Stephen Hawking's last paper: multiverses follow the laws of physics

[RJM Corbet]

But this thread is about macro bubble universes. Not string theory sub-atomic dimensions? I think?

In fact one of the problems is that string theory sounds intuitively good, but quantum reality is often counter-intuitive.

However I'm a layman getting out of my depth here. Really not equipped to judge string theory for or against ...

 

[RJM Corbet]

I'm not going to edit that further, although on reflection the bufurcating multiverse being referred to is obviously going to produce macro universes, or there'd be no point in bringing it up at all?

However the point I'm making is that one using science to refute the ignorant superstitions and misunderstandings of the uninformed masses, should make sure they are indeed using science?

Apologies for double posting ...

FINAL EDIT: I did not say the multiverse/many worlds theories were a 'product' of the AP. I didn't say they couldn't survive alone, I said the AP could not survive without them. There is a difference?

 

[Onyx]

FINAL EDIT: I did not say the multiverse/many worlds theories were a 'product' of the AP. I didn't say they couldn't survive alone, I said the AP could not survive without them. There is a difference?

Considering that the underlying ideas of the AP are from Schopenhauer in the 19th century and Schrodinger's proposal of alternative histories dates to 1952, I would say that AP survived just fine without the multiverse for nearly a century.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Considering that the underlying ideas of the AP are from Schopenhauer in the 19th century and Schrodinger's proposal of alternative histories dates to 1952, I would say that AP survived just fine without the multiverse for nearly a century.

But Schopenhauer had no knowledge of the cosmological constant, the proton/electron equivalence of charge, etc. The list is long. In the absence of any other universe but 'our' own, perhaps accepting the coincidences necessary for the AP to apply, while firmly rejecting any other possibility, is quite literally swallowing camels while choking on a gnat? Lol.

Last I heard the LHC had still produced no evidence of Supersymmetry between fermions and bosons?

 

[Onyx]

But Schopenhauer had no knowledge of the cosmological constant, the proton/electron equivalence of charge, etc. The list is long. In the absence of any other universe but 'our' own, perhaps accepting the coincidences necessary for the AP to apply, while firmly rejecting any other possibility, is quite literally swallowing camels while choking on a gnat? Lol.

You have just illustrated why basic AP does not necessarily have anything to do with multiverses and is in no way dependent on them.

 

[Amberlen]

If a man talks alone in a forest, and his wife doesn't hear him, is he still wrong?

Sorry, just could not resist

Yes
Roflmmao

 

[RJM Corbet]

You have just illustrated why basic AP does not necessarily have anything to do with multiverses and is in no way dependent on them.

Ok. I accept that. But the opinion of a 19th century philosopher can never be used in the name of science as a club to beat ignorant superstition with?

EDIT: Sorry, I've erased that link because I hadn't checked properly: it came from a fundamentalist anti evolution source. Sorry

Better. Sorry. Goodnight: A bet about a cherished theory of physics may soon pay out

 

[Onyx]

Ok. I accept that. But the opinion of a 19th century philosopher can never be used in the name of science as a club to beat ignorant superstition with?

Again, I'm not following you. You've been relating AP to the Schrodinger multiverse problem - what is suddenly the "ignorant superstition"? Weak AP is essentially against reading too much into our existence, and Strong AP can be used to make superstitious arguments. What are you talking about, because it sounds new to this conversation.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Perhaps 'weak AP' isn't saying ANYTHING? It's saying: Stop asking all those questions. BECAUSE what is, just is, and you'd better live with it, so there.

Goodnight Onyx. I'm going offline now and doing some reading, bro ...

 

[RJM Corbet]

Here's the paper: Read Stephen Hawking's final theory on the Big Bang

 

[Amberlen]

I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...even if @Onyx doesn’t like me enough to say hi back on his timeline

 

[Onyx]

I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...even if @Onyx doesn’t like me enough to say hi back on his timeline

Sorry, I didn't know that was a thing. Am I supposed to say hi on my timeline or yours?

 

[Venusian Broon]

I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...even if @Onyx doesn’t like me enough to say hi back on his timeline

Hi @Amberlen! There's no real protocol for saying 'hi', it's all a bit random. Everyone is welcome!

 

[Amberlen]

@Onyx *grins* no worries-you just did,no? I don’t know if it’s a thing or not

 

[Amberlen]

Hi @Amberlen! There's no real protocol for saying 'hi', it's all a bit random. Everyone is welcome!

Lol- I know there’s no protocol, just my new friend @Onyx seems so serious, I felt he was in need of some teasing to crack a smile*whispers conspiratorially* I’m possibly quite wrong and therefore on His last nerve, but *winks* i just went with first feel of it

 

[dask]

This Hawking's thing, back and forth, back and forth, like a tennis match that won't end. Got a kink in my brain. If only life could be discovered somewhere other than Earth this AP stuff would make more sense. Right now my only solace is Occam's Razor: life came into being on Earth because of the universe, not the other way around.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...

I've learned a LOT too! But hey, we haven't even started on abiogenesis yet, lol ...

 

[Amberlen]

I've learned a LOT too! But hey, we haven't even started on abiogenesis yet, lol ...

Yea ok*googles abiigenesis* these discussions between you and @Onyx are going to require me to purchase notebooks

 

[RJM Corbet]

Yea ok*googles abiigenesis* these discussions between you and @Onyx are going to require me to purchase notebooks

Well, I don't know. I have really gained a lot from this thread too, but I'm not sure most people have the appetite to push it further, Amberlen. I'm flattered to have somehow earned your following

 

[RJM Corbet]

However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome, etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?

Ducks for cover ...

EDIT: Hawking defined life as anti-entropic and able to reproduce ...