PSI Blog 20170216 Number of oxymoronic “multiverses” calculated
Without tongue in cheek or facepalm, MIT blessed a cosmogonical mess that is now over seven years old:
Physicists Calculate Number of Universes in the Multiverse
This actually was published in Physical Review:
Linde, Andrei, and Vanchurin, Vitaly, 2010, How many universes are in the multiverse?: Physical Review D, v. 81, no. 8, p. 083525 [http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083525].
You can get a review copy from arXiv:
Here is the abstract (if you really care):
“We argue that the total number of distinguishable locally Friedmann “universes” generated by eternal inflation is proportional to the exponent of the entropy of inflationary perturbations and is limited by ee3N, where N is the number of e-folds of slow-roll posteternal inflation. For simplest models of chaotic inflation, N is approximately equal to de Sitter entropy at the end of eternal inflation; it can be exponentially large. However, not all of these universes can be observed by a local observer. In the presence of a cosmological constant Λ the number of distinguishable universes is bounded by e|Λ|−3/4. In the context of the string theory landscape, the overall number of different universes is expected to be exponentially greater than the total number of vacua in the landscape. We discuss the possibility that the strongest constraint on the number of distinguishable universes may be related not to the properties of the multiverse but to the properties of observers.”
Egads! Look what you can get published as long as you are a believer in the Big Bang Theory.
Oh well, at least they are getting closer to accepting that the universe is infinite!
Thanks to Rick for this heads-up on the latest outrage in cosmogony:
Even Doyle Rice, the reporter for USA Today, sounds incredulous:
Talk about a reality check: The entire universe could be a "vast and complex hologram," scientists reported Monday. Also, even more unsettling, what we think of as reality may be just an illusion.
Rice, Doyle, 2017, Mind blown: The entire universe could be a hologram: USA Today [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/01/30/universe-hologram-illusion/97249856/].
For the Oh So Serious article that got past the reviewers at Physical Review Letters, check this out:
Afshordi, Niayesh, Corianò, Claudio, Delle Rose, Luigi, Gould, Elizabeth, and Skenderis, Kostas, 2017, From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology: Physical Review Letters, v. 118, no. 4, p. 041301 [http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.041301].
This type of nonsense is typical of regressive physicists and cosmogonists who are especially fond of the indeterministic assumption of immaterialism. The solipsism is in tune with Deepak Chopra, who seems to think that the existence of the universe depends on his own consciousness. The universe is an illusion alright—until you bang into something hard that wakes you up and brings you to your senses.
PSI Blog 20170121
“The Scientific Worldview” is now available as an audiobook at Audible, Amazon, and iTunes. It is narrated by Fred Frees, a PSI member and son of Paul Frees, the “Man of a Thousand” voices. Fred does an excellent job, making univironmental determinism sound as important as it really is.
You can get it discounted at Amazon or you can get a free download by signing up for Audible or by writing a review. Just let me know if you would like a free review copy and I can send you a coupon code.
Download to your cell phone. For info click on: http://bit.ly/TSW2017
Here is another great blog from Reginald Finley:
He has a nice list of fake news sites. I hope he makes it formal and maintains it.
PSI Blog 20161214
Astute readers know that both the Scientific Worldview and the universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. In other words, nothing in the infinite universe can exist without interacting with its environment.
You also know that the current scientific world view, which appears to be compatible with regressive physics and cosmogony, is systems philosophy. But as I have pointed out numerous times, systems philosophy is microcosmic, that is, it invariably tends to overemphasize the microcosm (the thing itself) and ignore the macrocosm (its environment). The archetype is the Big Bang Theory, which considers the entire universe to be finite, an entity unto itself, with nothing outside of it.
Now comes this radical quote from Monod based on systems philosophy, which has since been proven entirely incorrect:
“Of this the upshot is that there is no possible mechanism whereby the structure and performance of a protein could be modified, and these modifications transmitted even partially to posterity, except by an alteration of the instructions represented by a segment of DNA sequence. Conversely, there exists no conceivable mechanism whereby any instruction or piece of information could be transferred to DNA.
Hence the entire system is totally, intensely conservative, locked into itself, utterly impervious to any "hints" from the outside world. Through its properties, by the microscopic clockwork function that establishes between DNA and protein, as between organism and medium, an entirely one-way relationship, this system obviously defies any "dialectical" description. It is not Hegelian at all, but thoroughly Cartesian: the cell is indeed a machine.”
Jacques Monod, who wrote this mess, was a French Nobelist writing at the height of the Cold War when any mention of dialectics was politically taboo. This apparently made it impossible for him to conceive of the “dialectical” interaction of anything with its environment. The result was this swing of the pendulum to such an extent that molecular biology has since proven him wrong a million times over.
The title of his book “Chance and Necessity” also betrays his steadfast adoption of regressive physics and its indeterministic interpretation of causality and uncertainty. Like today’s obsolescent quantum physicists, he considered chance to be objective. Like those folks, he never would have accepted the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). Like those folks, he uses “chance” to fill the knowledge gap instead of using the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). In an infinitely subdividable universe there is every reason to assume that all those variations listed under “chance” are produced by mechanical interactions nonetheless.
Oh, all right, maybe a cell is like a machine, but like all machines, it requires constant attention from its macrocosm. The supposition that a cell is a machine does not remove it from dialectical interplay.