http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten
He is married to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiara_Nappi
Posted on 11/27/2008 11:21:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Exactly.
Rees, an early supporter of Linde’s ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly, but he argues that scientists may still be able to make a convincing case for their existence. To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions about properties of our own universe. If experiments confirmed such a theory’s predictions about the universe we can see, Rees believes, they would also make a strong case for the reality of those we cannot.
In other words, it is an application of the scientific method. Nothing unusual about that--that's what science does.
So how does this differ from religion?
Science relies on evidence, and the testing of theories based on that evidence. Religion relies on dogma and belief, and is not subject to tests using the scientific method.
I have a hard time agreeing the hubbub about the “big bang being firmly established” and their assertion that everything is known from one millisecond on.
Just seems to me to be kinda without foundation when just about daily, the Hubble takes a look out there and sees things that we have no idea
What they are or
Why they’re even there.
We are all the time being bombarded by cosmic rays that have energies that are not producible by any known process, including them being “left over” remnants of the BB.
Wish the aliens would show up. Modern science could use a good dose of humility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten
He is married to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiara_Nappi
Why would I read past such an incredibly ignorant statement? The author is writing out of his league.
You neglected to mention a key feature of science: It is in a state of constant change. Religion, on the other hand, is static (or nearly so).
The idea of a constant and absolute truth continues to be a powerfully comforting thought to billions of people. On the other hand, the constantly shifting truths or theories of science can be somewhat unsettling.
Like Global Warming.
/sarcasm
Answering your question, usually any religion-like theory is missing only one of the attributes of a true religion - morality, i.e. commandments.
These would be, of course, 1) gravity 2) electromagnetic force 3) weak nuclear force 3) strong nuclear force.
Then there's also the expansion rate of the universe. Seems dark energy is throwing a monkey wrench into the mix. No oscillating universe, which means only one beginning.
LOL! Now this is rich!
First science tells us not to believe in God because they can’t prove one exists by the use of the scientific method.
But it’s OK to believe in multiple universes based purely on speculation.
Who are they kidding? They just want to keep their (our tax dollars) research funding coming.
Of course there are many potential universes, each act and each belief you act upon moves you toward a different universe than you would be in had you acted otherwise. Both must have had the potential to actually exist or your decision and your action meant nothing at all.
Since both (all) potential universes were available for you to step into and there exist billions of us making decisions each day (and stepping into our own new universe) how better to understand how your actions and belief system directly impact the world you live in than to understand that there are multiple-universes in existence.
How does it negate God in any way to have science just begining to scratch the surface of something which moves us just slightly closer to understanding how God's miracles manage to function within what we believe is our physical environment. Think about what a miracle really is... whether someone no longer aflicted with a deadly disease whom the doctors only last month concluded had only weeks to live...... consider the car wreck someone walked away from without a scratch.. etc etc... Consider the "how" and the mechanics which must surely exist for God to work such miracles without violating the very laws of phsyics he originally put into motion.
It's a given that there are multiple universes and it's our option to choose which of all possibilities we will live in.
-b-
One problem I have with the Multiverse theory is that not only is our Universe so tailored to life, it is also so simple.
If you halve the distance between two objects, you get four times the gravitational force and also four times the electromagnetic force. In one randomly created universe out of countless possibilities, wouldn’t we expect the relationships not to be so exact? Perhaps halving the distance would leave to 3.87234901 times the gravitational force or whatever. Why is the one universe conducive for life also the one universe that deals in these whole numbers?
It seems logical that a creator would want to keep the numerical set up simple.
No confusion here. Science is the process by which human beings discover the majesty of God’s creation. Religion provides meaning for our place in that creation. One complements the other. The more we learn about the universe, the stronger my belief becomes. What could be more majestic than an infinitude of universes existing forever?
“Then I ended up in the United States. On one of my returns to Moscow, I looked at this hospital at the Academy of Sciences, and it was in ruins. There was a tree growing from the roof. And I looked at it and I thought, What can you predict? What can you know about the future?”
There are many possible universes. The decisions you make, and a million decisions by a million other people, shape the one that finally emerges.
more junk science from the same people that gave us global warming.
“To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions”
that’s the problem. There is no such thing as a multiverse theory that makes testable predictions. It’s just another bogus idea in search of a government grant.
Flash of Two Worlds came out in 1961.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.