[ExI] The multiverse is unscientific nonsense

Keith Henson hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Wed Nov 15 00:53:08 UTC 2023

Simulation is another way to get to something like the multiverse.

We might be living in one, or simulations could lie in our future as
we build enough computer power to simulate the past.  See the posting
long ago where I laid this rap on Hans Maravec.

Simulations allow something subjectively like time travel.  If you
checkpoint the simulation from time to time, you can start a new
instance from the checkpoint and enter the new simulation.

This would surely use a lot of computer power.


On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 4:09 PM BillK via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> The multiverse is unscientific nonsense
> It's all mere speculation
> 13th November 2023
> Jacob Barandes
> Lecturer in Physics, working on the philosophy of physics, at Harvard
> University.
> <https://iai.tv/articles/the-multiverse-is-unscientific-nonsense-auid-2668>
> Quotes:
> Everyone from physicists like Michio Kaku to Marvel superheroes
> propagate the idea of the multiverse - an infinite set of parallel
> universes. But Jacob Barandes argues that any talk of multiverses is
> nothing more than wild speculation, be it in quantum mechanics or
> cosmology, and that physicists and philosophers are not doing the
> public a service by suggesting otherwise.
> Readers may have heard that according to a particular interpretation
> of quantum theory, we’re living in a “quantum multiverse” consisting
> of parallel realities that exist “in superposition.” And according to
> certain lines of research coming out of string theory, our observable
> universe is only a small part of a vast “cosmic multiverse” containing
> other regions of space in which the fundamental laws of physics are
> substantially different.
> These are extraordinary claims, too, but we don’t have extraordinary
> evidence for them – not by a long shot. As such, any talk of
> multiverses – whether the quantum kind or the cosmic kind – is nothing
> more than wild speculation at this point. With all due respect,
> physicists and philosophers are not doing the public a service by
> suggesting otherwise, even when they include caveats.
> -----------------------
> Quite a long article. It goes into a fair amount of detailed discussion.
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list