Multiverse Theories Are Bad for Science

Multiverse Theories Are Bad for Science

New books by a physicist and science journalist mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

I am not a multiverse denier, any more than I am a God denier. Science cannot resolve the existence of either God or the multiverse, making agnosticism the only sensible position. I see some value in multiverse theories. Particularly when presented by a writer as gifted as Sean Carroll, they goad our imaginations and give us intimations of infinity. They make us feel really, really small—in a good way.

But I’m less entertained by multiverse theories than I once was, for a couple of reasons. First, science is in a slump, for reasons both internal and external. Science is ill-served when prominent thinkers tout ideas that can never be tested and hence are, sorry, unscientific. Moreover, at a time when our world, the real world, faces serious problems, dwelling on multiverses strikes me as escapism—akin to billionaires fantasizing about colonizing Mars. Shouldn’t scientists do something more productive with their time?

Maybe in another universe Carroll and Siegfried have convinced me to take multiverses seriously, but I doubt it.

Science is ill-served when prominent thinkers tout ideas that can never be tested and hence are, sorry, unscientific.

It's a shame that it is necessary to insert the hesitancy of the "sorry" in the above. It should be shouted loud and clear, that these ideas are not scientific.

Moreover, at a time when our world, the real world, faces serious problems, dwelling on multiverses strikes me as escapism—akin to billionaires fantasizing about colonizing Mars. Shouldn’t scientists do something more productive with their time?

Agree here again, but more so. By bringing up the idea of multiverses, some speakers can pretend that they have the answers. It is a way of disguising something else which should be shouted loud and clear: that is, the ability to say "We don't know!".


Oh, and I disagree with the characterisation of agnosticism as the only sensible position with regard to the existence of God. But I'll let that one pass without further comment, having noted my disagreement.

I also disagree with the characterization of agnosticism as the only sensible position with regard to the existence of God.

I would have liked Horgan to distinguish between ideas which seem to arise from an established theory, and ideas which arise from sitting around and bullshitting with your friends, but whatever. I'm willing to call the latter unscientific, but not the former, regardless of whether or not they are ultimately "testable". He briefly mentioned the rebuttal, but it invalidates his statement and he should have paid more attention to it. An idea necessitated by an established theory is testable by testing the theory, regardless of whether or not you can directly test the idea.

Also, giving scientists a shopping list of practical problems to solve misses the point of science. Historically, we've done a poor job of identifying where scientific advances are going to come from and directing our efforts there. Some of our most important discoveries have come from "the theory is all wrapped up but for one last minor detail to explain" or "I'm too lazy to get up to point during my slide show" (okay, that's not why the laser was invented, but the envisioned applications were just an add-on to the development of a device for theoretical purposes).

Linda

Agree here again, but more so. By bringing up the idea of multiverses, some speakers can pretend that they have the answers. It is a way of disguising something else which should be shouted loud and clear: that is, the ability to say "We don't know!".


Oh, and I disagree with the characterisation of agnosticism as the only sensible position with regard to the existence of God. But I'll let that one pass without further comment, having noted my disagreement.

On the latter, I think Horgan might have meant agnosticism as the position of Science, rather than the general position one must take.

Personally I'm of two minds on the Multiverse as stemming from Many Worlds Interpretation. On the one hand it's quite odd to have a theory that someone says simply cannot be tested, on the other if one can have proof but hasn't yet or we just don't have the technology to test at this time that seems a different thing.

I do wonder what makes MWI even seem like something worth entertaining, when there seem to be enough alternatives including those that don't involve consciousness causing collapse or any other kind of immaterialism.