Can Multiverse theories be tested?

[QED]

[quote="In a paper titled "Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle" Lee Smolin"]
It is explained in detail why the Anthropic Principle (AP) cannot yield any falsifiable
predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science. Cases which have been
claimed as successful predictions from the AP are shown to be not that. Either they
are uncontroversial applications of selection principles in one universe (as in Dicke’s
argument), or the predictions made do not actually logically depend on any assumption
about life or intelligence, but instead depend only on arguments from observed
facts (as in the case of arguments by Hoyle and Weinberg). The Principle of Mediocrity
is also examined and shown to be unreliable, as arguments for factually true
conclusions can easily be modified to lead to false conclusions by reasonable changes
in the specification of the ensemble in which we are assumed to be typical.
We show however that it is still possible to make falsifiable predictions from theories
of multiverses, if the ensemble predicted has certain properties specified here.
An example of such a falsifiable multiverse theory is cosmological natural selection.
It is reviewed here and it is argued that the theory remains unfalsified. But it is very
vulnerable to falsification by current observations, which shows that it is a scientific
theory. [/quote]

To be "scientific" any theory has to be falsifiable. In recent debates it has been suggested that explanations for the existence of our universe based on the existence of one or more unseen other universes is unscientific due to being untestable. I have linked to Smolin's paper at the request of Confused and achilles12604 to show that it is indeed possible to develop a testable hypothesis of this nature. This new debate can serve to collect any criticism of this assertion.

[QED]

Should the body possess a soul, it could be said that the soul leaving the body and transcending to heaven or hell is moving into another universe, but this is untestable and I doubt technology will ever exist that can prove a soul is released and moves to another universe.

Technology is all about coaxing the particles and forces present in the universe into doing something specific. I simply don't understand why people so readily assume that living things are operating outside this sphere. The only "evidence" that I can see to suggest that this assumption is warranted is the immense desire for existence to be enjoyed beyond death (an existence that nobody seems concerned about before birth!) and our current inability to fully comprehend the mechanisms and complexities of living things. The former is only evidence of wishful thinking and the latter makes a poor case for the assumption of a supernatural element in my view.

It reminds me of the magic of cell-phones. I can recall a time when the concept of Star-Trek communicators was purely Sci-Fi yet here we are today able to talk to anyone around the Planet (or even in an orbiting spacecraft in principle). It strikes me that if this current technology was put before people with no knowledge of the principles behind radio communication (let's imagine transporting ourselves back in time by a couple of thousand years to give a demonstration) then on examining the tiny parts inside the handsets they might very well assume that there was something more to the magic than the metal, plastic and sand that their deepest investigations could reveal.

Just because something is not currently understood, I think the above example demonstrates that it's a poor reason to assume that it operates on supernatural principles. When investigating the mechanisms of living organisms today I think we are in the same position as those ancients puzzling over some piece of modern technology.

However, I believe that at some point, technology will be advanced enough to measure the amount of energy the body releases immediately upon death (not just the destruction of cells/tissues/etc, but the immediate release of energy stored in the brain in the form of electrical impulses that stimulate neurotransmitters/neurochemicals/homones that we identify as a the personality or soul) that where that energy then travels, ie. dispersed throughout the atmosphere without purpose to be recycled into other living organisms or as an entire unit with movement that mimics purpose or direction. Maybe its sci-fi wishing, but should we have the ability to see where this energy moves and should it disappear as a whole, it would defy the priciple that energy can't be destroyed, since we can't do that, perhaps it would be enough to start the direction of proving multiverses simply by proving the energy was there, then it wasn't and we know we can't destroy it, therefore, it may have moved to another dimension. I know, it's far fetched, but so is heaven.

Why be so focused on energy? I would say that the key component to our existence is information i.e. the specific organization of our atomic structures. Energy is like a currency that passes around our structures paying for their organization. The currency itself is non-specific -- like money in a bank. Looking at the money in a bank vault will not tell you anything about the businesses that used it.

[Confused]

Should the body possess a soul, it could be said that the soul leaving the body and transcending to heaven or hell is moving into another universe, but this is untestable and I doubt technology will ever exist that can prove a soul is released and moves to another universe.

Technology is all about coaxing the particles and forces present in the universe into doing something specific. I simply don't understand why people so readily assume that living things are operating outside this sphere. The only "evidence" that I can see to suggest that this assumption is warranted is the immense desire for existence to be enjoyed beyond death (an existence that nobody seems concerned about before birth!) and our current inability to fully comprehend the mechanisms and complexities of living things. The former is only evidence of wishful thinking and the latter makes a poor case for the assumption of a supernatural element in my view.

It reminds me of the magic of cell-phones. I can recall a time when the concept of Star-Trek communicators was purely Sci-Fi yet here we are today able to talk to anyone around the Planet (or even in an orbiting spacecraft in principle). It strikes me that if this current technology was put before people with no knowledge of the principles behind radio communication (let's imagine transporting ourselves back in time by a couple of thousand years to give a demonstration) then on examining the tiny parts inside the handsets they might very well assume that there was something more to the magic than the metal, plastic and sand that their deepest investigations could reveal.

Just because something is not currently understood, I think the above example demonstrates that it's a poor reason to assume that it operates on supernatural principles. When investigating the mechanisms of living organisms today I think we are in the same position as those ancients puzzling over some piece of modern technology.

However, I believe that at some point, technology will be advanced enough to measure the amount of energy the body releases immediately upon death (not just the destruction of cells/tissues/etc, but the immediate release of energy stored in the brain in the form of electrical impulses that stimulate neurotransmitters/neurochemicals/homones that we identify as a the personality or soul) that where that energy then travels, ie. dispersed throughout the atmosphere without purpose to be recycled into other living organisms or as an entire unit with movement that mimics purpose or direction. Maybe its sci-fi wishing, but should we have the ability to see where this energy moves and should it disappear as a whole, it would defy the priciple that energy can't be destroyed, since we can't do that, perhaps it would be enough to start the direction of proving multiverses simply by proving the energy was there, then it wasn't and we know we can't destroy it, therefore, it may have moved to another dimension. I know, it's far fetched, but so is heaven.

Why be so focused on energy? I would say that the key component to our existence is information i.e. the specific organization of our atomic structures. Energy is like a currency that passes around our structures paying for their organization. The currency itself is non-specific -- like money in a bank. Looking at the money in a bank vault will not tell you anything about the businesses that used it.

Sorry it took so long to respond. Your post took a lot of thought so I couldn't review it between patients. I couldn't disturbed. I say focus on energy only because it is the one component we, humans, understand. We exist with or without information. But we die without energy. For example, my son is autistic. He exists quite well and at the age of 7, he can do calculus. But that is all he can do. He lacks information to store human emotions or memory per se. He sees all things in the form of equations. One could make the argument that the organization of his structures (namely in the brain) are flawed and the ability for him to process information is severly flawed. Yet he exists. One in a coma can exist, without information. However, without the energy our body requires in whatever form, we die. This energy isn't just ATP, its neurotranmsitters, biochemicals, wavelengths, etc... Memory is likely nothing more than the arrangement of stored energy, though I could neve prove this. If energy as a whole, can be measured and traced, then it might be possible to prove that energy (the self) can progress to another universe. Currently, we could likely only use mathematical equation, but really, how much fun are those?

I hold no illusions of supernatural causation/influence. I think that what isn't explained today may very well be explained tommorrow. But without someone making wild leaps in theories, the explanations would never get explored. I think anyone who jumps to a dinvine/supernature explanation before fully understanding the event itself usually does so out of fear or self-glorification. But I think that at death, the energy that makes up the body goes somewhere. Whether that is scattered throughout the cycle of life with no purpose (which negates a soul) or is reincarnated, or sent to heaven or hell, I don't know. But there is just as much proof that it does to another universe as there is that it goes to heaven.

[QED]

Maybe we should find another debate to continue our talk about energy/information -- I find it rather interesting and I think you may still be misunderstanding a thing or two that I've written. And thank you for introducing us to your Son -- best wishes to all your family

[Cathar1950]

Given the limits of our senses that forces us to reason we are all a little autistic just some do not have any special talents. But some do. We are still struggling with concepts like conciseness, self-consciences, memory and awareness. We are making headway(is that a pun?) but it is still a mystery slowly being unraveled.
The energy/information topic does sound interesting even if it all adds up to zero.
It also needs to look at memory or information or even feeling from the abstracted yet real past and now. Where are you going on this? A weird thought just occurred. What with our modern forms of communication that is largely marketing and amusement driven that autism could be a form of adaptation as any possible difference could become given the right environment and reproduction?

[MrWhy]

Sorry if this is not on topic, but I'm trying to get some definitions straight.
Lots of discussion on the thread about mulitverse theory. Even Smolin uses the phrase. I thought a theory needed supporting evidence. Do we have any evidenc of other universes?

What are the labels as something (an idea) moves up the knowledge ladder?
1. Speculation/conjecture = SWAG
2. Hypothesis = an idea that can be tested
3. Theory = some supporting evidence
4. Fact = Universal acceptance? No doubts?

[Goat]

Sorry if this is not on topic, but I'm trying to get some definitions straight.
Lots of discussion on the thread about mulitverse theory. Even Smolin uses the phrase. I thought a theory needed supporting evidence. Do we have any evidenc of other universes?

What are the labels as something (an idea) moves up the knowledge ladder?
1. Speculation/conjecture = SWAG
2. Hypothesis = an idea that can be tested
3. Theory = some supporting evidence
4. Fact = Universal acceptance? No doubts?

4) would be observation.

For example.. we know that "gravity" exists. We know objects are pulled towards each other, and we can measure this 'force'. That is the fact.

The question is WHY does gravity act the way it does.

[Cathar1950]

The question is WHY does gravity act the way it does.

Little gravity angels live on everything and they are so pretty everything wants to get close to them.