{"id":4950,"date":"2019-05-17T05:00:22","date_gmt":"2019-05-17T12:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/markreads.net\/reviews\/?p=4950"},"modified":"2019-05-12T07:28:27","modified_gmt":"2019-05-12T14:28:27","slug":"mark-reads-the-science-of-discworld-iii-chapter-14-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/markreads.net\/reviews\/2019\/05\/mark-reads-the-science-of-discworld-iii-chapter-14-part-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Mark Reads ‘The Science of Discworld III’: Chapter 14, Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the second half of the fourteenth chapter of Darwin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Watch<\/i>, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s time to talk about the multiverse! If you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re intrigued, then join Mark in reading The Science of Discworld III<\/i>.\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Whew, this was\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 a lot. This might be the first chapter of the book (or at least this HALF of the chapter) that felt like it went over my head. Not all of it, as there were a few points that stuck more than others. At the start of the multiverse section, I felt prepared for the ride, and I had a decent understanding of mathematical possibilities vs. physical possibilities. That made sense to me! Maybe something was mathematically sound, but, like in the example with a traveling particle and it being a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153quasi-intelligent entity, it isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t physically possible or does not describe our physical reality. For the most part, I feel like the authors make a decent case that much of the multiverse theorization goes too far, despite sounding cool and interesting. And it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s all so hard to parse because, as repeated multiple times, we can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t test any of these hypotheses. Like the whole universe splitting theory, where every possible permutation of what could or can or does happen splits off into an infinite (ha!) number of parallel worlds. How could we ever test that? (Help, this is making me think about That Movie that just came out and the concept of alternate timelines.)\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I was mostly understanding the criticism of Tegmark\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s theory of the four levels of universes, and then I started to lose the thread, so to speak, around that fourth level of universe. The coin toss example helped a LOT, admittedly, and I was back on track! You can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t say that all possibilities are real because you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re positing something that literally cannot exist because of certain constraints\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 like ALL EXISTING TIME. So, Tegmark has some cool ideas, but they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re untestable and describe a physical reality that, as we understand it, cannot exist.<\/p>\n

And then we get to string theory and I\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 uh\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a lot. Like\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 way more than I think I can understand? I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m re-reading what the authors describe string theory as, and I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t quite get it. But from that point, things only got more complicated. There are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153branes,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and then the book starts talking about TEN dimensions and the concept of vacuum energy\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6.<\/p>\n

You ever have someone talk to you about something you know they care about and is deeply interesting to them and they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re really nice and you just smile and nod your head because you don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t want to be rude and tell them, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Hey, what the HELL are you talking about?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Yeah. That. Because I was pretty lost towards the end here. The main point was easier to take away, that there is a very tiny space in which our universe can exist, but, over a long span of time, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s pretty inevitable that it would have come to be. We have no idea how \u00e2\u20ac\u0153long\u00e2\u20ac\u009d it was before the Big Bang and how long other forces took to swirl into the seemingly fitting universe we live in now. Our consciousness is not that long, and neither is our history. But the Goldilocks valley, as its referred to here, is a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153dead certainty.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Well, even if it turns out to be wrong, but for now, this might be our understanding of things. And I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know if in the fifteen or so years since this came out, there has been an important update!<\/p>\n

Anyway: my brain hurt a little more than usual after this half of the chapter. I TRIED.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/6kBveyA1trc<\/p>\n

Mark Links Stuff<\/b><\/p>\n

– The paperback edition of my debut, ANGER IS A GIFT, is now OUT!<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong>If you’d like to stay up-to-date on all announcements regarding my books, sign up for my newsletter<\/a>! DO IT.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"