Immoral Multiverses?

"Second, like religious visions of paradise, multiverses represent an escapist distraction from our world."

This resonated with me a wee bit.

But I don't think a multiverse adherent is comparable to someone who believes he'll go to Heaven. Other universes are inaccessible. There is no wish to go there. One doesn't have to behave in a certain way to deserve going there. There is no Deity granting or denying entrance.

No, this is escapism on another level. One far above religious escapism. It is a gentle "what if", whereas religion is on the level of "I must", or "Thou shalt!"

Not immoral in my book.

Again, morality would have to be defined by someone's rules or beliefs.

Horgan shmorgan!

I absolutely agree with the article. I mean, multiverses are fun and a cool idea, and they often make for good stories and even interesting ways to get around the problems sci-fi authors face in different stories... one of my favorite sci-fi shows was Sliders, which dealt with the original idea of quantum mechanics creating a new world for every different possible decision.

But Horgan is right in that multiverses are scientifically immature. We do not have the capability to prove or disprove it. If a scientist falls back on the multiverse theory, he's basically given up and said "We just don't have the technology, yet!"

This is as irresponsible as a science fiction author creating Warp drive, teleporters, stargates, the Force, etc... But those are books (or movies!) and we love them for the places they take us! We're talking about the same thing happening in REAL science? That's ridiculous.

And I think that's a far more interesting point

If one goes by the classic sci-fi version of the multiverse idea, that when ever anyone makes a choice, an alternate universe is spun off, with the person making a different choice in that universe, that might cause some problems to religion.

For example, we may have a universe where Judas chose not to betray Jesus. Or where Jesus chose not to be the messiah, a la the Last Temptation of the Christ. Or where Pontius Pilate said to himself 'I'm not going to crucify this guy just because the mob demands it. Screw them!' Or where Siddhartha Gautama decided that being King wasn't such a bad thing after all. Or where Lao Tzu said 'piss off' to the guy who asked him to write down his philosophy before heading off into the desert.

TheMindKiller said:

I absolutely agree with the article. I mean, multiverses are fun and a cool idea, and they often make for good stories and even interesting ways to get around the problems sci-fi authors face in different stories... one of my favorite sci-fi shows was Sliders, which dealt with the original idea of quantum mechanics creating a new world for every different possible decision.

But Horgan is right in that multiverses are scientifically immature. We do not have the capability to prove or disprove it. If a scientist falls back on the multiverse theory, he's basically given up and said "We just don't have the technology, yet!"

Click to expand...

Wait a minute - so the results of theoretical science should be dismissed if its predictions are not currently testable? That could be said about many of the predictions of Einstein's findings when he first made them.

The arguments I've seen against these things is there's NO WAY these things could EVER be tested, and for that reason some people DO object to calling these things science. They are certainly mathematical manipulations in an effort to make sense of the current understanding of scientific cosmology, and I think they have value for what they are, whether they're classified as science or not. I'm a bit agnostic on that. It's hard to say FOR SURE we'll NEVER be able to test any of these theories/ideas/hypotheses, even if it appears that way from current understanding.

But does it have anything to do with morality? No, Mr. Horgan.

I have to +1 to benbradley on this one. The article did have a faint ring of "If man was meant to fly..." about it. I tend to get very leery of things which claim to be supporting a scientific approach and then base their argument on declarations about what will or will not happen in the future. Multiverse theories may be unscientific, but so is fortunetelling.

As for a moral argument, quibbling over whether it's clear enough to the masses that multiverse ideas are not science seems just that -- a quibble. Making a moralistic judgment out of it seems...well, judgmental.