'Tunneling Into Multiverses' or "Where's Waldo?"
Robert L. Oldershaw
arxiv.org like psychedelic mushrooms.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.4082v1.pdf
There are no testable predictions identifiable in this paper, and it
is hard to imagine how the entire line of research could lead to
definitive testable scientific predictions. I can imagine there being
pseudo-predictions that might satisfy the true believers, but I will
bet that I can show that these "predictions" decisively fail one or
more of the criteria for definitive scientific predictions.
Take a look at this paper. I think speculation is fine as long as
there is truth in advertising and it is clearly identified as
speculation. The question then becomes: how much untestable
speculation do we allow before science becomes saturated with it in
an
unhealthy manner that drowns out good testable science, and in the
long run causes the public to lose faith in the rigor of science.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
<rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
> Here is another example of the type of papers that are popping up at
> arxiv.org like psychedelic mushrooms.
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.4082v1.pdf
>
> There are no testable predictions identifiable in this paper,
> speculation. The question then becomes: how much untestable
> speculation do we allow before science becomes saturated with it in
> an unhealthy manner that drowns out good testable science, and in the
> long run causes the public to lose faith in the rigor of science.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means take a look at Craig Callender's review:
of Sean Carroll's new book, and of the whole anthropic multiverse
gambit.
The review provides a much need bromide for the indigestible stew of
untestable anthropocentric, Ptatonic "science" that is much in vogue
today.
Thank you Dr. Callender!
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw