Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavytone
There are a few problems with your 'multiverse' hypothesis:
a) you might never have been born, or might have died
b) it is impossible to know anything about your doppelgängers...
c) even assuming they exist, the reality is you don't know about them.
So it makes no difference if they exist or not; you are firmly rooted in THIS universe.
Hypotheses are only useful if they make a prediction that can be tested.
This one can't, ergo it's therefore rubbish.
|
Hmmm. Yes and no, I think. I certainly agree with a, b and c, plus your point about being rooted in this universe.
As to hypotheses only being useful if testable, yes as far as it goes, however one needs to consider whether a hypothesis is just not testable
yet. I think speculative science is a fair activity as long as it's recognised as such. As I mentioned last post, quantum computing does hold a faint hope of this being testable in some sense. Also, I recall some cosmologist (name long forgotten) producing a line of reasoning that suggested it was testable at least in principle (details also forgotten).
Finally, I'd characterise something as rubbish if it is demonstrably false, internally incoherent, wildly at odds with well understood science or grossly misrepresented as to its import. I can't see the multiverse as fitting this, unless someone tries to claim it is a done deal and not speculative.
Astroron - sadly agree with you. It's not the universe that's the problem but the contents of this corner of it.