Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Interesting despite one glaring error

The Multiverse Idea Is Rotting Culture - The Atlantic

Well, I suppose magazine editors don't have to know much about science, but I'm still surprised that this article was let through with a paragraph that talks about a laser shooting electrons.

Nonetheless, it's worth a read. 

[I'm not saying it's particularly well written, by the way, but it eventually raises some interesting issues.  It's getting a drubbing in comments, where I am also surprised to not yet see anyone grinding their teeth on the laser/electron thing.]

3 comments:

Jason Soon said...

while I'm not wedded to the multiverse theory that is one stupid article. There is a big difference between the multiverse theory and the God theory - one appears to be logically implied by what we have discovered so far, the other one isn't for one thing. and there are ways of indirectly testing it (isn't quantum computing indirect evidence?). but as I say, I'm not wedded to the idea and am not wholly satisfied with it but the article doesn't even go into the science at all

Steve said...

I've only been able to scan/read the article quickly, and will probably have more to say about it later.
I'm certainly not firmly wedded to the multiverse, either - I like to raise all the time it more as an amusingly bizarre idea that nonetheless a lot of scientists have convinced themselves must be true. Maybe it is, but it seems too messy to be true...
As for the article not going into the science - well, yeah, I thought he made it pretty clear he was mainly concerned with the philosophical/psychological aspects (although as I say I have rushed through it.)
The personal or moral implications of it have interested me ever since I read that Everett (and his daughter) thought the idea did guarantee immortality. Remember my post from 2007?

http://opiniondominion.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/revisiting-many-worlds.html

Jason Soon said...

"As for the article not going into the science - well, yeah, I thought he made it pretty clear he was mainly concerned with the philosophical/psychological aspects "

Well yeah but I think he's got it completely wrong on the philosophical aspects too and that's partly because he doesn't really understand the science. I don't think it's got anything to do with what he thinks it does e.g. a prop and all that. Scientists who support the theory don't necessarily like it, they just think it's logically implied, it's not comforting at all to a logician