Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 2:55:09 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:12 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> I'll bet you Adrian Kent's paper* (did you read it?) is netter than 
>> Shut Up And Read Sean Carroll's Book On Many Worlds.*
>
>
> I won't even ask you if you read it because I know you didn't, I didn't 
> either but at least I skimmed it and found it said:
>
> "*This motivates exploring ways to go beyond standard quantum theory, for 
> example by adding extra mathematical structure (as in de Broglie-Bohm 
> theory  or new dynamical laws (as in GRWP models)*."
>
> And Carroll talks in detail about both Broglie-Bohm theory and GRWP models 
> in his book, so what is this "curious omission" you accuse Carroll of 
> making? And the above is entirely consistent with Carroll saying that Hugh 
> Everett did not add anything new to quantum mechanics, instead he just 
> stripped out a lot of extraneous stuff because Many Worlds does not need to 
> "add extra mathematical structure" to make it fit observation. The only 
> purpose of that extra mathematical stuff is to get rid of many worlds, it 
> does nothing else. And
> William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.
>
>  John K Clark
>



In any case, Kent dismisses Many Worlds. One World is enough:

*One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, 
probability, and scientific confirmation*
Adrian Kent
https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624

*Against Many-Worlds Interpretations*
Adrian Kent
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9703089


@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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66d0df09-c86d-496b-8236-d70f007bf1d2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[John Clark]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:12 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> I'll bet you Adrian Kent's paper* (did you read it?) is netter than Shut
> Up And Read Sean Carroll's Book On Many Worlds.*


I won't even ask you if you read it because I know you didn't, I didn't
either but at least I skimmed it and found it said:

"*This motivates exploring ways to go beyond standard quantum theory, for
example by adding extra mathematical structure (as in de Broglie-Bohm
theory  or new dynamical laws (as in GRWP models)*."

And Carroll talks in detail about both Broglie-Bohm theory and GRWP models
in his book, so what is this "curious omission" you accuse Carroll of
making? And the above is entirely consistent with Carroll saying that Hugh
Everett did not add anything new to quantum mechanics, instead he just
stripped out a lot of extraneous stuff because Many Worlds does not need to
"add extra mathematical structure" to make it fit observation. The only
purpose of that extra mathematical stuff is to get rid of many worlds, it
does nothing else. And
William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv17Jr8ah9tmKgVSZPFfcPVEB3XFZ2VVtVjpoq%2BAirqY-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:59:04 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> Path Integrals and Reality*
>> Adrian Kent
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6565.pdf 
>> 
>>
>> *> We define the idea of real path quantum theory, a realist 
>> generalization of quantum theory in which it is postulated that the 
>> configuration space path actually followed by a closed quantum system is 
>> probabilistically chosen. ... The ultimate vision of those who take path 
>> integral quantum theory as fundamental to all of physics is a path integral 
>> formulation of quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.*
>>
>
> And how does that differ from the Shut Up And Calculate quantum 
> interpretation?
>
>

I'll bet you Adrian Kent's paper* (did you read it?) is netter than Shut Up 
And Read Sean Carroll's Book On Many Worlds.

* "It gives a clear physical meaning to the paths and to probabilities 
associated with them. It also suggests a clear and conceptually 
unproblematic way of justifying from first principles the appearance of 
quasiclassical trajectories."

@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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5cccae4b-e051-4be1-90e9-8170fb3c5916%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[John Clark]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> Path Integrals and Reality*
> Adrian Kent
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6565.pdf
>
> *> We define the idea of real path quantum theory, a realist
> generalization of quantum theory in which it is postulated that the
> configuration space path actually followed by a closed quantum system is
> probabilistically chosen. ... The ultimate vision of those who take path
> integral quantum theory as fundamental to all of physics is a path integral
> formulation of quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.*
>

And how does that differ from the Shut Up And Calculate quantum
interpretation?

>> do you think GRW theory is also a danger to science just as Many Worlds
>> is? Should everybody just stick with Shut Up And Calculate and stop asking
>> difficult questions?
>>
>
> *> Beats me.*
>

It doesn't beat me, I find those questions to be remarkably easy. And the
answers to both is a big fat *NO!*

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv3DY8g8UcQU4JTZXLvX2_ZC9kpw31oQy5wq_7b45wp-9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 Path integrals are a method of calculation not a quantum interpretation ...
>



*Path Integrals and Reality*
Adrian Kent
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6565.pdf


*We define the idea of real path quantum theory, a realist generalization 
of quantum theory in which it is postulated that the configuration space 
path actually followed by a closed quantum system is probabilistically 
chosen. ... The ultimate vision of those who take path integral quantum 
theory as fundamental to all of physics is a path integral formulation of 
quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.*


 

>
>
> And do you think GRW theory is also a danger to science just as Many 
> Worlds is? Should everybody just stick with Shut Up And Calculate and stop 
> asking difficult questions?
>
>  John K Clark 
>


Beats me.

@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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f45ef3d-a114-46e8-9b61-acbf76374ad9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[John Clark]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 1:35 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> I did a search of his book [
> https://books.google.com/books?id=f16IDwAAQBAJ ] and though he does write
> about *Feynman diagrams* I don't see anything about *path integrals*.
> That would be a curious omission.
>

Huh? I don't see what you're driving at. Path integrals are a method of
calculation not a quantum interpretation, even the very inventor of the
path integral approach admitted it, that's why he was never entirely
satisfied with what he had created, and that why he never stopped saying
"nobody understands quantum mechanics".

And do you think GRW theory is also a danger to science just as Many Worlds
is? Should everybody just stick with Shut Up And Calculate and stop asking
difficult questions?

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv1p9wjcvamNYSO33SKp%3DrgeHhrmDHFu6cUHxMWcaL2RGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 9:32:04 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:49 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>
>> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous
>>
>
> *> the so-called Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there 
>> are universes containing our parallel selves, identical to us but for their 
>> different experiences of quantum physics. These theories are attractive to 
>> some few theoretical physicists and philosophers, but there is absolutely 
>> no empirical evidence for them.*
>
>
> I would maintain that the 2 slit experiment is, not proof, but evidence 
> that Many Worlds is right because if it is right then the odd results from 
> that experiment is exactly what you should expect to see; and if it's not 
> right and those other worlds do not exist then, to be compatible with 
> observation, new physics must be postulated, such as in 
> Ghirardi-Rimini–Weber theory (GRW).  GRW modifies the Schrodinger equation 
> so it's no longer completely deterministic (Einstein would not have liked 
> that) and as a result on very rare random occasions, about once every 
> hundred million years, the wave function of a particle spontaneously 
> collapses for no reason at all. Despite claims, made by those who haven't 
> read it, that Carroll's book doesn't talk about alternatives to Many Worlds 
> he goes into much more detail about GRW than I have here, but please note 
> that the bottom line fact is *there is absolutely no empirical evidence 
> that GRW theory is true*. So is GRW also a danger to science?
>
>  John K Clark
>

I did a search of his book [ https://books.google.com/books?id=f16IDwAAQBAJ ] 
and though he does write about *Feynman diagrams* I don't see anything 
about *path integrals*. 

That would be a curious omission.


https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04178

Path integrals, spontaneous localisation, and the classical limit
Bhavya Bhatt 
, Manish 
Ram Chander 
, Raj 
Patil 
, Ruchira Mishra 
, Shlok 
Nahar 
, Tejinder P. Singh 

(Submitted on 13 Aug 2018 (v1 ), last 
revised 31 Jan 2019 (this version, v3))

We recall that in order to obtain the classical limit of quantum mechanics 
one needs to take the ℏ→0 limit. In addition, one also needs an explanation 
for the absence of macroscopic quantum superposition of position states. 
One possible explanation for the latter is the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) 
model of spontaneous localisation. Here we describe how spontaneous 
localisation modifies the path integral formulation of density matrix 
evolution in quantum mechanics. (Such a formulation has been derived 
earlier by Pearle and Soucek; we provide two new derivations of their 
result). We then show how the von Neumann equation and the Liouville 
equation for the density matrix arise in the quantum and classical limit, 
respectively, from the GRW path integral. Thus we provide a rigorous 
demonstration of the quantum to classical transition.


@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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83850285-686d-4f82-9904-f882294781f2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:49 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous
>

*> the so-called Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are
> universes containing our parallel selves, identical to us but for their
> different experiences of quantum physics. These theories are attractive to
> some few theoretical physicists and philosophers, but there is absolutely
> no empirical evidence for them.*


I would maintain that the 2 slit experiment is, not proof, but evidence
that Many Worlds is right because if it is right then the odd results from
that experiment is exactly what you should expect to see; and if it's not
right and those other worlds do not exist then, to be compatible with
observation, new physics must be postulated, such as in
Ghirardi-Rimini–Weber theory (GRW).  GRW modifies the Schrodinger equation
so it's no longer completely deterministic (Einstein would not have liked
that) and as a result on very rare random occasions, about once every
hundred million years, the wave function of a particle spontaneously
collapses for no reason at all. Despite claims, made by those who haven't
read it, that Carroll's book doesn't talk about alternatives to Many Worlds
he goes into much more detail about GRW than I have here, but please note
that the bottom line fact is *there is absolutely no empirical evidence
that GRW theory is true*. So is GRW also a danger to science?

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv0fsYbDAejnqj%3Djmdj3-Dw%3DG2LP1LOv2D%3DOgVtn3yn2Ww%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Oct 2019, at 21:22, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift > 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
> 
> 
> x emerges from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for hyperarithmetical  
> theory.
> 
> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may be 
> a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be applied. 
> However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from spatial 
> continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 

Me neither. Digital Mechanism makes one observable at least ranging on the 
continuum, but it is possible that it concerns only the frequency operator. 
There is a continuum of computational extensions, as the universal dovetailer 
dovetails also on the input, including the elements of any possible field like 
R, C, H or O. (H = the quaternion, O = the octonion).

My body is locally a machine entails that we are confronted to many non 
mechanical entities, just by the first person indeterminacy. But now, many of 
them can be equivalent with respect to the prediction, so “counting” the worlds 
is beyond the mathematics available today, and it is not clear if such counting 
makes sense.

I got recent clues that the high cardinals might play a role in the origin of 
space, which is a “quantum” (in the arithmetical sense) phenomenon.

Bruno



> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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/9d2c5082-2896-4b97-82c1-89a6bdf03d1f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/0CDC8BF4-2814-4BB9-A431-7F12639C6C39%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Oct 2019, at 19:17, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift > 
>> 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
> 
> 
> x emerges from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
> ("nonstandard models”).

That is true for any theory in which you can prove that there is a universal 
machine (in the mathematical sense of Post, Church, Kleene, Turing, etc.

A fortiori that remains true for any physics in which we can build a universal 
machine, that is, a computer.




> There are other arithmetics for hyperarithmetical  theory.

With generalised Church-turing thesis. Yes, that exists and plays some role 
concerning the “analytical truth”, which plays some fundamental role for all 
the self-referential modes. But those are not new arithmetic, hyper 
arithmetical concerns the base of the analytical, and belongs to the 
phenomenology of the arithmetical.


> 
> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may be 
> a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.


OK.

Bruno



> 
> @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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/251723db-29a3-49ab-9d1b-92f8c234378e%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/51696AB3-313D-4196-96FC-FA21557B51DA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  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
>
>
 *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
 grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
 (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
 ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical 
  
 theory*.

 Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical 
 premises encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field 
 Equations) may be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in 
 instruments, their expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not 
 empirical.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
>>> applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
>>> spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 
>>>

  

>>> A traditional calculus alternative that could match the 
>> "continuity"-appearing  empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus.
>>
>>
>> *A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus*
>> International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> Was Fractional Calculus known when E developed GR? AG 
>


*Fractal calculus and its geometrical explanation*

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379718311951

Fractal calculus

The fractal 
 calculus 
is relatively new ...


...
@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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0f530eae-89e7-441c-b0f3-3a2340d6dbd1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  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


>>> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
>>> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
>>> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
>>> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
>>> theory*.
>>>
>>> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
>>> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
>>> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
>>> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
>> applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
>> spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 
>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> A traditional calculus alternative that could match the 
> "continuity"-appearing  empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus.
>
>
> *A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus*
> International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus
>
>
> @philipthrift 
>

Was Fractional Calculus known when E developed GR? AG 

-- 
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/a88412aa-d88f-4318-86ba-ec8bab205197%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  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
>>>
>>>
>> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
>> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
>> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
>> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
>> theory*.
>>
>> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
>> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
>> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
>> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
> applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
> spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 
>
>>
>>  
>>
> A traditional calculus alternative that could match the 
"continuity"-appearing  empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus.


*A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus*
International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus


@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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eb564e69-abb4-4232-a69e-c2d09a68d7a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  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
>>
>>
> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
> theory*.
>
> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
>
> @philipthrift
>

It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 

>
>  
>

-- 
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/9d2c5082-2896-4b97-82c1-89a6bdf03d1f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Tipler, and now Sean Carroll as well? :-) 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Oct 8, 2019 9:28 am
Subject: Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:12 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


> So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you on 
> this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to be 
> neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the rest 
> here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what I was 
> able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I follow 
> Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 trillion 
> years of dust,


I remember reading Tipler's book Physics of Immortality and thinking it was 
nuts. He had ideas about hyper-tech beings surviving the collapse of the 
universe beyond the Planck range and so forth and with an asymptote on time 
there is some infinite time. The book though has a nice set of appendices that 
are a decent quick reference on some physics. He did come out with something 
about the cosmology of the Trinity or some such thing. I skipped that. I think 
he has gone off the rails. 
LC 

I finished reading Tipler's book "The Physics Of Immortality" on Friday March 
15 1996 and liked it and I sent a post about it to the Extropian List that same 
day. At the time, nearly 24 years ago, I said the reason I liked his book was 
that:
"Tipler's Omega  Point Theory makes a bunch of predictions, practical 
predictions that should be able to be tested for in the next 4 or 5 years. 
Tipler himself states that every one of these predictions must turn out to be 
correct or the entire theory is dead in the water."
Well lets see how his predictions turned out"
"* Tipler predicts that the universe is closed: I think most would say it's 
probably open, Tipler says they're wrong. "
It turned out it was Tipler that was wrong and not only was he wrong Tipler was 
spectacularly wrong! The expansion of the universe is not reversing, it's not 
even slowing down, it is accelerating. 
"* Tipler predicts that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV: If he's  
correct then when the CERN Large Hadron Collider goes on line in 1999 it will 
find it almost immediately."  
The Higgs boson wasn't found until 2012, the delay wasn't Tipler's fault but 
his prediction was dead wrong, the mass of the Higgs boson turned out to be 
125.3 +- 0.4 GeV
"* Tipler predicts that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45" 
Today there is still disagreement over the exact value, some say its 66.9, 
another group says its 69.8, and another group says its 74.0, and yet another 
group says its 82.4; but nobody thinks its anywhere near 45.
So what is Tipler up to today? Well...back in 2007 the poor man went a little 
funny in the head, you know, just a little funny, and he went and did a silly 
thing; he wrote another book saying we should look for divine DNA on the Shroud 
of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary 
that was caused by an intense beam of neutrinos that must have shot out of the 
bottom of her feet thrusting her upward into heaven.
John K Clark

-- 
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/74fcb018-bd42-4b63-bc09-37134f86a178%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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/1799949804.5617132.1570561368560%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift > 
> 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
>
>
*x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
(that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
theory*.

Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.

@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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/251723db-29a3-49ab-9d1b-92f8c234378e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:12 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> > So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with 
>> you on this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics 
>> to be neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the 
>> rest here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what 
>> I was able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I 
>> follow Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 
>> trillion years of dust,
>>
>
I remember reading Tipler's book *Physics of Immortality* and thinking it 
was nuts. He had ideas about hyper-tech beings surviving the collapse of 
the universe beyond the Planck range and so forth and with an asymptote on 
time there is some infinite time. The book though has a nice set of 
appendices that are a decent quick reference on some physics. He did come 
out with something about the cosmology of the Trinity or some such thing. I 
skipped that. I think he has gone off the rails. 

LC
 

>
> I finished reading Tipler's book "The Physics Of Immortality" on Friday 
> March 15 1996 and liked it and I sent a post about it to the Extropian List 
> that same day. At the time, nearly 24 years ago, I said the reason I liked 
> his book was that:
>
> "*Tipler's Omega  Point Theory makes a bunch of predictions, practical 
> predictions that should be able to be tested for in the next 4 or 5 years. 
> Tipler himself states that every one of these predictions must turn out to 
> be correct or the entire theory is dead in the water*."
>
> Well lets see how his predictions turned out"
>
> "* *Tipler predicts that the universe is closed: I think most would say 
> it's probably open, Tipler says they're wrong.* "
>
> It turned out it was Tipler that was wrong and not only was he wrong 
> Tipler was *spectacularly* wrong! The expansion of the universe is not 
> reversing, it's not even slowing down, it is accelerating. 
>
> "* *Tipler predicts that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV: If 
> he's  correct then when the CERN Large Hadron Collider goes on line in 1999 
> it will find it almost immediately*."  
>
> The Higgs boson wasn't found until 2012, the delay wasn't Tipler's fault 
> but his prediction was dead wrong, the mass of the Higgs boson turned out 
> to be 125.3 +- 0.4 GeV
>
> "** Tipler predicts that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal 
> to 45*" 
>
> Today there is still disagreement over the exact value, some say its 66.9, 
> another group says its 69.8, and another group says its 74.0, and yet 
> another group says its 82.4; but nobody thinks its anywhere near 45.
>
> So what is Tipler up to today? Well...back in 2007 the poor man went a 
> little funny in the head, you know, just a little funny, and he went and 
> did a silly thing; he wrote another book saying we should look for divine 
> DNA on the Shroud of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the 
> Blessed Virgin Mary that was caused by an intense beam of neutrinos that 
> must have shot out of the bottom of her feet thrusting her upward into 
> heaven.
>
> John K Clark
>
>

-- 
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/74fcb018-bd42-4b63-bc09-37134f86a178%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c03feca-3d8f-4a20-bc53-de9697dd85a8%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I don't know if I disagree with you, JC (Bwah!) and like Tipler nevertheless. I 
mean to say that I am not disagreeing with your statements that Tipler's 
Standard Model back then has not kept up with what has been discovered. I don't 
worry about Jesus, too much and am sorry that the dude didn't return because of 
species needs all the help it can get. My point was that lots of physicists 
bend things to not accomodate a simple pic of the universe, and invoke endless 
universes which is very hard to prove. I still like Carrolls book, and in the 
long run, what's the diff?


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:12 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


> So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you on 
> this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to be 
> neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the rest 
> here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what I was 
> able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I follow 
> Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 trillion 
> years of dust,

I finished reading Tipler's book "The Physics Of Immortality" on Friday March 
15 1996 and liked it and I sent a post about it to the Extropian List that same 
day. At the time, nearly 24 years ago, I said the reason I liked his book was 
that:
"Tipler's Omega  Point Theory makes a bunch of predictions, practical 
predictions that should be able to be tested for in the next 4 or 5 years. 
Tipler himself states that every one of these predictions must turn out to be 
correct or the entire theory is dead in the water."
Well lets see how his predictions turned out"
"* Tipler predicts that the universe is closed: I think most would say it's 
probably open, Tipler says they're wrong. "
It turned out it was Tipler that was wrong and not only was he wrong Tipler was 
spectacularly wrong! The expansion of the universe is not reversing, it's not 
even slowing down, it is accelerating. 
"* Tipler predicts that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV: If he's  
correct then when the CERN Large Hadron Collider goes on line in 1999 it will 
find it almost immediately."  
The Higgs boson wasn't found until 2012, the delay wasn't Tipler's fault but 
his prediction was dead wrong, the mass of the Higgs boson turned out to be 
125.3 +- 0.4 GeV
"* Tipler predicts that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45" 
Today there is still disagreement over the exact value, some say its 66.9, 
another group says its 69.8, and another group says its 74.0, and yet another 
group says its 82.4; but nobody thinks its anywhere near 45.
So what is Tipler up to today? Well...back in 2007 the poor man went a little 
funny in the head, you know, just a little funny, and he went and did a silly 
thing; he wrote another book saying we should look for divine DNA on the Shroud 
of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary 
that was caused by an intense beam of neutrinos that must have shot out of the 
bottom of her feet thrusting her upward into heaven.
John K Clark
-- 
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/CAJPayv275jhcxL_Gubpw%2ByaGS%2BRrLhfo_hPnz1xtk%2B6KerB8Og%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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/1655627934.5153737.1570490214989%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:12 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with
> you on this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics
> to be neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the
> rest here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what
> I was able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I
> follow Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10
> trillion years of dust,
>

I finished reading Tipler's book "The Physics Of Immortality" on Friday
March 15 1996 and liked it and I sent a post about it to the Extropian List
that same day. At the time, nearly 24 years ago, I said the reason I liked
his book was that:

"*Tipler's Omega  Point Theory makes a bunch of predictions, practical
predictions that should be able to be tested for in the next 4 or 5 years.
Tipler himself states that every one of these predictions must turn out to
be correct or the entire theory is dead in the water*."

Well lets see how his predictions turned out"

"* *Tipler predicts that the universe is closed: I think most would say
it's probably open, Tipler says they're wrong.* "

It turned out it was Tipler that was wrong and not only was he wrong Tipler
was *spectacularly* wrong! The expansion of the universe is not reversing,
it's not even slowing down, it is accelerating.

"* *Tipler predicts that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV: If he's
 correct then when the CERN Large Hadron Collider goes on line in 1999 it
will find it almost immediately*."

The Higgs boson wasn't found until 2012, the delay wasn't Tipler's fault
but his prediction was dead wrong, the mass of the Higgs boson turned out
to be 125.3 +- 0.4 GeV

"** Tipler predicts that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to
45*"

Today there is still disagreement over the exact value, some say its 66.9,
another group says its 69.8, and another group says its 74.0, and yet
another group says its 82.4; but nobody thinks its anywhere near 45.

So what is Tipler up to today? Well...back in 2007 the poor man went a
little funny in the head, you know, just a little funny, and he went and
did a silly thing; he wrote another book saying we should look for divine
DNA on the Shroud of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the
Blessed Virgin Mary that was caused by an intense beam of neutrinos that
must have shot out of the bottom of her feet thrusting her upward into
heaven.

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv275jhcxL_Gubpw%2ByaGS%2BRrLhfo_hPnz1xtk%2B6KerB8Og%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Well, no ID, no post mortem survival. No survival means death anxiety 
perpetually.I just thought that Tipler sort of buttressed your opinion on 
things not based on observation and measurement. 'How we gonna measure a 
multiverse, anyways, etc?' For the ID thing, I am easy going on this because of 
Shermer's Last Law (as a response against AC Clarke's 3rd law), which, 
humorously, is: "Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from 
God." 


-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science


Creepy watching the Tipler video on the Intelligent Design channel: Discovery 
Science, of the Discovery Institute in Seattle - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
One of the fads created in the past few decades is for scientists to make up 
multiverse theories to solve :"fine-tuning".
But they don't think enough to see that it could be addressed in other ways, 
with basically one universe, and without invoking Intelligent Design.
@philipthrift

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you on 
this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to be neat 
and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the rest here, to 
convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what I was able to 
follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I follow Tipler 
because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 trillion years of 
dust, I find irresistible. He doesn't speak of this on this vid-so you're Good 
to View.https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=jFpbngtvWD8=15s


-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 2:49 pm
Subject: The multiverse is dangerous to science



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
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 

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[Philip Thrift]

Creepy watching the Tipler video on the Intelligent Design channel: 
Discovery Science, of the Discovery Institute in Seattle - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

One of the fads created in the past few decades is for scientists to make 
up multiverse theories to solve :"fine-tuning".

But they don't think enough to see that it could be addressed in other 
ways, with basically one universe, and without invoking Intelligent Design.

@philipthrift


On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you 
> on this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to 
> be neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the 
> rest here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what 
> I was able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I 
> follow Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 
> trillion years of dust, I find irresistible. He doesn't speak of this on 
> this vid-so you're Good to View. 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFpbngtvWD8=15s
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Thrift >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 2:49 pm
> Subject: The multiverse is dangerous to science
>
>
>
>
> 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*
>
> 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/184adc7f-f342-4e69-98e5-a998e5523406%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you on 
this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to be neat 
and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the rest here, to 
convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what I was able to 
follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I follow Tipler 
because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 trillion years of 
dust, I find irresistible. He doesn't speak of this on this vid-so you're Good 
to View.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFpbngtvWD8=15s


-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 2:49 pm
Subject: The multiverse is dangerous to science



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
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c03feca-3d8f-4a20-bc53-de9697dd85a8%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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/1370300509.5041084.1570475539577%40mail.yahoo.com.