Talk:Multiverse

Another view

I have a bit of a problem with the idea of multiple universes that are, one way or another, related to each other, or at least (could) influence each other.

Consider a universe as a manifestation of a space-time continuum. So each universe in a multiverse has it's own notion of time and space. As soon as we think of "another" universe relating or reacting with "our" universe, we observe that other universe with out notion of space and time. However: our space and time do not apply to the other universe (neither apply the other universes time and space to our universe).

This means that from within our universe (or space-time continuum), we can not observe other universes, because if we could, the other universe is part of our notion of space and time, and thus, by definition, not another universe.

Other universes may exist, but cannot be observed. Neither can we say "where" or "when" a given universe exists or existed. Again: because the "where" and "when" only apply to our own universe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.68.228 (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Should Lee Smolin be included as a proponent of a multiverse theory?

In the article, there is reference to "Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory."

But his name does not appear in the list of proponents. I dunno how Dr. Smolin would represent his own view. Perhaps someone who knows him might ask. 96.237.136.210 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Asking him would be original research. Anything included must be based on what is published in reliable sources. If he has not made his position clear in all his papers, books, talks and interviews then there is nothing more to say. Any list of proponents and skeptics is going to be problematical because there are multiple multiverse concepts and some people fall into both categories. I suspect that Smolin is one of them. Weburbia (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that unless his views are represented in independent reliable sources, then whatever his views are, they don't belong here. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Add specific reference

After the first sentence in the Explanation section, "The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it, and the relationships among these universes differ from one multiverse hypothesis to another." Add the specific reference that takes a macro view of universe creation process: Creating a Universe, a Conceptual Model, Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology, http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2016-17/PC_vol_17-86-105.pdf This should provide necessary perspective. Please respond if you do not think this adds value. Jim J Jim Johnson 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Another source

[1] Doug Weller talk 18:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of James Johnson reference.

The removal of the James R Johnson paper citation seems a little premature. ISPCJournals does not seem to be on Beall's List. The paper didn't look half bad and even contained a reference to another paper I hadn't known of before. Is it right that the citation was so quickly removed? It is not obviously pseudoscience. 96.237.136.210 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

obvious REFSPAM and more importantly, a primary source. We build WP from secondary sources that describe what is going on in a given field, not papers presenting individual theories -- we have no way to know how much WEIGHT that should be given to them, and we should not try to judge. Has nothing to do with pseudoscience per se. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, this is not a theory but a model based on fact. When discussing the multiverse, the laws of nature are assumed. By acknowledging and defining them, a complete picture is obtained. This this article, quoting 14 noted physicist, adds direct value . The comments above, by one user on Sept 10,confirm this. Since it was deleted after a day, how much more support would it receive? Please provide specific justification for deletion. Thanks Jim Johnson 15:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

Four things:

Please clarify if you are the same person as the IP addresss above.

Jytdog, I just discovered this now and I can confirm that I am not James Johnson (but it appears that Jimjohnson2222 might be). 96.237.136.210 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I do not know my IP address but all my comments have Jim Johnson or James R Johnson. Jim Johnson 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please be sure to indent and your sign your posts on Talk pages. See Help:Talk_pages#Indentation.

Please review WP:SELFCITE. If this is your paper please say so.

The paper appears to be what we call a "primary" source, where the authors' research is first published (these are papers where knowledge that has been created, or a synthesis that has been developed, is first is made public). It does not appear to be what we call a "secondary source", which is a source that itself attempts to summarize what is already known and accepted in a given field. Would you please confirm that this is a primary source? Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The reference cited is a Secondary Source as defined by,”Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.” The article expands on a multiverse topic briefly discussed by physicists Greene and Tegmark. Yes, I am author and forgot to sign last update. Jim Johnson 15:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The source says: "This article defines a conceptual model separating the laws of nature from the universe’s energy source and its expansion". It is the author's model, presented here, and is the primary source for that. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the Model is not original research. Any physicist would acknowledge that it describes our current understanding. The issue is that most ignore talking about the” laws of nature” because, like the multiverse, validation of different laws is not possible. However, analysis speculating on different laws is no different than speculating on Multiverse. Both Brian Greene and Max Tegmark are quoted on their thoughts related to laws of nature. Jim Johnson 03:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

If there are no other objections, I will add back reference in a few days. Jim Johnson 11:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. Per WP:SELFCITE you need consensus to add it, which you do not have at this point. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, all your objections have not been valid and another user supports the change, what else is necessary? Jim Johnson 21:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to add this. If you want to pursue dispute resolution please see WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please reference Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard for extended discussion. This along with this (Multiverse Talk) page describe the issue. October 4, 2017 Jim Johnson 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag. This is not an appropriately framed RfC and will waste everyone's time. I will pose one in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So instead of an RfC, I think a better use of community attention would be if we posted at WP:RSN. Would you be open to doing that instead? Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, no, I think my position is stronger with a RFC type review. Also, I am concerned that there will be confusion based on the four changes. Should we consider all or restrict the issue to one of the two articles? In Wikipedia a Reference is no doubt more important (Model for Creating…) than an External Link (like the Utube) or External Article (Dimensionless Constants in Physics International). Jim Johnson 23:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

As a comment from the peanut gallery, I'm not convinced this is a good reference to add, so I agree with Jytdog. SnowFire (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on source

In this diff, User:Jimjohnson222 added a citation to a paper he wrote, (no change to content) so that the content looked like this:

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it, and the relationships among these universes differ from one multiverse hypothesis to another.

References

The edit note was Add a specific reference that explains, from a philosphical perspective, multiverse possibilities. I reverted, with edit note one example; we need a review. pretty clear refspam too

There was discussion above, and a DRN here that ended with a suggestion for an RfC.

Should we use the reference, or not? Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• Do not use. There is no Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology. There is, however, a The Journal Philosophy and Cosmology, which is what I assume is intended. It appears to be the personal project of Oleg Bazaluk, who has no shortage of publications in predatory journals [2]. I am skeptical of its reliability. Certainly a new uncited paper, in a non-physics journal, is the wrong reference for this sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do not use Bazaluk publishes through the dicey publishers Cambridge Scholars Publishing, see[3]. I love their "peer review": "We will agree a peer review strategy Like all academics and publishers we recognise the value of peer review within the publication process. We offer a number of options to our authors and we will work with you to develop the most appropriate approach for your particular work."[4] Doug Weller talk 12:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Nope, suggest WP:SNOW close. It's refspam from a fringe lesser journal. If this paper is really such a good source, I'm sure that other reputable books will have similar information and/or cite this paper soon enough, and we can cite them then. SnowFire (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• It is my understanding that Jimjohnson has devoted a lot of time and love to studying cosmology and that while this is not his professional field, he is not pushing FRINGE views or pseudoscience. In my view Jimjohnson could add a lot of value as an editor if he would take the time to understand the sourcing policies and guidelines -- the heart of them -- and spend time in Wikipedia summarizing sources that are widely considered authoritative in the field, and not on citing his own works. I think it is great that Jimjohnson has been able to get a paper published in the field - not at all easy for someone without credentials in the field.

Yes it is a lower quality journal. For that reason, and because as I wrote above and at the DRN, the paper and the youtube presentation of it both emphasize that the paper is attempting to resolve some tensions in the field by defining "a conceptual model separating the laws of nature from the universe’s energy source and its expansion" and so it is a primary source -- for those two reasons -- we should not use it, but should use higher quality secondary or tertiary sources widely seen in the field as authoritative. We rarely cite primary sources and lower quality sources, and that is because those kinds of sources often do have pseudoscience, FRINGE views, or bad science in them. The issue is the type of source this is. No reason has been provided as to why this particular primary source in a low-quality journal should be used instead of secondary or teritary sources published in higher quality journals or books. (please be aware that we get lots of people showing up at Wikipedia to push FRINGEy views, who cite just these types of sources -- Wikipedia is vulnerable to this due to its open nature. Keeping source quality high and doing so consistently is fundamental to maintaining the quality of articles and not getting into endless disputes... so we are pretty fierce about this)

There is also the policy at play, that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote anyone or anything.

Jimjohnson, just because you can cite your paper doesn't mean you should, and it is disappointing that this issue is taking up the time of editors (including you), when all of us could be building content based on high quality secondary sources instead of being stuck here. Experienced editors who come here will be expressing that exasperation some. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, looks like your logic wins. Thanks for handling the discussion so competently. I understand the reason for restricting sources but was encourage by the editor (or reader) who found it valuable so proceeded with the dispute.

There is still the second Physics International article (peer reviewed) which was added as an External Article in the Dimensionless Constants topic. How should it be handled?

Jim Johnson 17:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)