Comment on God and Granite Cubes by Sean Pitman.
Here’s a quote that explains the problem I have with the multiverse idea (i.e., a “Theory of Anything” can be used to explain absolutely everything – and therefore nothing):
A pervasive idea in fundamental physics and cosmology that should be retired: the notion that we live in a multiverse in which the laws of physics and the properties of the cosmos vary randomly from one patch of space to another. According to this view, the laws and properties within our observable universe cannot be explained or predicted because they are set by chance. Different regions of space too distant to ever be observed have different laws and properties, according to this picture. Over the entire multiverse, there are infinitely many distinct patches. Among these patches, in the words of Alan Guth, “anything that can happen will happen—and it will happen infinitely many times”. Hence, I refer to this concept as a Theory of Anything. Any observation or combination of observations is consistent with a Theory of Anything. No observation or combination of observations can disprove it. Proponents seem to revel in the fact that the Theory cannot be falsified. The rest of the scientific community should be up in arms since an unfalsifiable idea lies beyond the bounds of normal science. Yet, except for a few voices, there has been surprising complacency and, in some cases, grudging acceptance of a Theory of Anything as a logical possibility. The scientific journals are full of papers treating the Theory of Anything seriously. What is going on?…
A Theory of Anything is useless because it does not rule out any possibility and worthless because it submits to no do-or-die tests. (Many papers discuss potential observable consequences, but these are only possibilities, not certainties, so the Theory is never really put at risk.)
Laura Mersini-Houghton’s observations have not demonstrated the existence of infinite universes – not even close. The concept of infinite universes beyond our own is simply not testable and could never be testable in a falsifiable manner from our very very limited Earth-bound perspective. Again, the modern use of the multiverse argument is equivalent to undermining the very basis of scientific discovery – predictive value. The multiverse argument completely undermines the entire concept of predictive value since it makes anything not only possible, but argues that anything and everything will happen somewhere an infinite number of times – by sheer chance alone. If I win at the craps table in Las Vegas 1000 times in a row, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m deliberately cheating somehow. Odds are pretty much 100% that I just happen to be in the right universe! After all, its bound to happen somewhere an infinite number of times – right?! Come on now! You just can’t do science starting with such a premise. Surely you can see that?
So, isn’t the hypothesis of intelligent design in the same boat? Well, no. It isn’t. Why not? Because, the argument that an intelligent mind and only an intelligent mind could have produced a given phenomenon can be tested and falsified quite easily – by simply showing how some mindless mechanism based on the mechanical laws of nature could do the job without any additional intelligent “direction” or “guidance” beyond these mindless mechanisms. You see, the ID-only argument isn’t being used to explain anything and everything. It is only being used to explain what cannot be explained by mindless mechanisms, but are at least approximated by what known intelligent minds can produce.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
How do you know that? How do you know it could ‘never’ be testable, if in fact certain cosmologists are know making observations that they say indicate the effect of other universes on our own? How do you know as time goes on that Man will not in fact unravel the mystery and provide more concrete evidence of a multiverse?
I’ve already explained this is some detail. And, I’ve explained why the use of the “multiverse argument” can be used to explain everything and therefore nothing… and how this is anti-science. It’s not real science if it undermines the ability to produce “predictive power” for the hypothesis and/or theory – the very basis of science.
Again, the multiverse concept is impossible to test, even in theory, because other bubble universes would be permanently out of reach and unobservable. “Literally, anything can happen and does happen infinitely many times,” Steinhardt says. “This makes the theory totally unpredictive or, equivalently, unfalsifiable.”
An untestable idea is by definition unscientific, because science relies on verifying predictions through experimentation. Proponents of the multiverse idea, however, say it is so inextricable with some theories, including inflation theories, that evidence for one is evidence for the other. However, this argument is self-defeating. It’s like saying that evidence that predicts a multiverse is evidence that would predict anything and everything… and therefor nothing again. It’s a circular argument…
Also, as far as Laura Mersini-Houghton’s arguments, they are based on the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) “cold spot” and “dark flow” data. However, since the initial WMAP data was obtained, a more thorough analysis of data from the WMAP and from the Planck satellite (which has a resolution 3 times higher than WMAP) failed to find any statistically significant evidence of such a bubble universe collision. In addition, there is no evidence of any gravitational pull of other universes on ours. (Link)
Here’s what the Planck team said about the WMAP data:
“The Planck team’s paper appears to rule out the claims of Kashlinsky and collaborators,” says David Spergel of Princeton University, who was not involved in the work. If there is no dark flow, there is no need for exotic explanations for it, such as other universes, says Planck team member Elena Pierpaoli at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “You don’t have to think of alternatives.”
So, really, there is no solid evidence even for one other universe beyond our own – much less an infinite number of universes (which would make any “evidence” meaningless anyway because such a perspective makes any and all observations and predictions equally likely).
Yet, as Ron points out, God of the Gaps becomes your default mechanism for ‘ostensible’ design – that gets whittled down over time by science demonstrates how cause and effect mechanisms create phenomena. Again the glaring double standard.
Science itself is based on “gaps” between what various hypotheses can effectively explain and reliably predict. If there were no discoverable gaps like this, there would be no science. That is why pointing out the scientific ability to detect deliberate intelligent design behind various phenomena in nature is not a “double standard” at all – especially given that several modern scientific disciplines are based on the scientific ability to detect deliberate intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. How do you think forensic scientists, anthropologists, and SETI scientists hope to be able to detect true artifacts of intelligent design when they find them?
God and Granite Cubes
Oh please. A bacterium is not deliberately intelligent like humans are. This should be self evident to you. Also, human intelligence may be natural, but it is not the same thing as the mindless forces of nature (like meterological phenomena for instance). The existence of a highly symmetrical granite cube cannot be explained by any other “natural phenomena” besides that which also has access to at least human level intelligence. And, that’s the whole point. Different phenomena that are clearly “artificial” in nature require different levels of intelligence to explain…
God and Granite Cubes
That’s just it. The ID-only or “God-only” hypothesis is not being used to explain anything and everything… as already explained.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Why Vaccinate Kids Against COVID-19?
That’s kinda of a grey area since, for most people (~80%), naturally-derived immunity (i.e., due to a previous infection by COVID-19) produces a good level of immunity against future infections that is often better than that produced via vaccination. The only caveat is that vaccine-derived immunity appears to be more consistent for a greater percentage of people. On top of this, children already have a much lower risk for serious infections to begin with. So, to be honest, in your situation, it’s very hard to say if vaccinations for your children would offer a significant advantage when it comes to protecting them or others around them. I just can’t point to any good evidence that clearly shows that it would – at least in the short term. Perhaps, after a year or so, since it seems as though immunity to COVID-19 wanes over time, it might be helpful to get at least one Pfizer shot as a “booster”?
Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Fetal cell lines, originally produced decades ago, were used in the testing of the mRNA vaccines – as they were in the testing of Tylenol, Motrin, Robitussin, Aspirin, Sudafed, Tums, Lidocaine, and a host of other modern medications that most people use on a semiregular basis (Link).
Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?
Just because the effectiveness of vaccines may wane over time doesn’t mean that they aren’t working. They are working, very well. The vast majority of those who are being hospitalized right now with severe COVID-19 infections are the unvaccinated – by a ratio of more than 10:1 over the vaccinated.
Here’s an explanation from Shane Crotty, Ph.D. (Immune system and vaccine scientist. Professor, La Jolla Institute for Immunology (LJI), a non-profit research institute): Link
Why Vaccinate Kids Against COVID-19?
What questions have I not answered? You asked about boosters for children, and I answered that question as best as I know how at this point in time. Again, I don’t know for sure, but I am hopeful that boosters might not be needed for children since I believe that we might be nearing the end of the COVID-19 pandemic – that we might soon be reaching “herd immunity”.
As far as “not caring”, you’re mistaken. I have two young sons (10 and 12 years old). So, I do care very much as to the correct decision as to what to do for my own two boys here. And yes, my oldest son has had his first Pfizer vaccine two weeks ago… without any ill effects except for a mildly sore arm for a couple of days.
Why Vaccinate Kids Against COVID-19?
It’s hard to say at this point – especially given that the Delta Variant is currently on the decline in this country and around the world. If no other variants come along that are able to produce another significant spike in cases, if “herd immunity” is reached here in the next several months, then probably boosters will not be needed in children.