Talk:Multiverse/Archive 2

murcott?

i can find no reference to an MJ Murcott anywhere in any scientific journals. maybe i'm not looking in the right place? there's an established physicist by the name of Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts who informally talks about exactly the same idea, but i can't find the source of it. does MJ Murcott exist, is he/she just a Wikipedia contributor, or is he/she an alias? i think some time limit should be imposed for supporting materials to be added to this section, at least a reference to an extant person named MJ Murcott, crackpot crank or whatever. - 136.165.37.189, 8 April 2005.

I couldn’t find any reference to this Murcott ether, however this theory has been argued by Alexander Vilenkin and Jaume Garriga, so I have deleted references to Murcott and replaced them Vilenkin. This is not completely satisfactory but will have to do while I look into the matter, or someone finds a better reference; at least they exist.DV8 2XL

animation frames

In The Dilbert Future, author Scott Adams says, "Some physicists theorize that reality is like frames of an animated movie, with infinite universes existing at once." Is it any of the physicists mentioned in this article ? I couldn't find a mention of the animated frames idea in this article though. Jay 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved Fiction Section

Moved Multiverses in Fiction section to Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art which is where it belongs. Linked over to it at the bottom of this article. DV8 2XL

Expanded Arguments against multiverse theories section

I expanded this section, providing rebuttals when I could find them. While this section is now somewhat long, I thought it appropriate to maintain NPOV.

Most of the list draws heavily on “MULTIVERSE COSMOLOGICAL MODELS” by P.C.W. Davies [1] DV8 2XL

I think the article should say something like this in the intro: Multiverses have been hypothesized in physics and philosophy; they are also used in fiction, particularly in science fiction. DV8 2XL has done such a great job on this article, that I'll let him/her decide if, when and how to do it--CSTAR 03:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Done and done, thanks. BTW I'm a him, and you should take credit too for the effort you have made here --DV8 2XL 23 August 2005

I just didn't want to muck up the intro. At this point the intro is very crisp and I prefer to have one person edit it to preserve its style. I'm still perfectly happy to edit other parts of the article myself. --CSTAR 15:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Notes on the trans-world identity entry

I struggled with this entry as the topic belongs more properly in the possible world article than here. However I finally decided to place it here for the simple reason that trans-world identity stands with the Anthropic principles and Ockham's Razor as key arguments that must be addressed in a complete discussion of any multiple universe hypothesis.

The bulleted list of suggested resolutions is mine, and is somewhat over generalized, but this is a huge topic and it crosses several intellectual domains. It requires a separate treatment on it's own page.DV8 2XL 23 Aug. 2005

Origin section

Looking at the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy errata, this section is totally erroneous. "According to the OED, the word was coined by William James (1842-1910) in 1895, and was also used by Sir Oliver Lodge (1851-1940) in 1904 and G.K. CHESTERTON in 1920. In this light, both John Cowper POWYS and Michael MOORCOCK were johnny-come-latelies." Ref I'd rewrite if I had a 'proper' OED, but if someone else has a library nearby and wants to check and cite, you'll probably beat me by miles. Oh, just found this, probably from OED source still, meaning has changed somewhat. --zippedmartin 14:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahaha, hadn't noticed the note at the top of this talkpage where someone erases said OED entry from the article for copyvio but doesn't actually fix the entry... ver Self healing wiki my bum, that's been an identified and standing error from Jan 2004. --zippedmartin 14:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good call, Zippedmartin, I've pulled this section for now untill this has been looked intoDV8 2XL 15:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, enough poking for the moment, internet is good but not that good, I need some real books. Seems most likely there was some independant invention involved, as an obvious antonym to 'universe'. The 1895 journal useage by William James is "Visible nature is all plasticity and indifference, a multiverse, as one might call it, and not a universe" - he's using the contrast to highlight the fact the uni-verse is not uni-form or rational, presumably as a counter to the idea of 'design'. OED gives quotes up to 1985 supporting this usage. G. K. Chesterton is not mentioned in that OED snip, and the errata only gives the date 1920 and no context, but this was presumably in a similar vein.

Next problem is the application of the world to a parellel-worlds kind of idea. The Andy Nimmo account seems reasonable enough, but is rather misleading. His claim of invention can be assumed an honest error, the previous usage was not widespread, however claiming the usage in popular fiction was "not the proper meaning" is slightly ludicrous, as he demonstrated re-definition of words is perfectly fair game. Also the claim that (we assume) Moorcock got the idea second hand from him and used it "near the end of the 60s" is put into doubt by the OED citation in 1963 - it seems possible Moorcock inherited the term, but just as likely he thought of it himself. Without another source that has less personal pride at stake, I'd not like to claim Nimmo was sole originator. Finally there's the problem of John Cowper Powys, mentioned in the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Fantasy as using the term "earlier and independantly" to Moorcock (who's first use they give elsewhere in 1965), but without going into details. As he died in 1963, it seems unlikely he also poached the idea (even with the 'wrong' meaning) from Nimmo.

On the latter adoption, the main populariser was certainly Moorcock, the term was adopted as part of scifi jargon. I've not seen enough on the David Deutsch connection, the one book listed in his article was published in 1997 - by then the term was common in popular science, OED gives a 1990 cite of the New Scientist - this article, and on the harder edge, a cite from Nature in 2000.

Most of the detail here probably wants to be in a wikitionary article rather than here anyway, but if we can squeak the facts we have got down into a reasonable summary it'll be fine for the moment. The main problem I saw when poking around after this is that parallel universes redirects here... and the origin of that concept and terminology is a whole 'nother monkey... --zippedmartin 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I agree wikitionary is the proper place for this material. IMHO this article is better off without a section on the word's origins DV8 2XL 22:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that outright deletion is a good longterm solution. I know you're more interested in the science side, but with parallel universes (and maybe parallel worlds soon) redirecting here, there's a fair bit of non-science to cover too. What the article *needs* is a History section, starting with the speculation and so on, through to the birth Quantum physics and then the modern theories. Along the way a few sentences of the terminology stuff above can be mixed in. The amount of research involved in that project is somewhat daunting though... --zippedmartin 01:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• When I stated working on this topic one of the first things I did was to sort sections of Multiverse, Possible Worlds, and Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art into their respective categories of science, philosophy, and literature. This distinction, I felt, was important as the overlap both conceptually and perceptually between these regimes is significant. I support your idea of a history section but I think it should have its own place perhaps in parallel worlds. There the idea and the terms associated with it, as well as the influence the various streams have had on each other could be discussed in one place rather than being spread about. DV8 2XL 12:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Anthropic principle

How can the use of infinite universes to explain the suitability of the world for man not be a truism? Surely *anything* can be explained with infinite universes, since *anything* that can happen, happens in *some* universe? ··gracefool |☺ 12:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• The question is not the validity of the principle to explain; that is established, it is the question of the validity of the premise. The argument rest on the issue of fine tuning; that is the apparent balance of fine structure constants in the observable universe that appears to be favorable to life. However some claim that this observation is suspect due to Anthropic bias DV8 2XL 18:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Should this passage be droped

"It has been suggested that this view regarding a fundamental theory of physics may be a result of the growing influence of the Discovery Institute within the Church [2] [3] [4] (see [5] for an alternate view)."

I'm not sure that this belongs in the article, it's got NPOV issues and it is somewhat Amerocentric. DV8 2XL 12:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I put it in that passage (as well as Cardinal Schonborn's statement preceding it, which this passage is intended to explain). Schonborn's statement is justifiable I think, and by no means Amerocentric (Schonborn is Austrian); the phrase above in question, tries to explain why Schonborn would even care about such a claim about the multiverse, given that most people would regard it as arcane. The fact of the matter is that for intelligent designers the existence of multiverse theories is a real problem which they are trying to discredit. And it turns out that there is this connection with the discovery institute. Maybe we could rephrase it? But I don't think it is a violation of the NPOV policy.--CSTAR 14:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy that Schonborn's statement should stand (nor am I asking if it should be removed) particularly because it seems he is echoing the opinion of Rome in this matter, and it is probably a reflection of most Biblical Creationists on the subject. (As well as being a rather pithy bit of prose, a feat most Fundies can't manage.) But I still think that to suggest that the Discovery Institute has a "growing influence" in the Catholic Church has the odour of Amerocentric hubris. The R.C. Church had a rather strong ideological position on Creation long before the Discovery Institute existed; nor did the Discovery Institute originate the Argument from Design. Plus issues of teaching this nonsense in schools are not very big outside the U.S. (Yet). DV8 2XL 16:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The discovery institute hasn't originated much aside from a large publicity campaign, granted; but it has an interest in making the Catholic Church more vocal in areas of science where it has remained relatively quiet for some time.--CSTAR 17:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

PS I'll leave the ultimate editorial decision up to you.--CSTAR 18:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what: I do respect your opinions and value your contributions here, so I will leave it up for awhile and give you a shot at a re-write if you feel strongly about it. If there is no change in a week, I'll delete the passage. Fair enough? DV8 2XL 18:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme modal realism

The The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysicsrefers to Lewis’s view as extreme modal realism as do most metaphysicians working today in Ontology, Identity, and Modality. thus I have reverted the heading (but left the link in the text alone) DV8 2XL 02:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Junk deleted

I deleted stuff that confused various issues in cosmology. WAS 4.250 07:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Your going to have to come up with a more detailed reason than "deleting junk" for a edit of this size. DV8 2XL 17:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with DV8 2XL. --CSTAR 01:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You need a reason to include unsourced garbage. The religion inspired spamming does not belong here. Fine-tuning has its own article. Spamming irrelevancies is not appropriate. This article is about specific metaphysical (or protoscientific, if you prefer) hypothosis that as yet lack experimental confirmation but are interesting mathematically speaking and philosophically. These ideas did NOT originate as anything to do with creationism, fine-tuning, or the rebutle of those concepts. It has to do with string theory, combining gravity and quantum theory, and coming up with a single mathematical model for the whole of physics. Quoting the uninformed is unencyclopedic. The article could certainly use a great deal of improvement, but putting back irrelevent material is a step in the wrong direction. WAS 4.250 07:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is unsourced. If any is the onus is on you to point it out. The same holds true for what you deem religious spamming, please point out was you are talking about and why it is 'spamming' What irrevelevancies are you conserned, with and exactly who are you to call them such? You say: "These ideas did NOT originate as anything to do with creationism, fine-tuning, or the rebutle of those concepts. It has to do with string theory, combining gravity and quantum theory, and coming up with a single mathematical model for the whole of physics." I beg your pardon? Who are you to narrow the scope of this topic, given that it is in your words; "protoscientific"? You might find that there are a few people that may not share your restricted view on these matters. DV8 2XL 07:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The concept of a multiverse is not new and somek form of it is due to Leibniz. And please don't use straw man arguments. By the way, what religious spamming are your referring to? Perhaps Cardinal Schonborn's quote. I put that in, because it is relevant to not the opposition multiverse theories have in religious circles. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be construed as religious proselytism.--CSTAR 14:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Cosmic pluralism

Could cosmic pluralism be used anywhere? Perhaps just a note at the beginning of "Multiverse in Philosophy" to give a better historical frame. Marskell 13:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly Marskell, I do not see a place for it in this topic, unless you want to place it in the 'See also' section as a link. DV8 2XL 04:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge

The article Parallel universe should be placed as a subcategory in Multiverse, as it just says how the theory of the Multiverse has affected science fiction. 7 November 19:16 (UTC)

I disagree. Parallel universe has different focus, and is mostly used in science fiction or as a figure of speech. --CSTAR 19:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I concure with CSTAR. The subject of multi- universe ideas on S.F. is covered in Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art DV8 2XL 22:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I concure with DV8 2XL. WAS 4.250 23:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

History and introduction

WAS, That's a rather mighty slab of text there, please consider condensing it a bit. Good work on the Terminology section, that is a needed addition to the article. DV8 2XL 23:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits

The latest edit consists of a long discursive, conufusing, paragraph preceded by these two:

The concept of a multiverse in theoretical physics as part of a theory of everything begins with the many-worlds interpretation of the quantum field theory and has contined to present day investigations into various forms of string theory.

"Hugh Everett III first proposed his many worlds theory in the 1950s to overcome the need for an observer to collapse the wave function of the Copenhagen interpretation. The wave function rotates in an abstract infinite-dimensional space called Hilbert space."

MWI is not an interpretation of quantum field theory. It's an interpretation of quantum mechanics. The wave function doesn't rotate. It evolves unitarily. Everett didn't propose many worlds. Bryce DeWitt did. Everett proposed relative state which was reformulated by DeWitt.

I suggest the whole thing be be reverted.--CSTAR 23:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Further inaccuracy:

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" when they really mean "observable universe". The reason for this is that unobservable physical phenomena are scientifically irrelevant; that is, they cannot affect any events that we can perceive, and therefore, it is argued, effectively do not exist (physicists say "causally do not exist"). They also cannot be measured, and therefore hypotheses about parts of the universe that are not observable, are not measurable.

This paragraph confuses causality with "scientific relevance". In MWI, other worlds have scientific relevance; they must explain something.--CSTAR 23:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

The long blurb is a direct quote from a NYTimes article. This is a copyright violation. Justification enough for reverting.--CSTAR 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Best it were done quickly. DV8 2XL 23:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just did. --CSTAR 23:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect in all particulars. WAS 4.250 23:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright and fair use

Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."

See [6] for further information.

"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS

The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. 1. Limit coursepack materials to

• single chapters
• single articles from a journal issue
• several charts, graphs or illustrations
• other similarly small parts of a work. "

from [7] illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.

The New York Times itself quotes others.

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." [8] therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.

Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.

While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).

Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't use WP to make a point. You weren't listing facts. "Once upon a time, blah..." is not a statement of a fact.--CSTAR 23:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm making the article better, not "trying to make a point". The "blah" part contains facts. WAS 4.250 23:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Try using your own words WAS 4.250. I'm sure you can come up with something that isn't cut-and-paste DV8 2XL 23:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Verification is important. Quoting is an important part of the scholarly process. Most the words posted ARE my own. Yet you all revert everything claiming "copyvio" when in fact fair-use covers it. Your behavior is vandalism. WAS 4.250 23:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several questionable items in your contribution. Copyright violation is one of them, but there were others as I tried pointing out. Could you discuss in the talk page what it is that you are trying to add to the article first? That would be a first step in resolving this diference.--00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

dimension = point = line = dimensie = dimensions = X = Y = Z = ?

For the record let it be known that not only does dimension mean the points of coordinates but it also means an alternate reality. Let it be known that all such banal useless arguments about the definition of these words which are easy to find in modern dictionaries, thesaurases, online and/or offline that it is clear to see that by equal argument soul = spirit = ! Kyle