It fails because it's assuming common threads tying the multiple
universes together. Besides, the multiverse is a mathematical
construct from the 1950s and has become a thought experiment and
handy fictional universes tool to give SOME extra flexibility in
the calculations for QM,. It was _NEVER_ intended to to describe
our reality as it ACTUALLY IS. Nor should it. Fun bedtime
stories. Great for Science Fiction. But it's ridiculous.
Calculating alternate universes which just *happen* to follow
the same logical/mathematical principles as our own with just
new numbers plugged in? No. It's silly. Useful for calculations
and a little QM flexibility - that's it's power - they can do
things like borrow imaginary time and such so long as they put
it back. But as a basis for the nature of things? It's becoming
a modern day religious belief system. == It can't. I'm sorry.
Maybe for a subset, sure. But for the entire Set of sets? It
can't. == The consistency only holds within the human
constructed theory and is assuming a platonic realm exists that
is BEYOND "all of this" tying it all together where it can live
permanently. afaik, there's no platonic realm. == It's "out
there" compared to the real work of QM, which is rigorous,
standard model, thoroughly tested, being used at present,
practical, pragmatic and all of the things we expect out of
Science. Multiverse? Eh, they're mathematical fun and useful for
calculations. They're NOT saying "This Is The Way The Universe
Is" except some ppl on popular science TV shows and books. The
people that actually WORK in the stuff, and I have several
friends who are published in journals for Theoretical Physics,
as well as a couple who are on the way of getting their PhD's in
the stuff: What you're seeing on TV? It's stuff for the
imagination but it doesn't reflect the reality of the field. One
of my friends, a QM Theorist in Romania wrote up a list of
common popular science fallacies roaming about and wrote a bunch
of corrections for them. If I come across it (he posted it a few
weeks ago), I'll put it here. It was easy to read, clear and
you'll see what I'm talking about. No, it's not refuted for its
purpose. But it's purpose isn't that our "real universe may be a
multiverse". That's a misuse of it. I'll post it here if I come
across it and you can tell me what you think. == Not all numbers
correspond to physical objects even though they are initially
based upon them. They _do_ have a grammar of their own that
useful that does not necessarily correspond. Abstractions and
metaphors and analogies don't always - or even typically -
correspond 1:1 to what they represent. == Yes, it's the science
promoters. They're the "Public Face". They're job is to get up
their and talk and teach and inspire people to be interested in
Science. They also write books. They're authors. I'm not
debunking multiverse. You can believe it if you want to. I'd
like to believe it too. But book authors and people that give
talks are sales people. They've been heavily utilized by the
Discovery Channel as The Face of Science. They also have their
own careers in the public eye. Why is it that you see the big
names? In the USA alone, there are 18,810 physicists employed as
physicists in 2014. That's just the USA and that's just the ones
with jobs. Pop over to arXiv sometime. Tell me how many names
you recognize in the recently published list? You gave me 14-15
names. That's 0.082% of the total percentage of working
theoretical physicists in the USA only. Worldwide, there are
many more. So few. Why are they so important? They're promoters
of Science. They're authors. Look at what they ACTUALLY do most
of the time rather than what they talk about. You'll see a
difference there. == If the world were that simple, Deepak. TV
productions, selling books, marketing, all that stuff costs
money that's NOT primarily coming from Science. Same thing
happened with Einstein. His last work of SCIENTIFIC relevance
was the General Theory of Relativity in 1915. After that, he was
a celebrity. He showed up for photo ops, gave interviews for
newspapers and newsreels. Sure, he did more stuff in his life.
Interesting stuff. Fascinating stuff. But as far as for Science?
His major contributions, and they WERE quite major and still
are, nevertheless, ended in 1915. After that, he was a star. ==
But he was quoted for many things after that until his death
that The People loved and enjoyed, including his opinions on
Science... that the rest of the scientific community had left
already. Same things happen today. == I should call it by its
proper name: The Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum
mechanics. Not sure who coined multiverse. == Ah! Found it.
While William James came up with the word "multiverse" in 1895,
this isn't how he meant it. The CURRENT term multiverse came
from Sci-Fi author Michael Moorcock. == These days, I'd say it's
Hawking and actually, most of the names you mentioned are
extraordinarily popular among the general public. They're on
T-shirts and bumper stickers and Memes and people bring up their
names on the Internet in forums even. == Yeah, sounds like it. I
was REALLY into physics in high school back in 1986/7 or so. Not
the Newton stuff but Black holes. Even before Hawking's black
hole book came out, I wrote a 10 page book report on Black
holes. I remember the debates about Guth and inflation. The
multiverse was talked about by Dewitt. I even tried to read "The
Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (1973)" in
college in 1990... but it was WAAAAAY over my head. But I was
already familiar with the 'gist' of from my high school
textbooks, my interest in Sci fi and such. So everything you
said is very familiar to me. It's nothing new, except it's
gotten popular again. == go with differing pressures myself
forming various strata. Keeps it simpler tongue emoticon ==
purely objective notions are nice and neat and clean but I
rather like the messiness of relativistic things. Should be
incorporated into everything I think. == Of course. I don't
think anything is exclusionary. How can it be? Besides the
objectification requires the subjective interpreter working at a
particular 'zoom' that's appropriate for their needs. As humans,
we see objects where perhaps an electron might see something
entirely different, so long as it was holding out its photonic
candlelight into the darkness. == Pragmatic yes. What makes math
quite useful is that it is agnostic to what it represents - when
it's representing something. Is it 1000 people or 1000
electrons? math doesn't care. It's agnostic to what its
analogizing. But us, we should know the difference. Math doesn't
care but people should. So math does not see the whole picture
as the labels are removed from it. = Mathematics is analogy.
It's perhaps the strongest analogy we have because it doesn't
care what it's representing. [sometimes even *it* doesn't know
what it's representing because it can represent intangible
things] I'm talking about pure math. A and B where all semblence
to reality is scrubbed from it. How we use it matters. =
