To some degree, multiverse scientists know that an infinite number of unobservable universes where everything possible happens sounds like a wild philosophical theory. They are also well aware of the significance of the measure problem. Despite all this, they take refuge in the claim of the multiverse is a scientific theory that's indicated by evidence. They argue that the multiverse should be no different than quantum mechanics—a theory that initially seems kind of bonkers but is a highly verified and well-accepted scientific theory. Likewise, no matter how crazy the multiverse may seem, its proponents argue for its acceptance as an ordinary part of science. But are they right? Is the multiverse truly science?
Let's first analyze this question using the conventional definition of the scientific method (that includes the requirements of experimentation and testing). For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as, “A method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
It's clear that speculation about an infinite number of unobservable parallel universes is intrinsically untestable. Furthermore, even the theories that give rise to the multiverse—string theory and eternal inflation—have never been experimentally verified. String theory has been unable to make a testable claim for decades, and eternal inflation can't be tested because it predicts an infinite number of copies of every type of universe. This makes it incapable of making any predictions without introducing an ad hoc measure specifically designed to make “predictions” that align with all our previously known observations. That's hardly what conventional science considers a legitimate test.
The multiverse’s failure to satisfy the key requirements of the scientific method (experimentation and testing) has moved some multiverse scientists to argue that we need to change the definition of science to accommodate it under the banner of science. However, this is highly controversial, even in the scientific community. Physicist George Ellis articulated the significant harm that would result if the definition of science were broadened to make room for the multiverse:
“The foundations must be respected if one is to preserve the core features of science that have led to its phenomenal success: that is the feedback from reality to theory provided by experiment and observational testing. One abandons that at one's peril...it is dangerous to weaken the grounds of scientific proof in order to include multiverses under the mantle of “tested science.” It is a retrograde step towards the claim that we can establish the nature of the universe by pure thought without having to confirm our theories by observational or experimental tests. This abandons the key principle that has led to the extraordinary success of science. The claim that multiverses exist is a belief rather than an established scientific fact.”
The reason we collectively accept the conclusions of science is because they've been tested and compared to reality. However, changing the definition of the scientific method would undermine the very foundation of science and erode the essential reason it's accepted as the gold standard of verified knowledge. Changing science to accommodate the multiverse would be a serious error that would threaten the entire scientific endeavor, and ultimately wouldn't change the fact that the multiverse is an untenable speculative philosophical theory—no matter what you call it.
#ElieFeder
#AaronZimmer
“Is the Multiverse Real?”
Physics to God Podcast
🎙️4/24/25 (PDF Version)
#Physics
#Universe
#Science
@JonPgh I drafted Ben Brown and ended up dropping him because he was in the bullpen. I needed a SP at the time. But then I was quick enough to grab him back off of waivers when they announced he would be starting. A bad decision rectified.
Ray’s Rock - Omaha Beach
On the morning of June 6, 1944, 23 year old Staff Sergeant Arnold “Ray” Lambert came ashore with the first wave of the 1st Infantry Division on the eastern side of Omaha Beach. At this small patch of concrete he saved nearly 20 lives:
The division came under intense fire from several German bunkers surrounding the entrance to the Colville Draw (one of two exits off Omaha Beach). Ray, a medic, immediately went to work.
He was shot in the arm. Moments later he was hit by shrapnel in the leg, but Ray kept pulling men to safety. He pulled nearly 20 wounded soldiers to cover behind this 8ft wide obstacle, treating each soldier before going out in search of others.
After several hours under fire, while pulling a wounded soldier from the ocean, he was struck by a landing craft. It dropped its ramp on top of him, breaking his back. He fell face down in the water, drowning. The craft backed up and nearby soldiers pulled an unconscious Ray to safety, eventually evacuating him off the beach.
Remarkably, Ray had already earned two Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts in Sicily and North Africa, prior to landing in France. But here in Normandy his war would end.
He awoke in a hospital back in England a day later. In the next bed over was his brother, who had also been wounded at Omaha.
When asked about his work on D-Day, Ray simply said, “I did what I was called to do.”
Ray Lambert passed in 2021 at 100 years old. He exemplified the best of American grit and why remembering this day is so important.
@corbin_young21 Have both Soriano and Tovar in my lineup this week. Soriano's 7 BB's and Tovar's 0-5 (w/5k's) were not what I was hoping for when I checked the box score this morning. Ughh.
🚨NATIONALS APOLOGIZE: Washington @Nationals President of Baseball Operations Jason Sinnarajah apologized on live TV to Catholics, Christians, Nats fans, & Trevor Williams regarding the hidden camera comments from their own Director of Community Relations.
Glad to see the Nationals are apologizing to their fanbase and the millions of Catholics around the world. Good first step to accountability.