(no message)
But, who knows?
When it comes to science, for me, there is no "belief" as much as I accept everything for which it is perverse to withhold provisional assent, given the current (but always developing) evidence. As science develops, my level of assent changes with science.
I still think it is reasonable to withhold assent to the multiverse theory, so while I am open to it and all other theories once hypotheses are tested, I'm not ready to go into the multiverse yet.
Tangent on belief vs. assent for science: The climatists have tried to change science into a belief system. You must believe in "their science, their truth, or you are a heretic. I think they do harm to science. There are settled aspects to climate science and climate history. But precise predictions about the future, and precise effects of their many proposed solutions, and the need for them, are not so settled. They are guesses. That doesn't meant we shouldn't be good stewards of the environment for future generations. But, it also doesn't mean it is reasonable to rob future generations of their money by going into debt now to line the pockets of Democrat donors, sanctimonious self-justified by mere guesses, for unproven "solutions."
Sorry Fred….it’s a good question that I tried to answer seriously until I realized that I just don’t know.
(no message)
to explain the constants of nature in this universe. The theory also has some math to support.
What makes me hmm... about this theory is, to believe unobservable universes exist is indeed tough to me. If we can’t observe it, certainly it doesn’t mean it doesn't exist. But, if we can’t observe it, science really doesn't says much about whether it exists or not, math can say it exists though. Well it is related to the classic question I once asked here before: do you think math is invented or discovered? If you think math is invented, most likely you won't believe multiverse, I think.
...I'm gonna' ask him.
THX
Language: "I'm rolling a ball down a hill." Seems like we create those words to describe what we understand from nature. When we understand more, we add more words, "...under the influence of gravity" or "under an apparent natural acceleration of 9.8m/s•s." We discover acceleration/gravity, and we describe it.
I guess if you think there are no other mathematical models to describe motion, you could say we discover math. And yet, the Ancients had very different mathematical models for motion in space because their frame of reference was earth, not the sun. So, their math was different.
I could probably make an opposite case as well, though.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
bother. You are a small person in a small world. Which is fine for you. Others want more.
(no message)
They're Marcus Freeman at the moment.
(no message)
Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.
Me, I swear that when I dream...and they are quite diverse, nightly, I am mapping places unknown, places that give me thoughts beyond living in my everyday world.
Don't get me wrong, I am very mentally stable and have no fears, but I do love to surf the Uni.
Now, obviously that was fiction, but the concept fascinates me, and makes a lot of sense to my limited brain.
In Timeline, I thought he used whichever theory advanced the story, as opposed to sticking to one. Still enjoyed it, though. Especially interesting how language would have changed significantly in 400 years...something I hadn't thought about until I read that book. Good stuff.
(no message)