| L. Smolin, Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle arXiv:hep-th/0407213v3 (Jul 29, 2004). |
1.0 A 'scientist' who doesn't understand the scientific method
Smolin initially argues that the Anthropic Principle (AP) is unscientific. He gets kudos for this, but they must quickly be withdrawn.
Smolin argues that the AP is unscientific for all the wrong reasons. Like most of his colleagues, he is unfamiliar with the scientific
method and this leads him to his amusing conclusions. Specifically, Smolin has been brainwashed in college to believe that
science has something to do with experiments and falsifiability.
" few philosophers of science, and few working scientists, would be able to take
seriously a proposal for a fundamental theory of physics that had no possibility
of being disproved by a doable experiment."
This poppycock comes from the late philosopher Popper, who misled an entire generation of mathematicians to believe that a
theory is scientific if it can be tested. Smolin's entire case hinges on this misconception.
Like all of his colleagues, Smolin also believes that Science is democratic:
- " Few working scientists will disagree that an approach can be considered
“scientific” only to the extent that it requires experts...science is the only
approach to knowledge whose historical record shows over and over
again that consensus was reached among well trained people"
- Smolin's arrogance is extremely offensive. Not only does he erroneously believe that a show of hands has something to do with
Science, but he further believes that the Scientific Legislature should be comprised only of 'experts' ... you know... like himself.
Only people who have been satisfactorily 'processed' through and properly 'conditioned' at the university have a right to vote.
These misconceptions about Science and the scientific method lead Smolin to erroneously conclude that the Anthropic Principle
has something to do with Science. Of course, if Smolin doesn't understand even the fundamentals of the scientific method and
Science, his conclusion is not surprising.
2.0 What is Science?
Science is not about running tests. Science has to do with communication and not with experimentation. It is not the detective
who labors tirelessly day in and day out in his lab, trying to extract the secrets of nature, who is the hero of Science. In Science,
it is the other way around. It is the villain who is the true hero. The hero of Science is the prosecutor, the individual who publishes.
It doesn't matter whether the prosecutor did the research himself, obtained the idea from a bad dream, or stole the blueprints
from the detective. If you discover some breathtaking knowledge and keep it to yourself, the world is not the better or worse for it.
You are not a part of science. Science is not secretive. Science is confidential. Science is not what a mad detective discovers
and keeps to himself in his dark basement. Science is what more than one person shares. Science is the body of ideas, papers,
and other records -- usually in written form -- that follow the scientific method.
3.0 The scientific method
But Science is not just about publishing. Science demands that the dissertation follow the scientific method. If you publish fantasy
and irrationality, it does not qualify as Science.
The scientific method includes three phases: hypothesis, theory, and conclusion. The great majority of the papers written throughout
history fail the step known as hypothesis. The most common errors include:
- • invalid / irrational objectsinvalid/irrational objects invalid/irrational objects
• poorly designed/ inconsistent use of definitions
• confusing theory with assumptions or with fact
• equating a statement of the facts with a fact
Mathematical Physics in its entirety is an unscientific discipline primarily for proposing irrational objects, but more so for proposing
dynamic avatars, incarnations, and emoticons. A mathematician is nothing more than a bad joke that God plays on rational human
beings!
In his paper, Smolin proposes irrational objects and doesn't define the strategic terminology that makes or breaks his theory. Hence,
his proposal fails at the hypothesis phase of the scientific method and is unscientific.
4.0 The Anthropic Principle
Smolin's AP argument rests on two premises, neither of which has anything to do with Science. You wonder what reason other than
Smolin's name and fame compelled the editors to publish such nonsense in a scientific journal. Or maybe I'm mistaken and I read
the article in the Comics Section of a newspaper! You never know these days. I will only address the first one here because of
space limitations.
Smolin is going to try to convince you throughout his paper that the Anthropic Principle is scientific because some particular
versions of it make falsifiable predictions:
- " There are successful predictions claimed to have come from anthropic reasoning."
- In order to make his case, Smolin will invoke the mathematical idiocy known as the multiverse:
" It is possible to derive falsifiable predictions from a multiverse theory"
But it is unnecessary to go through his entire argument because like almost all of his colleagues he doesn't establish the
fundamentals for a juror to understand his theory or to realize himself what it is that he is trying to prove. In just one statement
Smolin opens up such a huge can of worms that my entire argument will address this one-liner alone.
Smolin begins his argument by stating:
"A. There exists (in the same sense that our chairs, tables and our universe exists)
a very large ensemble of 'universes' "
How many errors can one person make in one simple statement? And assuming I'm right, and the errors are fatal, what does
this say about Smolin's understanding of any aspect of Physics or of Science?
Smolin shows in this seemingly inoffensive postulate just how careless the mathematicians of the world are and what little grasp
they have of the scientific method and of the crucial definitions. Smolin is attempting to establish that other universes may exist,
yet he doesn't define the two words that make or break his theory. Smolin doesn't define the strategic term exist. He exemplifies
it: chairs, tables, universe. So? Does the imaginary chair I am thinking about exist or just the one I sit my butt upon? But assuming
he opts for the one I sit on, what can Smolin possibly mean when he says that 'our universe exists'? How can the universe exist?
Just as perplexing and typical, Smolin overlooks the definition of the mandatory word universe! Is he alluding to all the matter
-- gases, stars, planets, asteroids -- floating around in space? Is he including space as part of his definition of Universe? If he
does, is space supposed to have shape? Does space have a boundary? Is the boundary of the other universe touching the
boundary of ours or is there yet more space in between? If not, how can Smolin visualize where one universe ends and the
other one begins? What contours this space and separates our Universe from its twin? How are we supposed to visualize
two universes sitting side by side until we define what lies between?
Yet Smolin is going to argue in this paper that there is a way to prove through an experiment whether parallel universes exist.
Of course, without his key definitions, I 'predict' that he is going to have a tough time finding this Holy Grail. Relativists take
note! Anything outside these two issues are straw-men.
5.0 The way of Science
In Science, it's not half as complicated. We begin by defining our words rigorously at the step known as hypothesis:
- object: That which has shape.
space: That which doesn't have shape.
location: The set of distances from an arbitrary object to all others.
concept: A word that invokes a minimum of two objects. A relation between two or more objects. Like space, concepts
do not have shape. Unlike space, concepts are artificial (i.e., Man invented them).
(e.g., God).
exist: Physical presence; shape + location. A word used to refer to an object that has location. Abstract objects lack
location. In Science, it is irrational to state that a concept exists.
Matter: A word used to designate all the objects that exist. Matter excludes abstract objects.
Universe: A word used to refer to matter and space.
Now it's a piece of cake to deal with Smolin's ridiculous 'parallel universe' proposal. The prosecutor is now able to communicate
his thoughts intelligently to the jury without worrying at all about the ludicrous Anthropic Principle. We just have to take care not to
deviate from these definitions.
In order for there to be a parallel universe, space would have to be a physical object (i.e., have shape). Space would have to
enclose the matter in our Universe and thus separate it from the matter enclosed in the other universe. The question that the
lamebrains of Mathematics have to answer is what entity gives shape to space? What could possibly contain nothing? A
vacuum chamber? If I move the chamber from A to B, will it continue to trap the same space? Can an astronaut rip a chunk
of space from the whole by enclosing it within a box? Can he transport this space in the box and offer it to his commander?
The mathematicians of the world are bunch of morons, plain and simple! It is by treating space as a physical object that the
idiots of relativity have ended up where they are today!
The AP asks 'What if the Universe would have had different rules? Would we be here?'
Ergo, the argument is turned on its head and we conclude that because the Universe is like it is because otherwise we
wouldn't be here. Great! What have we learned?
Smolin steamrolls over this question and is already at the next step, fantasizing about whether there are other universes
with other rules. He ponders the issue of whether the rules over there make provisions for intelligent life. His logic really
makes you wonder whether there is intelligent life anywhere, in any universe.
The AP is unscientific because it invokes an observer. Science and Physics differ from supernatural religion and irrational
Mathematical Physics in that they are observer-free. The first thing we do in Science is kill the witness, together with his
measurements, slide rule, and testimony. In this subtle manner we guarantee a fair trial. Only by violently rubbing out
opinion can we ensure objectivity. Testimonials serve as currency between scoundrels and fools. In contemporary
'science,' half the people are scoundrels. They ruthlessly hold on to their religions against all rationality, get Nobel Prizes,
and obtain research funds to go on wild goose hunts. The other half are gawking fools who beg for autographs and
contribute money.
A lot of craps |
God's Anthropic Principle |
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008