Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Is the Multiverse theory dead?

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:03:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://carm.org...

An interesting article from carm.org. Let me know your thoughts :)

One needs a subscription to read the actual article from New Scientist fyi.

The scientists mentioned:
Alexander Vilenkin
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Andrei Linde
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Alan Guth
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am guessing the New Scientist magazine is probably a proponent of some form a pro-theism with science thing but its worth the read imho.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:07:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am actually a proponent of multiverse theory, so I will be researching this. The original article you cited, however, is completely biased.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, here is the first problem I have with New Scientist: "New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[2] which since 1996 has also run a website, covering recent developments in science and technology for a general audience."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Second, New Scientist has been noted in the past for publishing sensationlist ideas that are not backed up completely (I was wondering why it was a non peer-review magazine.)

"EmDrive article

In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the law of conservation of momentum. Egan urged others to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides".[11]

The editor of New Scientist, then Jeremy Webb, replied defending the article, saying that it is "an ideas magazine—that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories".[12]

[edit] Darwin cover

In January 2009, New Scientist ran a cover with the title "Darwin was wrong". The actual story stated that specific details of Darwin's evolution theory had been shown wrong, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species.[13] However, prominent champions of evolution engaged in opposing intelligent design beliefs thought the cover was both sensationalist and damaging to the scientific community.[13][14] Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True (ISBN 0199230846) and its related blog, called for a boycott of the magazine, which was supported by prominent evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers.[13]"
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:13:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:07:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I am actually a proponent of multiverse theory, so I will be researching this. The original article you cited, however, is completely biased.

Everyone is biased in some manner. Being biased leads to great discoveries and great failures lolz.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:15:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:13:08 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:07:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I am actually a proponent of multiverse theory, so I will be researching this. The original article you cited, however, is completely biased.

Everyone is biased in some manner. Being biased leads to great discoveries and great failures lolz.

Being biased to that degree does not lead to anything but backlash.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:08:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, here is the first problem I have with New Scientist: "New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[2] which since 1996 has also run a website, covering recent developments in science and technology for a general audience."

I personally think peer review is undoubtedly a strong argument for an idea to be justified but it also has its faults. I don't take everything that is peer reviewed as fact (as I assume we all would). There are critisisms for it as anything else (http://en.wikipedia.org...) not that wiki means much lolz.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:17:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:15:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:08:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, here is the first problem I have with New Scientist: "New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[2] which since 1996 has also run a website, covering recent developments in science and technology for a general audience."

I personally think peer review is undoubtedly a strong argument for an idea to be justified but it also has its faults. I don't take everything that is peer reviewed as fact (as I assume we all would). There are critisisms for it as anything else (http://en.wikipedia.org...) not that wiki means much lolz.

One argument against it is that it is slow LMAO.

I would say that peer-reviewed material probably has more validity than random material that is published on the internet. A finding as earthshattering as their claims should be published in Science or Nature, and not in New Scientist. There must be a reason that their paper was rejected.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:22:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:17:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:15:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:08:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, here is the first problem I have with New Scientist: "New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[2] which since 1996 has also run a website, covering recent developments in science and technology for a general audience."

I personally think peer review is undoubtedly a strong argument for an idea to be justified but it also has its faults. I don't take everything that is peer reviewed as fact (as I assume we all would). There are critisisms for it as anything else (http://en.wikipedia.org...) not that wiki means much lolz.

One argument against it is that it is slow LMAO.

I would say that peer-reviewed material probably has more validity than random material that is published on the internet. A finding as earthshattering as their claims should be published in Science or Nature, and not in New Scientist. There must be a reason that their paper was rejected.

Good point (I love the siggs lolz). Some out of the blue idea should be reject because its not agreed upon by peer review. However, ideas like this are not just 'random' material. I am not a huge fan of the ID movement but its large and should imo not be discarded on the basis that it goes against the tide so to speak.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:24:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:22:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:17:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:15:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:08:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, here is the first problem I have with New Scientist: "New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[2] which since 1996 has also run a website, covering recent developments in science and technology for a general audience."

I personally think peer review is undoubtedly a strong argument for an idea to be justified but it also has its faults. I don't take everything that is peer reviewed as fact (as I assume we all would). There are critisisms for it as anything else (http://en.wikipedia.org...) not that wiki means much lolz.

One argument against it is that it is slow LMAO.

I would say that peer-reviewed material probably has more validity than random material that is published on the internet. A finding as earthshattering as their claims should be published in Science or Nature, and not in New Scientist. There must be a reason that their paper was rejected.

Good point (I love the siggs lolz). Some out of the blue idea should be reject because its not agreed upon by peer review. However, ideas like this are not just 'random' material. I am not a huge fan of the ID movement but its large and should imo not be discarded on the basis that it goes against the tide so to speak.

Oh, I agree that this is not why ID should be discarded. It should be discarded because all hypotheses must be testable, and ID cannot be tested at all.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:27:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:24:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:22:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:17:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:15:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:08:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, here is the first problem I have with New Scientist: "New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[2] which since 1996 has also run a website, covering recent developments in science and technology for a general audience."

I personally think peer review is undoubtedly a strong argument for an idea to be justified but it also has its faults. I don't take everything that is peer reviewed as fact (as I assume we all would). There are critisisms for it as anything else (http://en.wikipedia.org...) not that wiki means much lolz.

One argument against it is that it is slow LMAO.

I would say that peer-reviewed material probably has more validity than random material that is published on the internet. A finding as earthshattering as their claims should be published in Science or Nature, and not in New Scientist. There must be a reason that their paper was rejected.

Good point (I love the siggs lolz). Some out of the blue idea should be reject because its not agreed upon by peer review. However, ideas like this are not just 'random' material. I am not a huge fan of the ID movement but its large and should imo not be discarded on the basis that it goes against the tide so to speak.

Oh, I agree that this is not why ID should be discarded. It should be discarded because all hypotheses must be testable, and ID cannot be tested at all.

Interesting. Would you say their conclusions are axiomatic at best?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:39:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like how it was an anti-atheist article, it assumes atheists believe in a multiverse by default. In reality, I don't know if there are multiple universes or not and don't believe in it either way.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:45:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 7:24:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:22:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:17:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:15:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/28/2012 7:08:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, here is the first problem I have with New Scientist: "New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[2] which since 1996 has also run a website, covering recent developments in science and technology for a general audience."

I personally think peer review is undoubtedly a strong argument for an idea to be justified but it also has its faults. I don't take everything that is peer reviewed as fact (as I assume we all would). There are critisisms for it as anything else (http://en.wikipedia.org...) not that wiki means much lolz.

One argument against it is that it is slow LMAO.

I would say that peer-reviewed material probably has more validity than random material that is published on the internet. A finding as earthshattering as their claims should be published in Science or Nature, and not in New Scientist. There must be a reason that their paper was rejected.

Good point (I love the siggs lolz). Some out of the blue idea should be reject because its not agreed upon by peer review. However, ideas like this are not just 'random' material. I am not a huge fan of the ID movement but its large and should imo not be discarded on the basis that it goes against the tide so to speak.

Oh, I agree that this is not why ID should be discarded. It should be discarded because all hypotheses must be testable, and ID cannot be tested at all.

Have you actually read the work of the more sophisticated ID advocates like Stephen Meyer and his book "Signature in the Cell"?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 7:56:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: its as simple as this./.

The purpose of universe is to refer too all things that exist. (Whatever they might be)
The whole of all things. And thus it could never be that there are multiuniverse for this would only be parts of the whole. Thus really only being a sub-universe which should be given different names. Uni- refer to the whole. and verse to multi things. So its nonsense to say multiuniverse. Secondly these assertion are done with statistical tools which can't ever give certaintly and the further the claim the less likley.

There is nothing related to religion at all. It is aside from the fact. Even the big bang THEORY, does say anything about the universe not existing. It only claim that it was in a non expanding state. There is never any assertion or reason to think the universe didn't exist. They simply mean in the form we see it today.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL