Interesting comment on a NYT article: One possible argument for the existence of the multiverse has been made by MIT physicist Frank Wilczek. How to explain that our universe is such as to enable life? This question could be answered by saying, If an infinite number of universes exist, the chance that one is of a nature to permit life is virtually guaranteed. Clearly, we are in such a universe and not some other. Wilczek, I believe it is fair to say, would regard this line of reasoning as analogous to the argument that although atoms were once not observable, their existence was implied by such observations as the Brownian motion of motes of pollen in water. But I think there is a very obvious difference. If motes of pollen in water did not behave as they do, this would disconfirm this particular prediction of the atomic theory. The disconfirmation is available as a possible observation. What would disconfirm that multiverse exists? Wilczek would seem to say, The universe would not contain life! But there is no possible observation of a universe that does not contain life. On Wilczeks basis, that the multiverse exists, unlike that water consists of atoms in motion, has no possible disconfirmation. Wilczeks claim bears a suspicious resemblance to the theists claim that God must exists, else the universe would not. The fact is, the universe does contain life. It would be quite strange if our mathematical models of reality predicted a world unable to sustain it. - Mark Morss, Columbus Ohio mobile.nytimes/blogs/opinionator/2014/03/23/when-nature-looks-unnatural/
Posted on: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 04:37:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015