discussion, after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-81054951802546093792008-12-01T10:17:00.000-08:002008-12-01T10:17:00.000-08:00I think you may be misunderstanding - I liked the ...I think you may be misunderstanding - I liked the EvolutionBlog post (which I only found some days after I wrote this one - I'm not responding to it or any of the comments in it). I just think the Discover article was a disaster.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure where you got the quote "The hypothesis of a multiverse explains a lot of data" but as far as I can tell, it's not from me - with whom are you arguing?<BR/><BR/>Re: multiverse, I'm not yet qualified to have an opinion.quasarpulsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762550806982089851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-56111096955790447652008-11-30T23:46:00.000-08:002008-11-30T23:46:00.000-08:00come on, aren't you being a little bit too critica...come on, aren't you being a little bit too critical, quasar? If you take it, in and of itself, the article isn't very strong, but the post in it's entirety is quite good. Many comments offer the same criticisms that you point out. I am talking of course about the EvolutionBlog post, not the article, or meta-article. That article only made some claims, nothing doncrete. "The hypothesis of a multiverse explains a lot of data"- flat out wrong, the multiverse is something which comes from the information, and makes no predictions as of yet.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, i am confused: multiverse- yes or no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-76139191450745423492008-11-29T07:45:00.000-08:002008-11-29T07:45:00.000-08:00I was giving them the benefit of the doubt on that...I was giving them the benefit of the doubt on that particular assumption, which, I agree, is not a great one to make. The puddle is an excellent analogy.<BR/><BR/>But I am aware of legitimate scientists outside the pop-science-writing universe who make actual arguments about the essential arbitrariness of the fine structure constant, and while I'm not 100% sure I agree with them, I'm also not 100% equipped to argue with them, not knowing everything they used to come to that conclusion.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if there are any scientists actually trying to make the argument that the article outlined...I don't know what to say. Even granting the possibility that they're right about the fine-tuning being a matter of chance, which I'm prepared to concede for the sake of debate, their argument still falls apart.quasarpulsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762550806982089851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1466552513513999074.post-59881043656631995642008-11-29T04:32:00.000-08:002008-11-29T04:32:00.000-08:00I'd back up the mistake(s) further. How do we kno...I'd back up the mistake(s) further. How do we know that the universe as it is is improbable? To define probability you divide the number of times the experiment (tossing a coin, whatever) came out the way that you wanted by the total number of trials. For the universe, we have 1 trial and it came out with us. Insofar as you can talk about probability, which you can't really about a singular event, the probability of a universe like ours is 1.<BR/><BR/>Slightly more generally, there's nothing that says that, say, the fine structure constant really could be very different from what it is. The apparent 'fine tuning' is that we've chosen a particular set of units and <I>assume</I> that the variable can range from zero to infinity. Yet we've never observed a universe where it's different. Until we do, it's ... er, premature to talk of the present universe being improbable.<BR/><BR/>For now, we're in the situation of Douglas Adams' puddle -- surprised that the hole we're in matches our size so well.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.com