Based on my experience you should be a mother fucking high school science teacher, and my school was the highest scoring charter in the state last year, I think that has something to do with why it will be closed but I digress. I agree with your analogy for the most part, quantum mechanics allows for some things thermodynamics doesn’t. Not that I’m arguing heat death won’t happen it surely will. There’s no way around it if the universe continues to expand so does everything else.
I think we could be not biologically immortal I guess more biologically able to not die from aging or natural causes such a disease. You love making me be precise with my language don’t you. Which I appreciate it wouldn’t be fun any other way. That being said odds are there is more than a single universe theoretical physics strongly suggests it anyway so what’s to say we couldn’t leave this universe for a younger one? It’s possible. It’s even within the realm of classical physics for it to be possible. There is nothing in classical physics that says a single universe is the only possible one and worm holes and black holes came from classical physics. Those things are both purely mathematical theory at this point as we have no data to suggest either is the case but classical physics break down in a singularity and as far as I’m aware there isn’t anything in quantum physics that explains them either. Now I’m just rambling again. So I’ll stop but I do enjoy thinking about such things.
Oh, boy...
Hmm...
There's nothing in classical physics that says I don't have an undetectable dragon in my garage.
Without evidence, there's no reason to believe.
Which leads me to this...
The multiverse hypothesis (it doesn't rise to the level of theory) is unscientific. Science demands a little something called "falsifiability." As we're limited to observing what is in our universe, we aren't able to disprove (that is to falsify) that multiverses exist. Thus, it's not science.
Just like you can't disprove that I have an undetectable dragon in my garage. My claiming that I do is not, in fact, scientific.
(For the record, I don't actually believe I have an undetectable dragon in my garage. It's just a handy analogy.)
So, I don't believe there's more than one universe. There's absolutely zero substantive evidence that suggests such. There's conjecture and hypothesis - and not even really good hypotheses, 'cause they lack falsifiability.
If there's no way to disprove it, it's not science. Science has no opinion on the matter of a deity, for example. I can't prove God doesn't exist. As such, I don't really hold an opinion except to say there's no substantive evidence for such. There's conjecture.
Einstein's predictions were science because, had the star not appeared with the light lensed around our Sun, he'd have been proven wrong. He made predictions. If those predictions didn't come true, it was false.
How are you going to falsify a universe beyond what we can observe?
Well there is the simulation hypothesis that seems to line up with what we see in cosmic background radiation so that is testable and would suggest a possible multi verse. I will admit it isn't falsifiable and as such isn't hard science. I however wouldn't go so far as to completely throw away theoretical physics because it isn't falsifiable. I guess we have run into that impasse you and I have had in the past once again, belief in the possibility of the unprovable. At the end of the day I will always be a guy who has faith and is open to fantastic possibilities even if they can't be proven and you are a guy who will always be rooted in what can and cannot be proven.
I'd personally say the world needs both kinds of guys. If it didn't have them the place would be a little more boring. Without belief anything is possible we wouldn't have many of the wonders of technology we have today and without the guys telling the believers to get their heads out of the clouds it never would have happened. Humanity is complicated and needs all types to get better. Even crazy guys such as myself. Hell I think its a good idea to blow up the top of a mountain and any sane person would clearly see thats a bad idea.
Even theoretical physics must be falsifiable to be valid. That's why they do stuff like smash particles. They do it to test the predictions.
My belief is that the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the nature of things. That may change, but the philosophy of science is where I draw my beliefs from. Until something better than the scientific method comes along, I'm sticking with it. So far, it's served me well!
As for a mountain top, a falsifiable theory would be that if I blow the mountain top up, I predict I'll get in a shitload of trouble - but have a good time. That's a testable theory!
Science all the things!
(post is archived)