Multiple Universes?! Hooey!…

I like hearing about new and interesting ideas within science – they help us to explain our world better…

(And now, I step on my soapbox…)  HOWEVER, I do think some ideas are just plain hooey, because they are less science and more intellectual rationalization for why we can’t explain things at the moment…

Take the Many-Worlds interpretation

In quantum mechanics, particles in the universe are represented by things called wavefunctions.  These wavefunctions describe the probabilities that one would observe a particle in a particular state, for example.  However, once we observe the particle in some state, we observe that state and no others, so the quantum physicists describe this as the “collapse” of the wavefunction.

Describing particles this way turns out to be pretty useful in describing some overall behavior, but it doesn’t explain everything, and this is where the “hooey” starts coming in…

Because quantum physicists can’t understand why this “collapse” happens the way it does, they’ve started to come up with consequences that just plain boggle the mind… 

So, since particles are represented by probabilitistic wavefunctions, then some people in the Many Worlds camp think that these particles exist in all states in different proportions in different universes.  So there’s another you somewhere doing something different than you’re doing now (say, not reading this post…) and still others doing things completely different…

The possibilities are literally endless, and there are serious scientists who believe in this hooey with straight faces…

Here’s a link to a video of David Deutsch.  He’s a Dirac Prize winner and in important contributor to the field of quantum mechanics and quantum computation (a favorite subject of mine…).  However, I just don’t buy into this poppycock of multiple universes – it’s hard enough to figure out what’s going on in our  universe, let alone all the other infinitely possible ones… 

And to invent an infinite number of alternative universes as the reason why we can’t fully explain what’s happening here – well, it just plain ain’t science.

For me, scientific theories are ones that can (1) explain the world and the universe around us, and (2) can be proven wrong when it doesn’t explain what happens in our world.   Theories also provide evidence for their truth with each and every time we observe our world. 

The problem with some theories (Many-Worlds is one, String Theory is another…) is that they can’t be proven wrong, so they just hang around, and scientific debate turns more into philosophy than a quest for what really drives the universe…

OK, off the soapbox…  For now…

Get My Newest Articles In Your Inbox

Subscribe to get my latest articles from Decisions & Discovery by email.

We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time. Powered by ConvertKit

I currently serve as Vice President of Decision Science at CenturyLink. I've previously served as a leader in the Advanced Risk & Compliance Analytics (ARCA) practice at PwC and as Director of Data Science & Analytics Engineering at Areté Associates. I've served the public as Chair of the Thousand Oaks, CA Planning Commission. I have been married to my wife Stephanie since 1993, and we have a wonderful daughter Monroe. Learn more about me »

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

  • Pingback: Interview with Roger Penrose | The Logic of Science()

  • Pingback: Rewriting the Book of Physics | The Logic of Science()

  • Dawn Wessel

    Multi-universe theory, not so strange just as,

    Adam was a primate:

    Adam/man (translation = ruddy/red) = soul (Gen. 2:7 – the ‘animal’ sentiment principle ‘only’) = ‘brute’ animal (which ‘had’ to have been a ‘primate’ because of Genome and other ‘evidence’).

    It came from the ‘dust’ of the ‘ground’ (synonyms = powder, mortar, earth, red dirt, ‘mud’) at a time when the earth was ‘hot’ (Gen. 2:4 – the translation of day is ‘to be hot’).

    There is no difference between what evolution teaches (early life evolved from the hot primordial soup/mud) and what the Bible shows.

    At some time after its evolution from the primordial soup this creature wandered into a garden (another realm, Gen. 2:8 = Quantum Physics says our reality is more akin to a hologram/pixels generated from somewhere else) and got ‘God’s image (aura/’supernatural’ spirit/’higher consciousness’/sixth sense, etc.).

    This had to have been an ‘accident’ because if God had chosen the creature, surely he would have picked one that was not sometimes prone to violent behaviour and had polygamous tendencies!

    Evolution teaches that at some time (un)favourable conditions existed that forced certain primates to ‘evolve’. Those conditions no longer exist thus the reason why primates are not still evolving.

    I want to challenge that view. The reason we are not seeing it is because according to Bible writings, this change only occurred to one primate, Adam.

    Before the garden (and in the garden), in its initial state, Adam was an ‘it (asexual)’. Male/female was a later bi-product.
    It left the garden (Adam could not find a comparable/’same species’ mate among the garden creatures, Gen. 2:18-20). At that time a female was produced that came directly from its body. In other words ‘it gave birth to her’.

    She came from its rib (translation = as curved, which can just as easily mean a strand of DNA as the double-helix ‘curves’). She was ‘bone of my bones’ (plural/not one bone as in a ‘single’ rib) and ‘flesh of my flesh’ (Gen. 2:23). Therefore, she came from ‘flesh’ and ‘bone’, not just ‘bone’.

    After her birth, Adam was referred to in the ‘masculine’, she in the ‘feminine’ (all the ‘female’ genes were pooled into her).

    When Adam left the other realm the first time it had changed a great deal as the garden causes ‘changes’. Its higher consciousness/spirit died = ‘deep’ sleep, Gen. 2:21. However, it was no longer the same creature it had been when it had first wandered into the garden.

    It was still asexual but was physically different; Neanderthal (red). When his offspring matured it mated with her and other Neanderthals were produced (they were more animalistic in this phase and if no other primates were around, would have mated with each other).

    Neanderthal Adam somehow returned to the garden with his Neanderthal female (we don’t know how long they were there in earth time). When they were forced to leave for the second time however, they were clothed with ‘skin’ (fur was gone because they didn’t need it anymore – Gen. 3:21) = they had changed again, Homo sapien.

    Fossil evidence would show a physical evolution of three stages. When in reality they evolved ‘because’ of ‘supernatural influence’ they had gained when Adam entered the garden and got ‘God’s spirit’.

    The other primates (and other animals of the earth) are not evolving because they do not have God’s image!
    The garden is timeless so we have no idea how old Adam/man (it) was in the garden for the first duration. Nor do we know how long Adam and his wife were in the garden before they were forced to leave. It was apparently a very long time as science tells us that the earth is very old.

    Adam was the original ‘it’, also ‘Neanderthal (missing link)’ and the ‘first Homo Sapien’ – all three at various stages.

    The human line came from one primate and its mate. Their offspring, the Neanderthals, were still on the earth when Adam and Eve returned to mortal earth. Thus Neanderthal and Homo-sapien existed for a time together as fossil evidence shows.

    For whatever reason, Neanderthalis disappeared and Homo-sapien became the dominant species.

    Things are not as they appear.