The WSJ has an opinion article between Brian Greene, a leading proponent of string theory and David Gelernter, a leading computer professor at Yale. The discussion covers the math that suggests multiverses, possible future proofs and philosophic suggestions, such as, how many David Gelernters are there?
> > > 
> > > WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109891641757806.html?KEYWORDS... > 
> > 
> > Here is John Horgan's opinion of Greene and multiverses, an excerpt of his (Horgan's) comments in Sci. Am. How many multiverses can dance on the head of a pin?
> > 
> > http://media.www.thestute.com/media/storage/paper1092/news/2011/02/04/Opinion/The-Scien... 
> Seconded.-Now George Ellis, a theistic scientist, trashes Greene:-http://collidinguniverses.blogspot.com/2011/01/arguments-for-multiverse-mutually.html

The WSJ has an opinion article between Brian Greene, a leading proponent of string theory and David Gelernter, a leading computer professor at Yale. The discussion covers the math that suggests multiverses, possible future proofs and philosophic suggestions, such as, how many David Gelernters are there?
> > 
> > WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109891641757806.html?KEYWORDS... 
> 
> Here is John Horgan's opinion of Greene and multiverses, an excerpt of his (Horgan's) comments in Sci. Am. How many multiverses can dance on the head of a pin?
> 
> http://media.www.thestute.com/media/storage/paper1092/news/2011/02/04/Opinion/The-Scien...

The WSJ has an opinion article between Brian Greene, a leading proponent of string theory and David Gelernter, a leading computer professor at Yale. The discussion covers the math that suggests multiverses, possible future proofs and philosophic suggestions, such as, how many David Gelernters are there?
> 
> WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109891641757806.html?KEYWORDS... is John Horgan's opinion of Greene and multiverses, an excerpt of his (Horgan's) comments in Sci. Am. How many multiverses can dance on the head of a pin?-http://media.www.thestute.com/media/storage/paper1092/news/2011/02/04/Opinion/The-Scientific.Curmudgeon.Is.Theorizing.About.Parallel.Universes.Immoral-3972871.shtml

(Something like 9/10 of theoretical physics grads are string theorists.) I view this as a 200 year travesty. (It'll be that long before we move off of Strings, I think.) 
> > 
> > So what this suggests is that our universe on a grander scale contains more than the 3d of traditional Euclidean mathematics. The LHC will help us divine a few tantalisingly small clues, but the most significant will be negative evidence of the particles predicted by super-symmetry.
> 
> I'm glad I've got you teaching me! As for string theory, yuck. 25 wasted years down a side channel.-Just remember to take what I say with a grain a salt! -And don't be too hard on String Theory. It has provided very valuable mathematical tools that have already started bearing fruit. -And we're discovering how to test it.-I don't like it. But if they can start finding ways to test it--and it works--that means that I get to eat my foot.

(Something like 9/10 of theoretical physics grads are string theorists.) I view this as a 200 year travesty. (It'll be that long before we move off of Strings, I think.) 
> 
> So what this suggests is that our universe on a grander scale contains more than the 3d of traditional Euclidean mathematics. The LHC will help us divine a few tantalisingly small clues, but the most significant will be negative evidence of the particles predicted by super-symmetry.-I'm glad I've got you teaching me! As for string theory, yuck. 25 wasted years down a side channel.

Our universe is flat; but that very important fact that we have no actual constant of PI as well that the Pythagorean Theorem does not hold--means that something is amiss...
> 
> Reference to a flat universe and possibly Euclidean:
> 
> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec21.html
... -The Euclidean space you're talking about is only about curvature--not the shape or superstructure of the universe itself. We have a flat curve to our universe, but if you read further down in that same article, it discusses several topologies that actually discuss the shape of our universe. As you can see, there are several shapes that would be undetectable to us, and judging by certain inaccuracies, (many of which more to do with quantum mechanics) has helped cause nearly all theoretical physicists to spurn the Standard Model for Strings. (Something like 9/10 of theoretical physics grads are string theorists.) I view this as a 200 year travesty. (It'll be that long before we move off of Strings, I think.) -> Does PI refer to circle and diameter, or what?-I'm picking on PI because you're probably familiar with it. It is a constant that is a relationship of diameter and circumference, and it does have an exact mathematical value--but only in an R3 universe. In our universe, both this (and many other "constants" are only approximations that work on very local and very small scales. Because of things such as the curvature of the earth, or the curvature of space-time around objects, these constants break down and fail to explain reality. I also used the pythagorean theorem, because it is another formula that suffers from goldilocks: it doesn't work on spheres, and Special Relativity guarantees that all objects with mass exert a curve.-So what this suggests is that our universe on a grander scale contains more than the 3d of traditional Euclidean mathematics. The LHC will help us divine a few tantalisingly small clues, but the most significant will be negative evidence of the particles predicted by super-symmetry.

Our universe is flat; but that very important fact that we have no actual constant of PI as well that the Pythagorean Theorem does not hold--means that something is amiss...-Reference to a flat universe and possibly Euclidean:-http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec21.html-Does PI refer to circle and diameter, or what?


> > What makes it scientifically plausible is the observation that our universe's geometry isn't Euclidean. 
> 
> There are lots of folks who will disagree with you. Our universe has flat space and will go on until heat death, according to current findings and opinions on 
> wikipedia. (Sorry can't locate the reference at the moment.) Therefore, it is Euclidian. I know there is time as a special dimension and local curves, but my statement stands.-And none of them mathematicians or physicists. First, as George pointed out long ago, there is no true constant of PI in our universe. This is absolute fact in physics. This single observation by itself is enough to discard our universe being R3 (Euclidean 3d). You confuse this with the fact that every multidimensional space has a Euclidean space. This is not the same thing. Every physics textbook on the planet stresses the fact that Euclidean geometry only approximates reality on a very grandiose scale. 
 When applied over spheres and 3d ellipses, R3 Euclidean geometry fails to explain reality. (Under FLRW model.) -Our universe is flat; but that very important fact that we have no actual constant of PI as well that the Pythagorean Theorem does not hold--means that something is amiss...


> What makes it scientifically plausible is the observation that our universe's geometry isn't Euclidean. -There are lots of folks who will disagree with you. Our universe has flat space and will go on until heat death, according to current findings and opinions on 
wikipedia. (Sorry can't locate the reference at the moment.) Therefore, it is Euclidian. I know there is time as a special dimension and local curves, but my statement stands.


> If I remember correctly, many of the undiscovered particles would verify supersymmetry, meaning that a multiverse is possible. This discovery would also give the first small thread of credibility (in my eyes) to String Theory. If however these particles aren't found, a multiverse is nullified.-I know that string theory opens a mathematical door for a theoretical 10^500 multiverses. 'Possibility' is never proof. I think your eyes are 'wide shut' and string theory a blind alley. Brian Greene is a good author and likes to sell books.

The Large Hadron Collider will be the first instrument that could begin to verify/nullify a multiuniverse, depending upon what particles it finds--or more telling--the ones predicted that it doesn't find.
> 
> How will the LHC verify/nullify a multiverse? It is looking for predicted 
> Higgs and others. If a particle is unpredicted and the standard model of the particle zoo must be changed, how does that get us multiverses?-If I remember correctly, many of the undiscovered particles would verify supersymmetry, meaning that a multiverse is possible. This discovery would also give the first small thread of credibility (in my eyes) to String Theory. If however these particles aren't found, a multiverse is nullified.

The Large Hadron Collider will be the first instrument that could begin to verify/nullify a multiuniverse, depending upon what particles it finds--or more telling--the ones predicted that it doesn't find.-How will the LHC verify/nullify a multiverse? It is looking for predicted 
Higgs and others. If a particle is unpredicted and the standard model of the particle zoo must be changed, how does that get us multiverses?

David has drawn our attention to an interview between Brian Greene, a string theorist, and David Gelernter, in which Greene suggests that there are many other universes, and many other identical Greenes and Gelernters, who have led identical lives.
> 
> Later he says: "We live in a universe in which the amount of dark energy fits our biological make-up. If the amount of dark energy were substantially different from what we've measured, the environmental conditions would be inhospitable to our form of life. So, while the multiverse contains universes with many different amounts of dark energy, we couldn't survive in most, explaining why we're in this universe and not another."
> 
> So Greene and Gelernter are in other universes, but they are in this universe and NOT in another. I don't think I shall ever understand physics. I alluded recently to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, which orbits the sun and is too small to be detected by any instruments. Funnily enough, Russell used the teapot story (Dawkins calls it a "parable") to ridicule the argument for God because, after all, neither theory can actually be disproved. Well, who's going to disprove the theory that we have identical doubles living identical lives on identical planets in other universes, although we're in this universe and not another? Talk about pots and kettles...-What makes it scientifically plausible is the observation that our universe's geometry isn't Euclidean. The inherent problem with this is that though we know our universe has at least 4 dimensions, there's no way to directly corroborate anything beyond that; on a very plain level any higher dimensions from ours we are incapable of perceiving without some very clever trickery--trickery we're not even sure we can perform. That said...-The Large Hadron Collider will be the first instrument that could begin to verify/nullify a multiuniverse, depending upon what particles it finds--or more telling--the ones predicted that it doesn't find.

Well, who's going to disprove the theory that we have identical doubles living identical lives on identical planets in other universes, although we're in this universe and not another? Talk about pots and kettles...-We live in a Goldylocks universe. Cosmologic math conjures up all sorts of unproveable universes. The anthropic principal is a wonderful tautology that explains everything. While underlying all of this are entangled quantum particles exchanging information across our universe, ignoring the speed of light. No wonder we contemplate how many universes can dance on the head of a pin. Why is there anything? It's turtles all the way down. And behind this impenetrable fog lies Chance or Purpose. Take your choice.