I don't know much about physics but if I am not mistaken, at this point Occam's Razor is used BY BOTH sides to defend their ideas. The people who think it violates it and the people who think Occam's perfectly fits the theory. You are saying that introducing that many possible realities violates it, but others say that it is not about the number or realities but about the axioms in the theory itself, and according to them, the postulates in the theory are supported by Occam's Razor. So if this is a controversial matter, it would be nice if you provide a little more about your side other than two lines of text. You know, so that people who have not studied this in detail and don't know much about it (like me) get your point. But then again this is your blog...

True, so true.. although I've noticed a guy.. the same guy that shows up on EVERY Egyptian ruins program on cable. He's like the Shatner of Egyptology... you guys know who I'm talking about?

All science is based around proposing crazy theories, some of which might turn out to be right.

The difference is that real scientists test their theories before going to the popular press and making $$$ selling popular books about them. He states that these infinite alternate universes are permanently separated from ours, and unobservable. Just like the invisible pink unicorn.

How exactly do you propose Einstein would have tested his theory of general relativity back in the early 1900s?

It wasn't until very recently, using atomic clocks on a plane and one on the ground was the general theory of relativity proven to be right.

The same invisible theory surrounds the existence of the Higgs particle.

Relativity was tested rather quickly by explaining Mercury's orbit, by astronomical observations of gravitational lensing during solar eclipses, etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Classical_tests

media whore seems a tad harsh, simply because he enjoys being more of a theorist.

where would you place isaac asimov?

The certainty he projects sometimes rubs me the wrong way too, but then I remind myself that his approach is tailored to a wider audience. His books and media appearances are not directed at those of us with a background in science.

media whore = someone who will do or say anything to get his name in the press


I've got no problem with Asimov because he admitted that his scifi was scifi.

"How exactly do you propose Einstein would have tested his theory of general relativity back in the early 1900s?"

Gee, I don't know, doofe. Why don't you google it and learn something?

"It wasn't until very recently, using atomic clocks on a plane and one on the ground was the general theory of relativity proven to be right."

Wrong.