tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post890842942614587484..comments2023-12-28T17:14:24.356-08:00Comments on Monkey Trials: STENGER INVERTS OCKHAMScott Hatfield . . . .http://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-2318152399148646052007-12-01T09:32:00.000-08:002007-12-01T09:32:00.000-08:00The subtlety is that we have decent reasons to exp...The subtlety is that we have decent reasons to <I>expect</I> other universes to exist, or at least other regions of our own so far away that we can't observe them (which amounts to the same thing). This is a <I>prediction</I> of standard models of <A HREF="http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/" REL="nofollow">inflationary cosmology</A>, models which are consistent withBlake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-65336527078756218842007-11-27T16:34:00.000-08:002007-11-27T16:34:00.000-08:00Right on!Right on!Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-79291355366339003402007-11-27T11:36:00.000-08:002007-11-27T11:36:00.000-08:00While I take your point I think you're confusing '...While I take your point I think you're confusing 'imaginable' with 'possible'. I'm willing to bet you could never have a universe of Charles Dickenses because Charles Dickens is not the product of a universe of Charles Dickenses, but of Victorian England. So that's a limitation of prediction there, albeit only removing the illogical and the impossible.<BR/><BR/>Whether the laws of physics are Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-11841817029848643042007-11-27T07:31:00.000-08:002007-11-27T07:31:00.000-08:00Thanks for your comment, which provided some depth...Thanks for your comment, which provided some depth I hadn't previously considered. I agree that MU has explanatory power within QM. You wrote, however:<BR/><BR/>'what does ONLY1U have?'<BR/><BR/>Well, that's easy. Parsimony, from one side of the two faces / two vases.<BR/><BR/>Now, as this post acknowledges, you can invert parsimony as Stenger does. But the question I would ask is: to what Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-60288450645106361812007-11-27T04:07:00.000-08:002007-11-27T04:07:00.000-08:00HI, I was the original commenter. Glad you found ...HI, I was the original commenter. Glad you found it interesting, amusing enough to post on MT<BR/><BR/><I>The existence of a multiverse is an extraordinary claim for precisely the opposite reason. It is not enough to bask in the beautiful mathematics of another untested notion, string theory, and observe that some versions demand a multiverse. At some point, we need some actual evidence...right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com