Re: NYT (Op-Ed) on Multiverse Theory

From: Howard Marks <>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 08:54:48 -0400
Paul Davies has written some quite thought provoking books and articles  - and this article has similar merits.  Without data and/or unique hard evidence, any theory has to be described solely in hypotheticals. The multiverse described by Davies in the article, though differing a bit from Deutsch's in thrust, has been propounded before, as Deutsch's has. Problem is that without unique hard evidence, you must use the words, "I believe" and have "faith" that the hypotheticals are "true".

To my knowledge, there has never been unique hard evidence that a multiverse resourced quantum computer element could be made to work, nor duplicable experiments that can be performed to conclusively show the existence of the "shadow photons" or even the production of the needed single photons, each path of which must be tracked and shown to create the interference described by Deutsch, etc.  I stand to be corrected if unique duplicable experiments and other evidence/logic exists that conclusively demonstrates the existence of the multiverse.

Without that hard unique evidence for the multiverse, we are left with the words of religion, esp, and cults and we must use the words, "faith, hope, belief", and we even have the trappings of the big promise that religion also propounds, namely immortality, albeit of the "quantum" variety!

Nick Bobic wrote:

All -

Paul Davies wrote an article which was published in today's New York
Times. Article can be found here:

"A Brief History of the Multiverse"

In it, Davies criticizes the multiverse theory and calls it "a very
slippery slope". I guess the biggest problem that he has with it is
that they are untestable and he brings in theology to create analogies.
All in all, not a very convincing article.

Anyone care to comment?



Received on Sun Apr 13 2003 - 08:57:41 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST