[ExI] The multiverse is unscientific nonsense

[Darin Sunley]

I've never heard of Jacob Barandes, but I know who Max Tegmark is, and
Max's book is significantly more convincing that Barandes's opinion column.

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 5:55 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Keith
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20231114/d626b4c8/attachment.htm>