String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought

Just thinking of why there is something rather than nothing short circuits my brain with the endless implications.
Anyone read Jim Holt's book, 'Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story"

Will look into that book. Those of us that perceive a unified field tend to think that its is something and nothing. Not rather than. Can one exist without the other?

Having read a number of books in the past about mathematics... books in layman's language as is done with physics... it was very strange how some mathematical abstractions 'created/invented' some 50, 100, 200, years in the past, suddenly winds up describing actual physical processes.
What that is telling me is that universe/reality conjures up what kind of result the science/observer expects from experimentation. "You need a Higgs Boson? Well, here it is!" lol

Very true. The mathematical formulas go back even further. To the ancients, in fact. The Sumerian, Egyptian, Atlantean, and Incan/Mayan civilizations to name a few. Some of these civilizations that acquired too much knowledge, and too quickly, are no longer in existence. I want to call it a universal stopgap if you will. As humanity continues to gain knowledge into universal actions, at some point our fates will be the same. It certainly does not mean we should stop searching.

Very true. The mathematical formulas go back even further. To the ancients, in fact. The Sumerian, Egyptian, Atlantean, and Incan/Mayan civilizations to name a few. Some of these civilizations that acquired too much knowledge, and too quickly, are no longer in existence. I want to call it a universal stopgap if you will. As humanity continues to gain knowledge into universal actions, at some point our fates will be the same. It certainly does not mean we should stop searching.

I'm not sure about blending subjective and objective like this. On the one hand we know there have been various peaks in societies and cultures in the past, such as the Egyptian, and which are no longer in existence. But the reasons why these various civilisations no longer exist may be many and varied (and some of them not pretty). It seems, to me at least, very glib to suggest that the acquisition of too much knowledge, and too quickly, is somehow part of the reason. In some cases we do know broadly what happened - an existing culture didn't survive a meeting with a different culture, and military conquest ensued. Though these may be difficult to unravel since the narrative is usually controlled by the side which emerged as victors. In others, such as the Maya, there is no clear narrative to be followed, other than that which can be deduced from the archaeological record.

I'm not sure about blending subjective and objective like this. On the one hand we know there have been various peaks in societies and cultures in the past, such as the Egyptian, and which are no longer in existence. But the reasons why these various civilisations no longer exist may be many and varied (and some of them not pretty). It seems, to me at least, very glib to suggest that the acquisition of too much knowledge, and too quickly, is somehow part of the reason. In some cases we do know broadly what happened - an existing culture didn't survive a meeting with a different culture, and military conquest ensued. Though these may be difficult to unravel since the narrative is usually controlled by the side which emerged as victors. In others, such as the Maya, there is no clear narrative to be followed, other than that which can be deduced from the archaeological record.

Of this there is a certainty. Knowing too much was never the reason for any civilizations collapse.

Having read a number of books in the past about mathematics... books in layman's language as is done with physics... it was very strange how some mathematical abstractions 'created/invented' some 50, 100, 200, years in the past, suddenly winds up describing actual physical processes.
What that is telling me is that universe/reality conjures up what kind of result the science/observer expects from experimentation. "You need a Higgs Boson? Well, here it is!" lol

That's not true. The Higgs particle was predicted 40 or so years ago. If expectation was the cause for expected results that particle would have found years ago. There are many instances where theoretical expectations do not produce positive results. Some examples are dark matter and dark energy. There are theories for gravity but we still don't know it's nature. QM  predicts monopoles. Ain't none been found. To say expectation (ones will) produces desired results is  largely point of view based upon expectation.

That's not true. The Higgs particle was predicted 40 or so years ago. If expectation was the cause for expected results that particle would have found years ago. There are many instances where theoretical expectations do not produce positive results. Some examples are dark matter and dark energy. There are theories for gravity but we still don't know it's nature. QM  predicts monopoles. Ain't none been found. To say expectation (ones will) produces desired results is  largely point of view based upon expectation.

Yes. I was just making a sort of oddball observation. But going with the oddball hypothetical.... still applies to higgs. It just took 40 years before the experiment was technically feasible, that's all.  

But you're right. People (like me) could take notice of the 'hits' while disregarding all the 'misses'.

It is truly amusing that "mainstream" physicists using their highly developed    brains continue to hypothesize string theory, multiverses, etc.  Most of them are usually the same people that dismiss phenomenology and other para-happenings as hokum. So, if they do not have any real evidence of such "theories", does this make them metaphysicists? My .02 cents.

Recalls commentary by Brian Whitworth on why physics is a "Hollow Science", taken from Quantum Realism, Chapter 1: The physical world as a virtual reality

"...There are equations, proofs and applications, but the models that work make no physical sense, e.g. in Feynman's sum over histories an electron travels all possible paths between two points at once, but how can one electron do that? Theory should increase understanding, but in physics it seems to take it away. In wave-particle duality particles morph into waves, denying the very sense of what waves and particles are. Given a choice between meaning and mathematics, physics chose the latter and it shows. Quantum theory still isn’t taught in high schools because who can teach what makes no sense? Modern physics is a mathematical feast that at its core is entirely empty of meaning. It is a hollow science, built on impressive equations about quantum states that everyone agrees don’t exist! And physics has chosen this way of no meaning as a deliberate strategy..."

Yes. I was just making a sort of oddball observation. But going with the oddball hypothetical.... still applies to higgs. It just took 40 years before the experiment was technically feasible, that's all.  

But you're right. People (like me) could take notice of the 'hits' while disregarding all the 'misses'.

Still does not apply. The reason I say so is for these reasons. I've seen on this forum, Skeptiko and across the web people claiming emphatically that ones will is what makes the world go round.  An oft used example is the double slit experiment.  We have technologies that are able to detect such things yet those technologies have not always satisfied our expectations.

The sentence that is in bold. I had to do a double take when I read that. I do believe you are the first person I've read that has beyond just lip service conceded to actually recognize how your personal biases influence your conclusions with the implied possibility that you could change your mind.

The sentence that is in bold. I had to do a double take when I read that. I do believe you are the first person I've read that has beyond just lip service conceded to actually recognize how your personal biases influence your conclusions with the implied possibility that you could change your mind.

Sometimes I think I may the only one on this planet that doesn't adhere to any particular belief system, lol. However I do live in society and need to adopt whatever is the general consensus or the alternative is to go live in a cave, lol.

I'm agnostic about everything, even whatever beliefs I enjoy entertaining that I've appropriated. Of course my agnosticism allows for a scale of certainty to uncertainty. 2+2=4 is 99.9% certain. Paranormal  events...73%. Biblical God.... 0.5%.