Virgo galactic cumulus |
In previous posts I have said that the theories of the multiverse (there are several, some of them contradictory to the others) are not scientific, because it’s not possible to prove them false, according to Karl Popper’s criterion: a theory is not scientific unless it can be proved false with an experiment.
A recent article by Man Ho Chan reviews and refutes various attempts to claim that multiverse theories are indeed scientific. Here I am going to speak about those that try to prove that the multiverse theories should be considered scientific without asking big changes to the current criteria. Carroll 2018 uses three main arguments to justify this:
- By
asserting that the multiverse theories meet the conditions of
falsifiability. According to Sean Carroll, falsifiability is not a
true/false criterion, but rather admits nuances and degrees of compliance,
between the total impossibility and the total possibility of proving that
a theory is false. Between these two extremes, there would be at least
three intermediate degrees: a) it is possible to prove it false with
a thought experiment theoretically impossible to carry out; b) it
is possible to prove it false with a thought experiment impossible to
carry out in practice; c) it is possible to prove it false with
a thought experiment that can be performed, but would only provide a
partial demonstration. According to Carroll, a theory that
satisfies a), b) or c) should be considered scientific. Man Ho Chan points
out that multiverse theories do not meet any of these three conditions
and, therefore, according to Carroll’s premises, cannot be considered scientific.
A curious point: Carroll proposes in his article a few examples of
theories that are not scientific, according to his own looser criteria,
and among them he mentions Marxism and the theories of Freud and Adler.
- In
the same article, Carroll offers another criterion, according to which
multiverse theories could be scientific, which consists in applying the inference to the best explanation, also
called the no-miracle argument,
which I discussed in another
post. His reasoning is this: Multiverse
theories are the best explanation for the fine-tuning problem.
We have no better explanation. Therefore, we must consider them
scientific. Man Ho Chan points out that we do have another explanation,
which also meets the conditions established by Carroll: the creation and design of the universe by God.
However, apart from proponents of Intelligent Design, no one has proposed
that this theory be considered scientific. Therefore, multiverses should
not be considered scientific either.
- Finally,
Carroll resorts to another argument. We must consider the theories of the
multiverse scientific because we have no
other alternative to explain the mystery of the
cosmological constant, which I discussed in another
post. According to Carroll, for a theory to be scientific it should be
enough a) that it can be true and b) that it influences
how we understand what we observe. Man Ho Chan points out that the
existence of a Creator also explains the value of the cosmological
constant, and meets the two conditions set by Carroll, although this
theory is not considered scientific; therefore, the multiverse theories
should not be considered scientific either, and the criterion proposed by
Carroll is not sufficient.
Karl Popper |
In the next post I will talk about epistemological changes: attempts to make scientific theories of multiverse theories by modifying the currently dominant scientific paradigm.
Thematic Thread on Multiverse and Fine Tuning: Previous Next
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment