I have a problem with this, at least currently.
There's no way to prove a parallel universe doesn't exist. It's like we can't prove an omnipotent deity doesn't exist.
As such, it lacks something called falsifiability. Unless it's falsifiable, it's not science. Science demands falsifiability, more than anything else. Had the star not appeared when it had as the eclipse was ending, Einstein's theory of General Relativity would have been proven false. That's falsifiability.
A parallel universe isn't detectable from within the confines of this universe and, as such, there's no way to prove such doesn't exist. Ergo, it is not science.
Please don't take this as a slight - none is intended. This is more to express a concept about science that's often overlooked by the media and by people who profess opinions about the nature of the world around them. Absolutely no slight is intended! ;-)
In fact, I've enjoyed the media posts about this subject. But, it's not really scientific - at this point and maybe not ever.
Which, of course, is why I posted it in 'strange' here, and in 'Pseudoscience' on Phuks. I don't believe any of this stuff, but I enjoy reading as an occasional diversion from reality. The same is true of UFOs, Cryptozoology, etc, etc., just fun entertainment enjoyed by many, so I post from time to time.
Again, no slight was intended - I just figured I'd use it as a moment to talk about falsifiability, as it's often overlooked. It wasn't even specifically intended with you (the individual) as the target - but more the audience at large.
I find it equally disturbing when a scientist says that the science says there's no such thing as a god. No, there's no evidence to believe that there's a deity - but it's not falsifiable. As such, science has no position on the existence of a deity.
It's a pet peeve of mine and I find that a goodly amount of the younger generation (on all sides of the various debates and from generations that should have had a better science education than I was given in my early years) don't actually know this.
I'd have assumed that kids were being taught science better than they were when I was young. And, frankly, I'd have been wrong.
Yes, I'd have been very, very wrong.
Hell, when I was a kid, plate tectonics was still fairly new and not really settled. My earliest science textbooks said nothing about it. I don't think it was before high school were I had a textbook that included it. Not even our fairly modern encyclopedia set delved deep into it as anything more than a hypothesis.
Shit, I was already out of college when they got the first evidence for dark energy. I'd have thought the kids would know more about this than I do. And, again, I'd have been wrong.
(Yes, yes I am sometimes wrong.)
(post is archived)