> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous > > Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous > precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence
Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the question in metaphysics. Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference. Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. Bruno > > Jim Baggott > @JimBaggott > > ... > > Sean Carroll, a vocal advocate for the Many-Worlds interpretation, prefers > abduction, or what he calls ‘inference to the best explanation’, which leaves > us with theories that are merely ‘parsimonious’, a matter of judgment, and > ‘still might reasonably be true’. But whose judgment? In the absence of > facts, what constitutes ‘the best explanation’? > > Carroll seeks to dress his notion of inference in the cloth of respectability > provided by something called Bayesian probability theory, happily overlooking > its entirely subjective nature. It’s a short step from here to the > theorist-turned-philosopher Richard Dawid’s efforts to justify the string > theory programme in terms of ‘theoretically confirmed theory’ and > ‘non-empirical theory assessment’. The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a > choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical > evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be > readily engineered to suit personal prejudices. > > Welcome to the oxymoron that is post-empirical science. > > ... > > Still, what’s the big deal? So what if a handful of theoretical physicists > want to indulge their inner metaphysician and publish papers that few outside > their small academic circle will ever read? But look back to the beginning of > this essay. Whether they intend it or not (and trust me, they intend it), > this stuff has a habit of leaking into the public domain, dripping like acid > into the very foundations of science. The publication of Carroll’s book > Something Deeply Hidden, about the Many-Worlds interpretation, has been > accompanied by an astonishing publicity blitz, including an essay on Aeon > last month. A recent PBS News Hour piece led with the observation that: ‘The > “Many-Worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that, with every decision > you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what amounts to a > new version of you.’ > > ... > > Perhaps we should begin with a small first step. Let’s acknowledge that > theoretical physicists are perfectly entitled to believe, write and say > whatever they want, within reason. But is it asking too much that they make > their assertions with some honesty? Instead of ‘the multiverse exists’ and > ‘it might be true’, is it really so difficult to say something like ‘the > multiverse has some philosophical attractions, but it is highly speculative > and controversial, and there is no evidence for it’? I appreciate that such > caveats get lost or become mangled when transferred into a popular media > obsessed with sensation, but this would then be a failure of journalism or > science writing, rather than a failure of scientific integrity. > > > @philipthrift > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c03feca-3d8f-4a20-bc53-de9697dd85a8%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c03feca-3d8f-4a20-bc53-de9697dd85a8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C817DB0A-CE60-4231-992C-380B6BCE683A%40ulb.ac.be.
