So why doesn't the link merely call it that, as opposed to multiverse theory then? I'm sorry but it clearly says multiverse theory and this site isn't alone and let's not lose site of my point...it's hardly falsifiable, measurable and so on, no matter what you'd prefer to call it.
Nice discussion, although there are times I wonder who’s post you are reading when responding to me. :-)
Well, I suppose this makes up for my being so flabbergasted that you've been on FR as long as you have been and you are so oblivious and clueless about the NEA, ACLU...etc. ;)
“So why doesn’t the link merely call it that, as opposed to multiverse theory then?”
—Good question; it’s poorly written for a number of reasons. Someone reading that would think that Lee Smolin’s theory is essentially *the* theory of multiverses and is mainstream. Actually, it’s a late comer compared to most of the other theories that describe a “multiverse” (string theory and Everett’s theory are decades older), and is one of the least popular. Lee Smolin’s theory is called the “fecund universes theory”. Ever hear of that? Neither have most people. It doesn’t even have an entry in wikipedia – the discussion about it is relegated to a section within Lee Smolin’s page, and his theory isn’t mentioned in the introduction for Smolin, it instead mentions his backing of a different theory called loop quantum theory (sort of a competitor to string theory). (Actually, it looks like someone just created one about a month ago by copying the stuff from Smolin’s page to a new page, but didn’t bother to create a link to it.)
I just did some google searches on it to see what people were saying about it. I could find some discussions about it – as a fascinating idea – but it’s hard to find any scientists actually *backing* the idea.
“I’m sorry but it clearly says multiverse theory and this site isn’t alone and let’s not lose site of my point...it’s hardly falsifiable, measurable and so on, no matter what you’d prefer to call it.”
— I agree with you that the multiverse “theory” is probably unfalsifiable. The theories that proclaim a multiverse are falsifiable (although with string theory even that’s somewhat debatable), but the “multiverse” idea itself likely is not. Let’s say Lee Smolin’s theory was disproven (e.g. we learn that black holes do not create new universes), that wouldn’t disprove the idea that there are multiple universe because it’s one theory of many that claims there are multiple universes. Even if tonight every theory that described “multiple universes” were disproven, tomorrow there could be 50 more, maybe one where we all have goatees.
Also, the various theories that proclaim “multiple universes” don’t even have a consistent definition of “universe” – in fact the 3 theories I gave that have “multiple universe” have 3 completely different definitions of a “universe”. So despite the fact that there are some sources that mention “multiverse theory”, there really is no “multiverse theory”, just theories that say, among other things, that there are other universes – thus one can’t even really talk about the “multiverse theory” without discussing it in the context of another theory (such as the site you gave that uses Smolin’s theory – without ever actually mentioning him or the theory by name.)
But back to string theory. It’s been around for nearly half a century and has a lot going for it – mathematicians generally love it – for them it’s everything we’ve been looking for in a ToE – it neatly (so I hear) ties together all of physicists into a single mathematical model. So it should be sweeping the science world, right? Well, after nearly 50 years from what I see it look like it’s probably still believed by a minority of scientists. The mathematicians seem to love it, but the scientists have been saying where’s the beef. What’s the issue? For the most part – falsifiability. String theory is an excellent example of how seriously scientists take falsifiability. So trying to use string theory as an example of how falsification isn’t necessarily an issue is a bit odd when it’s the bugbear that’s been haunting string theory from the beginning. (So just a warning, don’t go up to a string theorist and ask why the theory is getting a “free pass” despite its falsification issue – you’ll probably get punched.) And that’s all despite the fact that it seems that it really IS testable – it’s just rather difficult to do so. And anyway, AFAIK the theory isn’t taught in public school (which was the original topic IIRC).
“Well, I suppose this makes up for my being so flabbergasted that you’ve been on FR as long as you have been and you are so oblivious and clueless about the NEA, ACLU...etc. ;)”
—From some of the reactions I’ve received I think I’ll make a note to myself: “Don’t say the ACLU did something good for religious freedom, even when they do.” :-)