I’ll take your comment, that the question is so “ridiculous”, as a firm “no” – your’e not buying into it. If you were Lenoard Susskind you’d know why I asked the question.
Unfortunately, for all your vibrant defense of the multiverse, “that bizarre question” is exactly what you MUST believe in order to fully accept the multiverse idea.
Now, certain people will argue differently, but that is simply because they don’t want the baggage of their favorite idea to interfere with their intellectual joyride. The baggage is not talked about, but nonetheless, it is there.
I am fairly certain you don’t understand the history and motive of the multiverse hypothesis – the idea that Susskind kindly renamed the “Landscape”. (Doesn’t that sound better?)
The multiverse is a mathematical contruct, and nothing more. By mathematical, I don’t mean that a model will be painstakingly developed and then tested for empirical evidence to confirm the theory – like say – the Theory of Gravity” that you are so fond of equating it to. To the contrary, it will never be tested. Ever. Its a mathematic exercise without any inferences to its existence outside the math itself. Period.
One might ask what the motivation would be for a brilliant scientist, like Susskind, to pursue such a thing.
Perhaps Susskind is simply driven to explain the perplexing. Then of course, there is also his legendary intellectual piss-fight with his friend and nemesis, Steven Hawking, who says there is “no way around” the Singularity.
The multiverse is an endeavor without reason, save one; to avoid the Singularity.
The Singularity has a lot of baggage also. Its the baggage you get when the end conclusion of current knowledge says that the Singularity and the fine-tunings of the Universe strongly suggest an intelligent beginning. The probabilities associated with the cosmological constant are simply too staggering, an they reach the point of incredulity. Susskind knows this.
It is in this context that Leonard was asked by
Amanda Gefter of the New Scientists, “If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design? And he replied:
“I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world.”
He goes on to say:
“But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”
Now, is the context of his comment something you’d like to continue to banter about? He meant what he said, and knew what he meant.
The multiverse has a clear intention, to rid our knowledge of the unlikely natural state of our Universe – to circumvent the improbability. In the multiverse model, everything that is improbable not only becomes possible and probable, but will cerainly happen.
In an infinite number of Universes *everything* (that does not break natural law) will happen, that means everything – like you shaving your head and singing hyms to travelers in airports.
Goodbye Griefer.
