Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Parallel Universes Confirmed

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:12:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You might want to explain all those things in layman's terms. Even I'm not familiar with all of that jargon.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:13:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .

So usually I am have guarded reactions to what you post, but this is genuinely cool... like in a way that I can't even begin to describe.
Tsar of DDO
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The predictions are confirmed. It doesn't mean the theory has been. There's more to "confirmation" than that. Theories have historically many times made plenty of useful predictions that lined up with reality, but the theory ended up being false. In fact, some theories are used only for their predictions without there being any belief in them. One Nobel winner, for example, in a book I read recently, had a theory that he didn't believe in despite its verified predictions. It was merely useful for its explanatory power, he thought. The theory was latter accepted as true, but the point is, explanatory power isn't confirmation.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:30:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:22:58 PM, phantom wrote:
The predictions are confirmed. It doesn't mean the theory has been. There's more to "confirmation" than that. Theories have historically many times made plenty of useful predictions that lined up with reality, but the theory ended up being false. In fact, some theories are used only for their predictions without there being any belief in them. One Nobel winner, for example, in a book I read recently, had a theory that he didn't believe in despite its verified predictions. It was merely useful for its explanatory power, he thought. The theory was latter accepted as true, but the point is, explanatory power isn't confirmation.

That's fair and valid to point out, but it's still fascinating to consider. That it is fascinating to consider is why I think its so cool.
Tsar of DDO
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:46:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Haha there's not, besides, spacetime is a mathematical space, and so thermalization isn't relevant to a very early universe that can be likened to a black hole. I've read both these papers already and this confirmation isn't at all surprising so far.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:52:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There was once a time when it was consensus is not to use dung as a remedy for illness (because it was once thought that health was contingent upon balanced humors). The presence or absence of consensus is not sufficient to indicate validity or lack thereof. It's just a theory, Dylan.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:55:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:52:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There was once a time when it was consensus is not to use dung as a remedy for illness (because it was once thought that health was contingent upon balanced humors). The presence or absence of consensus is not sufficient to indicate validity or lack thereof. It's just a theory, Dylan.

Yes, but I'm not smart enough to validate or null any scientific theories of this statue, so I dependent on those who devote there life to this kind of stuff for my conclusions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:55:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:55:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:52:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There was once a time when it was consensus is not to use dung as a remedy for illness (because it was once thought that health was contingent upon balanced humors). The presence or absence of consensus is not sufficient to indicate validity or lack thereof. It's just a theory, Dylan.

Yes, but I'm not smart enough to validate or null any scientific theories of this statue, so I dependent on those who devote there life to this kind of stuff for my conclusions.

stature*
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:04:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .

What does this confirm? Nothing here is coherent. Copying things off of pop science magazines or Wikipedia is not a remotely accurate verifier of scientific theories. Why is this a consistent pattern with you?

The Copenhagen and Many-worlds interpretations both fit the observations.That's why they're called interpretations.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:04:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:55:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:52:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There was once a time when it was consensus is not to use dung as a remedy for illness (because it was once thought that health was contingent upon balanced humors). The presence or absence of consensus is not sufficient to indicate validity or lack thereof. It's just a theory, Dylan.

Yes, but I'm not smart enough to validate or null any scientific theories of this statue, so I dependent on those who devote there life to this kind of stuff for my conclusions.

Holy mother of Christ, I agree with you. Besides, the title of the thread included a sense of certainty.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:05:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:55:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:52:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There was once a time when it was consensus is not to use dung as a remedy for illness (because it was once thought that health was contingent upon balanced humors). The presence or absence of consensus is not sufficient to indicate validity or lack thereof. It's just a theory, Dylan.

Yes, but I'm not smart enough to validate or null any scientific theories of this statue, so I dependent on those who devote there life to this kind of stuff for my conclusions.

Holy mother of God, I made so many grammar errors in this.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:08:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 11:05:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:55:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:52:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There was once a time when it was consensus is not to use dung as a remedy for illness (because it was once thought that health was contingent upon balanced humors). The presence or absence of consensus is not sufficient to indicate validity or lack thereof. It's just a theory, Dylan.

Yes, but I'm not smart enough to validate or null any scientific theories of this statue, so I dependent on those who devote there life to this kind of stuff for my conclusions.

Holy mother of God, I made so many grammar errors in this.

I guess it only would serve to prove my point.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:12:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .

Citation needed: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:14:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:30:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:22:58 PM, phantom wrote:
The predictions are confirmed. It doesn't mean the theory has been. There's more to "confirmation" than that. Theories have historically many times made plenty of useful predictions that lined up with reality, but the theory ended up being false. In fact, some theories are used only for their predictions without there being any belief in them. One Nobel winner, for example, in a book I read recently, had a theory that he didn't believe in despite its verified predictions. It was merely useful for its explanatory power, he thought. The theory was latter accepted as true, but the point is, explanatory power isn't confirmation.

That's fair and valid to point out, but it's still fascinating to consider. That it is fascinating to consider is why I think its so cool.

True, but the title was misleading. Confirmation of (4 out of 5) predictions is far from a confirmation of the theory itself, so I was a little disappointed.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:20:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 11:14:10 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:30:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:22:58 PM, phantom wrote:
The predictions are confirmed. It doesn't mean the theory has been. There's more to "confirmation" than that. Theories have historically many times made plenty of useful predictions that lined up with reality, but the theory ended up being false. In fact, some theories are used only for their predictions without there being any belief in them. One Nobel winner, for example, in a book I read recently, had a theory that he didn't believe in despite its verified predictions. It was merely useful for its explanatory power, he thought. The theory was latter accepted as true, but the point is, explanatory power isn't confirmation.

That's fair and valid to point out, but it's still fascinating to consider. That it is fascinating to consider is why I think its so cool.

True, but the title was misleading. Confirmation of (4 out of 5) predictions is far from a confirmation of the theory itself, so I was a little disappointed.

No other theory of pre-Big Bang events has ever been testable, let alone had any sort of confirmation. There is literally no reason to not believe this theory on the basis of lack of evidence. She made several predictions that were confirmed after she made them; this was not even a retroactive theory.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:21:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:22:58 PM, phantom wrote:
The predictions are confirmed. It doesn't mean the theory has been. There's more to "confirmation" than that. Theories have historically many times made plenty of useful predictions that lined up with reality, but the theory ended up being false. In fact, some theories are used only for their predictions without there being any belief in them. One Nobel winner, for example, in a book I read recently, had a theory that he didn't believe in despite its verified predictions. It was merely useful for its explanatory power, he thought. The theory was latter accepted as true, but the point is, explanatory power isn't confirmation.

What is the brightline for confirmation? Do you consider evolution confirmed?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:22:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There is no consensus about any scientific issue, including natural selection. Consensus is not what makes a theory true. Providing testable observations does.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:24:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Haha there's not, besides, spacetime is a mathematical space, and so thermalization isn't relevant to a very early universe that can be likened to a black hole. I've read both these papers already and this confirmation isn't at all surprising so far.

The early universe was not like a black hole . . . Where did you get this from? It may have been like a black hole prior to the big bang, but her theory suggest that our universe was linked to another universe at some point. That is the origin of the Cold Spot.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:25:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Haha there's not, besides, spacetime is a mathematical space, and so thermalization isn't relevant to a very early universe that can be likened to a black hole. I've read both these papers already and this confirmation isn't at all surprising so far.

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but somehow I doubt that you read these papers in your theology classes, especially since the observations were released last month. This is far beyond the scope of theology.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:26:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:55:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:52:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

There was once a time when it was consensus is not to use dung as a remedy for illness (because it was once thought that health was contingent upon balanced humors). The presence or absence of consensus is not sufficient to indicate validity or lack thereof. It's just a theory, Dylan.

Yes, but I'm not smart enough to validate or null any scientific theories of this statue, so I dependent on those who devote there life to this kind of stuff for my conclusions.

Ok, so I guess you do not believe in natural selection since several creation scientists oppose it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:26:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 11:12:50 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .

Citation needed: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Everyone knew where I pulled the text from.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 3:41:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:13:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .

So usually I am have guarded reactions to what you post, but this is genuinely cool... like in a way that I can't even begin to describe.

whoa... Pope YYW has blessed your post Royal, you should be honored!1!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 4:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 3:41:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:13:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .

So usually I am have guarded reactions to what you post, but this is genuinely cool... like in a way that I can't even begin to describe.

whoa... Pope YYW has blessed your post Royal, you should be honored!1!

Pope YYW?

Beautiful.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 8:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somehow I doubt there's consensus on this among the scientists.

"The greatest scientists in history," "Are great because they broke with the consensus."

"Crichton"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:27:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The blue pill - Cosmologists are smart and you should trust their conclusions even when you don't understand them. They said they used rules and stuff. It has to be like math.

The red pill - Confirming the existence of another universe makes literally no sense. And you should understand the proof yourself before you go accepting something.

Everyone in this thread must succumb to my beautiful false dichotomy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:33:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 1:27:21 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The blue pill - Cosmologists are smart and you should trust their conclusions even when you don't understand them. They said they used rules and stuff. It has to be like math.

The red pill - Confirming the existence of another universe makes literally no sense. And you should understand the proof yourself before you go accepting something.

Everyone in this thread must succumb to my beautiful false dichotomy.

You are deliciously evil.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 7:06:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Laura Mersini-Houghton (n"e Mersini) is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included five predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013);CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013);dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010).[citation needed] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse, is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches .

I"m familiar with Laura Mersini-Houghton"s work and I think she"s brilliant, but this Wikipedia article is profoundly misleading, as is the title of this thread.

The article says that her theory is derived "from the landscape multiverse", which is true, but it also says that "the theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles", which explicitly contradicts the first statement because Landscape theory completely contradicts fundamental physics and first principles. Fundamental physics and first principles state that the Universe is governed by the natural laws of physics, but the Landscape theory challenges that presumption by postulating that the natural laws of physics aren"t stable, rather they fluctuate randomly, and then conveniently allows you the freedom to establish a theory that disregards the laws of physics.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 7:14:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 7:06:12 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Egads, it looks like I typed that with my toes...

I'm familiar with Laura Mersini-Houghton's work and I think she's brilliant, but this Wikipedia article is profoundly misleading, as is the title of this thread.

The article says that her theory is " developed from the landscape multiverse", which is true, but it also says that "the theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles", which explicitly contradicts the first statement because Landscape theory completely contradicts fundamental physics and first principles.

Fundamental physics and first principles state that the Universe is governed by the natural laws of physics, but the Landscape theory challenges that presumption by postulating that the natural laws of physics aren't stable, rather they fluctuate randomly, and then conveniently allows you the freedom to establish a theory that disregards the laws of physics.

...fixed
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater