Kathryn Aegis wrote:
> I almost just posted that URL! The NYT website has been down, so I
> guess we're all catching up on the science articles.
>
> I thought the article was a very useful assessment of the present
> problems related to string theory, with one noteable exception--it did
> not mention its relation to multiverse theory, and that multiverse
> theory may itself develop into the overarching 'universal' theory, with
> string theory as a sub-universal explanation of phenomena in our own
> universe. Several excellent articles have been written about
> multiverse theory lately in general media outlets, so it's not as if
> it's not on the radar screen right now.
It shouldn't be on the radar screen as far as I know, as I was under the impression that Prof. John Cramer ( of the U of Wash. ), in a paper published in 1986, extended the implications of the Feynman interpretation of Quantum Dynamics (esp QCD) to prove that the Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is not a paradox at all, and therefore, multi-verse theory is bunk. This applies to the multiverse theory of parallel universes arising from the same big bang, not from the 'darwinian' theory of universe evolution, where the conditions optimum for life are also optimum for creation of black holes that spawn new universes.
Mike Lorrey