What is Digg?82 Comments
- WikiTerra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This isn't science, and it isn't even philosophy--it's new age babble. Granted the guy is a geek (read his bio on the about page), but he's also got into "healing, meditation and consciousness" when he traveled to India. This site isn't about science, it's about his personal religion.
No digg, dude.
PS: Shouldn't the word "digg" be included in the spell checker? - WikiTerra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okay, what I meant by "this isn't science" is that it doesn't increase my knowledge of what current physics has to say about parallel universes. I read "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" when I was fourteen. It isn't philosophy because it doesn't make any apparent attempt to come to any metaphyscial conclusion--in fact it doesn't even raise any questions. It's just babbling about how cool it is that there might be some alternate reality a la Star Trek.
The fact that it is well written hides all this, but it is nonetheless pure feel-good drivel. - Luthor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just as an aside and a little tid bit:
Dr Hugh Everett is the inventor of the "Many Worlds Theory", which is the idea that Multiple realities come from. Dr Everett is the father of Mark Oliver Everett, aka E, leader of the phenomenal band Eels.
So not only is he responsible for the creation of sci-fi's favorite idea, he's also responsible for one of Geekdom's favorite bands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett - retr0spectiv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3lol after reading berean's comment I had to find some other good ones.
Jackpot!
"Like usual, the one denying the One True God bases his arguments on false assumptions, poor reasoning, and a lack of understanding of Biblical concepts." http://digg.com/science/Is_GOD_for_real_Or_does_science_negate_GOD_
"Most "ancient mysteries" are the result of either a lack of understanding on our part, or the fact that man was once endowed with a wonderful intelligence, only to have it deteriorate with each new generation." http://digg.com/science/A_2,000_year_old_battery_along_with_other_world_mysteries
"Stop the arguments. I could prove separation of church and state doesn't exist, but it'd take a while, and it wouldn't matter anyway. Everything is a belief. Beliefs can be proclaimed and encouraged, whether they're about Jesus or the superiority of one Linux distro over another.
You can't shut people up because they say something you don't like, which is basically what the ACLU does. While they protect the rights of some, they deny the rights of others." http://digg.com/links/Political_Correctness_Is_Silencing_Freedom_of_Religion - prairieson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wikiterra - Actually the concept is both science and philosophy. For the science check out a book, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". It's a look at quantum mechanics. Among other things the author talks about the idea of what you might call 'forking realities' and the possibility of an ever increasing infinite number of parallel universes. Really interesting read.
And as for philosophy/belief systems, look into Zen Buddhism. There is an amazing parallel between Zen philosophy and quantum mechanics.
Just some food for thought.... if you're hungry. - noodhoog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Poeple believe in parallel universes and time travel, but not Jesus Christ?"
Crazy, eh? Who'd'a thunk people would take the bleeding edge theoretical science, mathematics and logic, which derive from their tried-and-tested counterparts, over a book full of contradictions[1] written by committes of people with political interests long in the past and handed down to present day chinese-whispers style.
[1] http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html - Worrok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2berean: It appears so! Funny that.
+digg just to spite berean - pr0t3st, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Excellent article.
- unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.duggmirror.com
- retr0spectiv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Time has a beginning, and time will end. It isn't tangible and can't be manipulated.
Does time slow down the faster you go, the closer you get to a black hole? Of course not. T/T=1, no matter what T is. Easy." - berean
http://digg.com/science/Are_Wormholes_Tunnels_for_Time_Travel_
LOL he really knows what hes talking about ;) - fyre2012, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hey, it's the right of every person to believe whatever they want.
I, personally, bow down before our TRUE Lord and Masters...
Foamy ( http://www.illwillpress.com )and the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( http://www.venganza.org ) =) - evizaer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Science may be based on belief, but it is not based on faith (though there are some parts of science that are, to some extent, based on faith).
This article is poorly written. He continually interrupts himself to define terms or phrases instead of weaving the definition into the exposition.
He also doesn't seem to understand the concepts he's describing and/or he's describing them poorly. - tank_47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Congrats for a slashdot-like conversation everybody!
Digg, great article! - chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"For those who want to go even deeper down the rabbit hole, here's a link to a mindblowing vision of life (if it's actually true); it mentions parallel universes and a lot of other fascinating stuff:
http://archive.tc/?x=8"
They said faries exist twice within 3 paragraphs, I'm not buying it. - thecolor11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This guy definitely does not understand what he's talking about, and to call this science is more than a stretch. Science uses experimental evidence to create theories and make testable predictions. Quantum mechanics is a tool that we use to make testable predictions. Some New Ager's "interpretation" of the oddities of QM is not science.
- noodhoog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh good grief. Now that I've finally got through to the site I find it's a load of new age woo-woo bollocks. Basically another "What the bleep do we know".. well, I'll tell you what the bleep *I* know. When a movie made by TM cultists tells me a housewife is channelling a thousand year old spirit at me and it's all perfectly explainable by quantum mechanics, that it's a load of crap.
- TimmyK., on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So there might be an alternate reality where like my car is like a really good car? That totally rules.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Parallel Universes, known better as "Many Worlds Theory", is mostly crap. Most of these theories have been disproven.
Google gave me a pretty good abstract explaining the matter: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Richards.html - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Back to this Parallel Universes thing. This is String Theory, right?"
As far as I know, it is just plain vanilla particle mechanics.
----
"Most of these theories have been disproven."
Uh huh. By so-called "Christian scientists?" Whatever. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Okay, how's this? Thank God for the ACLU. And yes, I mean that."
Indeed. They/we defend the religious liberty of Americans (especially Christians) all the time.
-------
"For the science check out a book, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". It's a look at quantum mechanics."
I read that back in grad school, based on the recommendation of a friend. Some of it is a bit wooly, but Zukav does a good job of explaining the science. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I've been nothing but cordial toward you"
No, you've been delibrately trolling by intentionally misunderstanding my posts and taking them out of context. I don't appreciate it. So welcome to my block list. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"No, you've been delibrately trolling by intentionally misunderstanding my posts and taking them out of context."
Um, no. I've been reprinting, word-for-word, your own statements and calling you out on them. Obviously, you're not used to being challenged. Too bad for you.
"I don't appreciate it. So welcome to my block list."
Of course you don't, because then you can't get away with your own logical inconsistencies. Not only do I welcome my status on your "block list," I'm fairly certain I'm also in good company with the rest of the folks that exposed you as the whiny, petulant man-child that you are. - Tr176, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is such an inter resting topic of discussion
... i started reading theoretical physics books a few years ago and I've found that one of the best authors out there for that sort of thing is Prof. Michio Kaku of CUNY. - QuirkBently, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0new age claptrap. Look at his other posts at the site. he needs a good knock on the head. Anyone using the words: heavens, conscious, etc is very suspect. no digg. just dumb.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dumb.. No digg.
- mikeyj10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I just want to hear Rose try to explain this on diggnation
- donnie_dark0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's it, I'm banishing all of you to my parallel universe.
- ScottyTee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Excellent Article" said it all ;) +digg
--
http://www.diggfans.com - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"if you can't perform an experiment to disprove it, it's not science. from an experimentalist's perspective this is all *****."
It's what the math says. Black holes and any number of other oddities were likewise predicted and have since been born out through subsequent testing.
"Many Worlds" is a hypothesis based on a scientific theory. Has it been tested? Not yet, but that certainly doesn't make it *****. - chameleon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like you created quite a stir ;)
A parallel universe in itself.... all this arguing and name-calling going on within the context of this article....
HMMMMM! - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"No, not by "Christian scientists". By actual scientists."
Sorry, but the link you provided was nothing more than philosophy and religion.
"Look up the Afshar Experiment, for one thing."
I am familiar with it, and, as you admit yourself, it is far from conclusive.
"The notion that these theories are not-falsifiable is really what's being debated, actually. Many scientists think that you can't disprove Many Worlds or Copenhagen."
And many do not. As I said, and as you surely know, Many Worlds is a hypothesis that seems to flow from QM. It isn't a scientific theory in its own right... more of a sophisticated hypothesis. Therefore, there is nothing yet to be falsified, because it has not yet been established.
That doesn't make it *****, as you claimed. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"drahkhon, you clearly have issues, because you're reading *way* more than what I'm actually typing. Maybe you need to go back and reread what I'm actually posting, but please try and leave your preconcieved notions about me at the door."
I'm so sorry. Let's go back and see what you wrote then:
"Look up the Afshar Experiment, for one thing. The Copenhagen Intepretation is also disproven by this experiment, actually. Admittedly, this experiment is still being debated, but no really good criticisms of it have yet emerged."
There it is. Black and white (well, yellow). You held up as a counter to MW this single article, by a single scientist, that has yet to even be published after nearly two years of being offered by its proponent. Yeah, I'd say it's certainly "still debated," considering no one except its proponent actually accepts it as much of anything. It's no wonder there haven't been any "significant criticisms" of the paper... seeing as it hasn't even entered the peer-reviewed arena in the first place.
Hmm. Looks like I didn't misread you at all. Funny, that.
"My point is that even presenting it as legitimate science, when it ain't (yet), is a mistake. It only increases the misunderstanding of science in the world..."
Blah blah blah. Every single thing, every thing, that you say here could be perfectly true, and it would nonetheless have zero bearing on whether legitimate scientists entertain what they believe to be a plausible hypothesis. Does that make it "science?" Well, it makes it something more than just "crap," at the least. It seems to me that your own personal fiat is the only thing separating MW from a legitimate, though as yet untested, hypothesis.
"Don't give the fundamentalists more ammunition, that's all I'm saying."
I wouldn't dare, if I could help it, but neither will I deny that an idea exists to which many in the scientific community give credence. We aren't talking about science fiction--we're talking about very orthodox people offering up an orthodox hypothesis.
What you propose is that we censor what the public hears out of the __legitimate__ scientific community... and why? Because the public can't "handle it?" I must have missed your ascension to the post of PR Guru for the world scientific community. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You held up as a counter to MW this single article, by a single scientist, that has yet to even be published after nearly two years of being offered by its proponent."
Might want to check your facts. The Afshar work was published in Proc. SPIE 5866, 229-244 in July of 2005, according to Wikipedia.
"Yeah, I'd say it's certainly "still debated," considering no one except its proponent actually accepts it as much of anything."
You might want to actually take a poll. From what I've seen and read, there's quite a debate on it. Some people think it works, some don't. Of course, it's relatively new, so that's to be expected. Dismissing it out of hand certainly points to you doing exactly what you accused me of earlier.
"It seems to me that your own personal fiat is the only thing separating MW from a legitimate, though as yet untested, hypothesis."
It seems to me that you are taking what I'm saying to extremes. Again, there's nothing wrong with calling it a hypothesis. But you, and others in this thread, have made it out to be way more than it actually is. There's no supporting evidence for it. There's nothing it explains better than one of several other ideas. There's no actual *reason* to think that it's true. All I'm saying is to not blow things out of proportion.
"...neither will I deny that an idea exists to which many in the scientific community give credence."
That depends on your definition of credence. Most physicists like the idea because it's a bit out there. Very science-fictiony. But liking the idea and thinking that it is, in fact, actually true are two entirely different things.
"What you propose is that we censor what the public hears out of the __legitimate__ scientific community... and why? "
Again, pay closer attention to what the ***** I am saying. I'm not saying to censor a blamed thing! I'm suggesting to be more ***** responsible in what you say. Ass. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'm not familiar, do you have a reference so that I could learn more?"
This site isn't too bad for a crash course on the double-slit experiment:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/index.html
The PBS show Nova has some pretty good introductory materials on its website linked to the Elegant Universe series. You'll have to dig a bit to find it, though. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Might want to check your facts..."
You are correct. I withdraw the portion of my criticism that says as much. Nonetheless, it is the case that his work is highly criticized and his work is not accepted by the bulk of the community.
"Dismissing it out of hand certainly points to you doing exactly what you accused me of earlier..."
Um, no... I am saying that it is as yet an hypothesis. By your criteria, this ought to mean that it is "crap." Yet, you seem unwilling to call it as such. Why? I can only imagine.
"Again, there's nothing wrong with calling it a hypothesis."
Good, then you concede your entire argument. Why? Because...
"But you, and others in this thread, have made it out to be way more than it actually is."
Nope. I've done no such thing by any measure. I've said from the very beginning that it is a hypothesis posited by some pretty ***** smart folks. Does that make it "way more" than a hypothesis? Who knows, but it doesn't mean it's "crap." That's your assertion, after all.
"Most physicists like the idea because it's a bit out there. Very science-fictiony. But liking the idea and thinking that it is, in fact, actually true are two entirely different things."
Well, since you are privy to the motives and inner thoughts of every scientist who is amenable to the MW hypothesis, I defer to your considerable authority.
"Again, pay closer attention to what the ***** I am saying. I'm not saying to censor a blamed thing! I'm suggesting to be more ***** responsible in what you say. Ass."
Name-calling? I've been nothing but cordial toward you, but if that's how you solve your differences, I could care less.
Now, let me see if I understand you correctly: you claim you don't want to censor anything, but yet you would like to be more "responsible?" Please inform me what I have said that is so "[ir]responsible?" For that matter, please inform me what, in the article, claims that MW is anything but a hypothesis--one way to approach a problem. Are scientists taking MW "seriously," as the article contends? Well, some certainly are, yes. People have published on the matter, if that's any criteria; and the article does not seem to posit that it is uncontroversial or otherwise universally accepted.
So please tell me, since you claim you don't want to quash all discussion on the matter, what I and the article have claimed that offends you.
Or hell, just call me some more names, if it makes you feel like a big man. - EliGottlieb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.hydrino.org/
Theory that doesn't involve parallel universes. - sourcecode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For those who want to go even deeper down the rabbit hole, here's a link to a mindblowing vision of life (if it's actually true); it mentions parallel universes and a lot of other fascinating stuff:
http://archive.tc/?x=8 - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"No, it's one possible hypothesis that can be made up in order to potentially explain some of the oddities of QM. It's not an "obvious" interpretation of the oddities in any sense. Of course, neither are any of the other explanations."
That's a rather odd statement on your part considering that you are a big fan of Afshar... who has never published his "experiment." I count myself as an empiricist, and I imagine you do as well... which makes it rather odd that you would so malign one hypothesis but stridently defend one that has a singular, and unpublished, proponent in the scientific community.
"I didn't claim it was *****, I claimed it was crap. Which it is."
Now we're playing little semantic games, are we?
"It's not a theory, it's not rigorous, there's essentially nothing to test, as such."
I never said it was a theory, and, in fact, admitted that it was a hypothesis. There is some reason to believe the hypothesis has some credence, but no, as I have said, it has not been tested. But just because a rigorous test has not been yet devised does not make the hypothesis worthless. I bring up, again, the notion of black holes, the proof of which could not be devised until our cosmology caught up with the theory. But that doesn't mean black holes were "crap." It meant they were an interesting idea that had some backing in the math, but could not be tested at the time.
"People who are doing real scientific work in QM and String Theory are not helped by these ideas being punted around as being legitimate scientific theories."
Well, considering some of the top minds in physics are those who "punted around" the Many Worlds notion in the first place, this is a rather odd statement.
You seem to have this absolutist idea about science--that something is either "proven" or it is not. But that isn't, as you should well know, how it works. Even the most robust of scientific theories has portions of it that suggest new frontiers and hazy levels of explanatory power in some areas. No one knows what, exactly, an electron is, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about it or any other particle. It doesn't mean we chuck the whole idea of electrons as "crap."
"They're ideas, nothing more. Anybody can have an idea. Anybody can hypothesize anything. It only does a disservice to science when you punt these ideas around because the right-wing fundamentalist nuts pick them up and say "See what science believed yesterday! Now they know that's not true! Science is wrong!" and so on."
Well, yes and no. To reiterate, the MW hypothesis isn't just idle speculation--it's posited by top physicists, themselves, not just some dork with a blog. And I am in complete agreement with you that many people interpret ambiguities in science as proof that science doesn't know anything about the world. But curiously, you seem to be the flip-side of the coin in that regard. You are likewise Manichean about science and unwilling to entertain any idea that you don't personally deem worthy. You rail against "fundamentalists" (as I do, btw), but seem rather fundy regarding science, too.
I'm not advocating that we accept any whackjob notion anyone puts forth, like resurrecting phrenology or the like. But neither does it seem proper to dismiss, out of hand, notions that many scientists, themselves, put forth. The fallacy is intact in either case.
Claiming it to be anything more than a wild notion is just a bad, bad move. - EliGottlieb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On a further note, the article itself is rather pseudoscientific.
- zendestructible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Back to this Parallel Universes thing. This is String Theory, right? - drahknon
Thank You! I was hoping that someone would recognize the fact that this article reiterates the (oversimplified) principles of string theory. String theory is an attempt to reconcile the disparities between QP and relativity.
In a nutshell string theory states that subatomic particles must be able to move in more than just our standard three dimensions (some offshoots of string theory call for the existence of up to 32 dimensions!) These 'other' dimensions allow for the presence of parallel universes.
It is certainly a fascinating idea, although in my humble opinion, it seems to be shoehorning an answer to fit the question.
Here's a great reference site for more on string theory, (and you don't even have to read) from Nova on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"But curiously, you seem to be the flip-side of the coin in that regard. You are likewise Manichean about science and unwilling to entertain any idea that you don't personally deem worthy."
drahkhon, you clearly have issues, because you're reading *way* more than what I'm actually typing. Maybe you need to go back and reread what I'm actually posting, but please try and leave your preconcieved notions about me at the door.
It's not about whether the idea is worthy or not. It's about presenting the idea as anything more than science fiction, when it's not. It really doesn't matter where the idea comes from; scientists love science fiction too, you know.
My point is that even presenting it as legitimate science, when it ain't (yet), is a mistake. It only increases the misunderstanding of science in the world. Look, the media can't even get the real science right, do you think they're going to present the in-jokes correctly? Do you think the average joe on the street is going to really understand the implications behind theory and hypothesis? Or do you think that he sees religion and science as having equal backing and that he might consider a "failure" of science to be proof of religion instead?
Don't give the fundamentalists more ammunition, that's all I'm saying. Yes, you and I both know that MWH is nothing more than unfounded speculation, and we can cope with that, but presenting it as anything more than an idea or a guess (which is all it currently is) is doing a disservice to science as a whole.
Science needs better PR. - zendestructible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
Back to this Parallel Universes thing. This is String Theory, right?
Oops that was a misquote is was actually lexbaby who posed that question. apologies to all (lexbaby, drahknon) - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0chosenone: "The Western world is dry in understanding 'paranormal' abilities"
Because in order for anything to be considered real in science, you have to demonstrate it. You cannot research that which does not exist.
If anybody on the planet can demonstrate a paranormal ability, James Randi will give them one million dollars. Really. Look it up: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
He's offered this for years. He has proven that the money is real. It's held in trust by Goldman Sachs. Still, there have been no takers. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"As I said, and as you surely know, Many Worlds is a hypothesis that seems to flow from QM."
No, it's one possible hypothesis that can be made up in order to potentially explain some of the oddities of QM. It's not an "obvious" interpretation of the oddities in any sense. Of course, neither are any of the other explanations.
"That doesn't make it *****, as you claimed."
I didn't claim it was *****, I claimed it was crap. Which it is. It's not a theory, it's not rigorous, there's essentially nothing to test, as such. It's just an idea and very little more than that. Claiming that there's any evidence for it, for example, is just wrong. It's fun for science fiction, but actually thinking it to be true is pointless in the real world. People who are doing real scientific work in QM and String Theory are not helped by these ideas being punted around as being legitimate scientific theories. They're ideas, nothing more. Anybody can have an idea. Anybody can hypothesize anything. It only does a disservice to science when you punt these ideas around because the right-wing fundamentalist nuts pick them up and say "See what science believed yesterday! Now they know that's not true! Science is wrong!" and so on. Claiming it to be anything more than a wild notion is just a bad, bad move. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I was hoping that someone would recognize the fact that this article reiterates the (oversimplified) principles of string theory."
Well, that's a problem, because Parallel Universes (Many Worlds Hypothesis) is not an oversimplified version of String Theory. Not every instance of "extra dimensions" is a parallel universe theory, you know.
Many World is one way of interpreting Wave-Particle Duality in the Double Slit experiment. Nothing to do with String Theory. - zendestructible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Many World is one way of interpreting Wave-Particle Duality in the Double Slit experiment.
I'm not familiar, do you have a reference so that I could learn more? - TimmyK., on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Both science and religion are belief systems, the difference being that science is open to revision if facts warrant it. But in their basic, fundamental roots, they're quite similar."
Um I must declare ***** on this. So...
"*****, I do delcare! *****!"
Science is not at all about believing. It's about proving. Is there anything that goes more against a religious faithbased mindset than demanding as much proof as possible? When was the last time a priest told you something and you demanded that he prove it to you? That is what is demanded at all times in the scientific world. Please give up your futile argument that science is some sort of religion. Religion as a whole demands the suspension of rational thought, and the acceptance of the "supernatural". Science demands nothing but rational thought, and is an attempt to prove that there is no "supernatural", just aspects of the natural universe that we don't understand. - wintermute0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0can we bring in an impromptu criteria for posting & commenting on articles like this? Something where the poster must say whether they have any grasp on new physics, extra universes/dimensions, string theory, etc (books like elegant universe and brief history of time count; poorly written blogs don't)...
- cool4u2view, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is it just me or did the article not say ANYTHING at all. Sure, it may be a pretty good intro but then it just stops without actually saying anything about the title of the article.
- b0b0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's a fundamental difference between science and some religions: Science is about asking questions and finding answers. In Christianity, questioning the Bible and speculating against the events as they are told means condemnation. I prefer Science because it gives me an excuse to think.
That is exactly what this parallel universe theory is: thought. It is thought based upon what knowledge has been collected over the years with the exception that the domain of thought is expanded greatly. The guy clearly acknowledges, if you read the article, that at present there are no solid answers which put the universe into logical, indesputable perspective. There are many gaps to be filled. Perhaps some of you should have read the article thoroughly before you attacked the guy for being a "new age yahoo". -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is