(April 4, 2014 at 5:41 am)Alex K Wrote: Ok, you just systematically removed your hypothesis from testability because you proclaim that it does not make any predictions as to how the universe looks, and you think this somehow strengthens your hypothesis, but it doesn't. If hypothesis A makes no prediction for a certain observation, but hypothesis B does, and observations match the predictions of hypothesis B, then B is to be favored over A at least with respect to these data.

Since the multiverse hypothesis can explain anything....it really explains nothing.

We're back to having no reason to favor B over A other than subjective ones. Indifference is at least objective.

(April 4, 2014 at 5:49 am)Heywood Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 5:41 am)Alex K Wrote: Ok, you just systematically removed your hypothesis from testability because you proclaim that it does not make any predictions as to how the universe looks, and you think this somehow strengthens your hypothesis, but it doesn't. If hypothesis A makes no prediction for a certain observation, but hypothesis B does, and observations match the predictions of hypothesis B, then B is to be favored over A at least with respect to these data.

Since the multiverse hypothesis can explain anything....it really explains nothing.

Can it? I earlier linked to a mutliverse paper where the authors make a prediction, namely that parameters should be pushed towards catastrophic boundaries in parameter space by the a priori probability distribution. We live in such a universe, and the recent Higgs boson discovery has provided us with yet another instance where this seems to be the case

(April 4, 2014 at 5:51 am)Alex K Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 5:49 am)Heywood Wrote: Since the multiverse hypothesis can explain anything....it really explains nothing.

Can it? I earlier linked to a mutliverse paper where the authors make a prediction, namely that parameters should be pushed towards catastrophic boundaries in parameter space by the a priori probability distribution. We live in such a universe, and the recent Higgs boson discovery has provided us with yet another instance where this seems to be the case

Maybe you can dumb it down for me a little bit as you are talking over my head. But I need to ask what good is a paper that makes a prediction using a theory that can predict anything?

(April 4, 2014 at 6:16 am)Heywood Wrote: What good is a paper that makes a prediction using a theory that can predict anything?

Now you're being silly, their theory can predict something. Just by saying "multiverse" without saying anything further, of course you can't predict anything, but that's your problem. One has to be more specific what one means.

(April 4, 2014 at 6:19 am)Alex K Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 6:16 am)Heywood Wrote: What good is a paper that makes a prediction using a theory that can predict anything?

Now you're being silly, their theory can predict something. Just by saying "multiverse" without saying anything further, of course you can't predict anything, but that's your problem. One has to be more specific what one means.

What are they predicting? That some universes are going to be in the metastability region?

Also I edited my last post while you were responding to it.

(April 4, 2014 at 6:28 am)Heywood Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 6:19 am)Alex K Wrote: Now you're being silly, their theory can predict something. Just by saying "multiverse" without saying anything further, of course you can't predict anything, but that's your problem. One has to be more specific what one means.

What are they predicting? That some universes are going to be in the metastability region?

Also I edited my last post while you were responding to it.

They are predicting that parameters will be near catastrophic boundaries.

(April 4, 2014 at 6:31 am)Alex K Wrote: They are predicting that parameters will be near catastrophic boundaries.

In all vacuums or just some?

(April 4, 2014 at 6:33 am)Heywood Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 6:31 am)Alex K Wrote: They are predicting that parameters will be near catastrophic boundaries.

In all vacuums or just some?

Not in all, in most, i.e. "They are very probable to be near...."

(April 4, 2014 at 6:42 am)Alex K Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 6:33 am)Heywood Wrote: In all vacuums or just some?

Not in all, in most, i.e. "They are very probable to be near...."

What is meant by "catastrophic". Is the catastrophe the non existence of a daughter universe or does it mean it exists but not in a state where emergent complexity can arise?

(April 4, 2014 at 7:45 am)Heywood Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 6:42 am)Alex K Wrote: Not in all, in most, i.e. "They are very probable to be near...."

What is meant by "catastrophic". Is the catastrophe the non existence of a daughter universe or does it mean it exists but not in a state where emergent complexity can arise?

I think they mean the at least latter - no atoms etc, but also possibly more severe, e.g. recollapse before there is sufficient time to form solar systems etc.