Science is the magic that actually works

What is the meaning of this sentence?

Science is the magic that actually works.

***

I guess physicists do not realize that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a sentence and an equation. We know this from George Boole's work.

First of all, an equation is an equality of ratios stated with standard units. A true equality of ratios, on the other hand, is always stated with relative units. But in physics, most equations that look like an equality of ratios are not equality of ratios. Physicists routinely divide an equation into two parts by assigning a name to each part thus one side of the equation becomes just a label or a placeholder. The equation had been divided into two definitions (but still connected by the equality sign). Physicists still read these definitions as equations. The reason for this confusion is that in physics the fundamental symbol that makes the equation, the equality sign, is a loaded symbol. It can be used to make a definition, a proportionality, an equation and also an identity.

When a physicist repeats the official physics propaganda that "you should learn the equations because the equations are precise, sentences are not," we can only laugh at his naiveté. How can physics equations be precise when it is created by using the most loaded symbol in physics? But this is the standard rhetorical device physicists use to stave off any non-physicists who question their sacred doctrine. I showed elsewhere that “learning more physics” is not necessary to question the doctrine, because doctrine comes before physics.

We can easily convert any equation into the form of a sentence or convert a sentence into the form of an equation. This is no different than the relationship between geometry and algebra. The same idea can be expressed algebraically or geometrically.

What is fundamental is the ratio and the equalities of ratios. Equation is not fundamental and it is not precise; the equation is the Latin of physics.

***

I’ve known John Baez since Usenet days. He was the moderator of the newsgroup sci.physics.research. He was always ready to help with physics questions and he had a talent to explain even the most difficult concepts in simple language. I learned a lot physics from him and sci.physics.research. But today I intend to analyze this sentence of his:

Science is the magic that actually works.    

I want to understand if this sentence has a meaning and if so what it is. I also like to practice my claim that any sentence can be expressed as an equation.

So let

S = Science
M = Magic
M' = Magic that works

Obviously M and M' are not synonyms or equivalent. They are different things. Magic refers to something impossible that a magician fools you into believing that he made the impossible happen. The magician does this by fooling the observer. Therefore, by definition, magic means that the impossible did not happen but faked. Magic that works is not magic. In fact, “magic that works” simply means “magic that is not magic.” But a thing cannot be itself and not be itself at the same time. (But in physics things can be and not be at the same time, as we will see below.)

Symbolically this sentence can be expressed as

S = M’       (1)

This statement does not contain the symbol M, so Dr. Baez’s statement is not about magic at all.

We say that equation (1) is independent of M.

We note that M is not M'

M /= M'

This sentence simply attempts to define the word “science” with a new definition of magic. But it does not succeed because “magic that works” is not “magic”. The sentence ends up defining “magic” as “not magic.”

This form of definition is common in physics.

Also, there are more layers of hidden definitions in this sentence. When Dr. Baez says “science” he means "physics." And he reduces physics to equations. His sentence can be written as, “Physics equations are magic that actually works.”

Initially, he sets us up by saying that the symbols of an equation *seem* magical to a child and then with a sleight of hand he drops the word "seem" so that the sentence becomes "magic that works."

But this is not even true. There is nothing magical in physics equations. In fact a physics equation is the exact opposite of magic because all terms in an equation must be either actual numbers or must be placeholders for numbers. And those numbers must be properties of actual quantities existing in nature.

What may have looked like magic to a child may have been the abracadabra movement of symbols that physicist like to call "derivation." So, just by moving around symbols ceremoniously physicists claim to arrive at deep truths. In fact, derivation is nothing more than putting together the equations physicists have separated previously. We mentioned that physicists split equations again and again to create new definitions. This is the modern version of the old scholastic method of “splitting hairs.” Derivation is the reverse of this process, that is, the combining of previously split equations.

But the physics derivation is all pretend and nothing else. Something known is derived from other things that are known but were hidden by previous manipulations. By algebraic substitutions nothing new can be discovered.

There is nothing magical in derivation either. It is done by using the laws of algebra.

Science was born as an antidote to magic and it is still the opposite of magic. And science will never be "magic that works" because magic that works is not magic. The way a miracle that repeats is not a miracle but a natural phenomenon. So the sentence “a natural phenomenon is a miracle that repeats” can be a meaningful sentence to a physicist. Because it is of the same form as Dr. Baez’s sentence.

***

Why is this important? Why not accept this sentence as a bon mot and enjoy its ambiguity? Why take it so literally?

The reason is that physicists use this sentence form to define fundamental concepts of physics. For instance, they use it to define the concept of particle, one of the most fundamental concepts in physics. For instance, physicists can say something like "a particle is a wave." The form is the same.

P = Particle
W = Wave

P = W

We see that this is not an equation but a definition.

But particles do not exist in modern collider experiments. Only fields and waves exist. So the sentence "particle is a wave" is not even a definition, it is making two words synonyms. In this case the word "is" makes "particle" and "wave" synonyms. Wave has physical existence but particle does not. So, "particle" is defined as placeholder for the word "wave".

Once again we see that the equation is the Latin of physics. Physicists use it to hide information and as a rhetorical device to fit data into the doctrine.

Notes:

--- The sentence occurs in The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World:

But later, when I realized that by fiddling around with equations I could learn about the universe, I was hooked. The mysterious symbols seemed like magic spells. And in a way, they are. Science is the magic that actually works.

--- The equation: The loaded balance of physics

--- Wikipedia entry for George Boole

--- John Baez's blog.

Newton's Inertial motion hoax

The death of Newton's absurd assumption of inertial motion on a straight line:

To formulate [the principle of inertial motion] required a remarkable detachment from the world of experience, for such a motion is nowhere observed, ever, uniform motion in a straight line without any force acting upon the body.

It requires one to envisage a perfectly empty universe, with one sole object moving through space. It would then perform this inertial motion in a straight line. No-one could tell this because there would be no ruler and clock, and if there were, then the motion would no longer be in a straight line, because gravity would make it curve.

I dedicate this quote to all the Newtonian physics teachers still fanatically teaching this absurd notion of inertial motion on a straight line as a law of nature.

Notes:

--- The quote is from Nick Kollerstrom, Isaac Newton: Science's Greatest Fraud, p.70)

The Great Cosmological Hoax

I’m reading Mapping the Heavens by Priyamvada Natarajan. It’s a wonderful book full of useful information but unfortunately its main premise is faulty. Ms. Natarajan believes in what I call the Great Cosmological Hoax and repeats it and glorifies it in her book. As I explain in the following article, this hoax is about cosmos building. The words “cosmos” and “universe” are not synonyms. The cosmological hoax is about exploiting the confusion arising from conflating cosmos and the universe.

Modern cosmology is a corruption of astronomy and physics. Cosmology uses and abuses data collected by astronomers by applying this data to the fairy tale creation myths invented by academic physicists.

No one can know the universe in its totality. Anyone who claims to know the universe in its totality is either a prophet enjoying privileged communication with gods or a charlatan or an old fashioned shaman.

***

Mapping the Heavens, From the Preface (p.ix)

1. Our map of the cosmos has altered dramatically in the past hundred years.

2. In 1914, our own galaxy, the Milky Way, constituted the entire universe—alone, stagnant, and small.

3. Cosmological research still relied fundamentally on classical conceptions of gravity developed in the seventeenth century.

4. Modern physics and the triumphs of general relativity have shifted humanity’s entire comprehension of space and time.

5. Now we see the universe as a dynamic place, expanding at an accelerating rate, whose principal mysterious constituents, dark matter and dark energy, are unseen.

6. The remainder, all the elements in the periodic table, the matter that constitutes stars and us, contributes a mere 4 percent of the total inventory of the universe.

7. We have confirmed the existence of planets orbiting other stars.

8. We question the existence of other universes.

9. This is remarkable scientific progress.

***

From the above we understand that Ms. Natarajan uses the words “cosmos” and “universe” as synonyms and she exploits the oldest cosmological wordplay, namely, conflating universe as a whole and the cosmos which is nothing more than a truncation of the whole.

Let’s look in more detail at what Ms. Natarajan wrote in the first page of the book.

She likes the word cosmos but she uses it without a clear and unique definition. A field study becomes a science when the practitioners agree on a clear definition of what they study. For instance, the cell is the fundamental unit of study of biology and it is well defined.

Cosmologists study an entity called “cosmos” but they never defined it uniquely and clearly.

When Ms. Natarajan writes “our map of the cosmos has altered dramatically in the past hundred years,” here the word cosmos can mean “the universe as a whole” or “the observable universe” or a closed system defined by cosmologists. We don’t know which and Ms. Natarajan is happy with this ambiguity.

 The word cosmos can mean the universe as a whole in one sentence and can mean part of the universe in another sentence. But it can also be a superposition of two meanings at the same time in the same sentence. This is the most important proof that cosmology is not a science because its fundamental concepts are undefined, “mysterious”, “enigmatic” and “defy a single definition.” A field where what is studied is a piece of sophistry cannot be said to be a science.

***

Ms. Natarajan writes that “in 1924 our own galaxy ... constituted the entire universe...”

No. Our own galaxy did not constitute the entire universe, some people defined our galaxy as the entire universe.

Who are these people?

They are the cosmologists, a professional priestly class who traditionally owned the subject of astronomy, cosmology and cosmogony.

Cosmologists have a problem. They are paid to discover the deepest secrets of the universe as a whole but they are aware that they do not know the universe as a whole and they never will. So what do they do? They define a cosmos and then they define this cosmos as the entire universe. This is the oldest trick in the business of cosmology. We may call this trick the Cosmological Hoax.

The Cosmological Hoax

The universe as a whole is only as complicated as can be known by the current tools of cosmologists. This knowable closed system is called a cosmos.

Corollary: The boundary of the universe as a whole is always the same as the boundary of the cosmos. Therefore cosmos is the the universe as a whole.

Ms. Natarajan too is using the Cosmological Hoax. But she does not say explicitly, “let me define a cosmos and then let me define my cosmos as the entire universe.” No. She does this secretly and implicitly. Since this is the oldest tradition in cosmology, no one can question her false reasoning. No cosmologist will question you for using the Cosmological Hoax.

We are not even aware that she is defining her cosmos as the universe.

As I said, Ms. Natarajan too defines her cosmos as the Totality, the Whole, the Universe as a Whole.

Let me try to explain how the Cosmological Hoax is actually applied.

First, the cosmologist must criticize her predecessors for defining a small cosmos as the entire universe. Basically, the cosmologist accuses his predecessor for applying the Cosmological Hoax. How could these cosmologists believe that our galaxy can be the entire universe?

Ms. Natarajan doesn’t say it but we call such a reasoning to be anthropocentric because you assume that the boundaries of the entire universe cannot be bigger than what is revealed by the resolution of the current observational tools of humans. Every generation of cosmologists falls into this trap of anthropocentric reasoning. But they fall into it willingly. They perpetuate it. Because this is how they turn the observed universe into the universe as a whole. This is their tradition.

More generally, this is called “cosmos building”. This is what the priestly cosmologists who owned the cosmology have been doing ever since they started to look at the sky trying to understand and explain the motions they saw.

***

Modern cosmologists, including Ms. Natarajan, use the word cosmos as a synonym for universe but cosmos has a meaning of its own, distinct from the word “universe”. It’s important to clarify this.

Cosmos means an orderly and harmonious closed system defined by the cosmologists: cosmos is a truncation of the whole. Cosmos is defined in such a way that it is known in its entirety by the current observational and analytical tools of the cosmos makers. Cosmos is not the whole. Cosmos is a truncation of the whole.

Cosmos is not the whole because as humans we cannot know the Whole and we will never know the Whole. For the simplest reason that we can never know if what we defined as the Whole is the Whole. We may have simply reached the observational limit of our tools. The next generation of telescopes with higher resolution may reveal new parts of the universe. Furthermore, the Whole cannot be known in its entirety because it has infinite details.

A cosmologist, usually a physicist, is a professional who does not have the honesty to admit that he cannot know the whole.

On the contrary, the cosmologist defines a cosmos and then defines his cosmos as the entire universe, everything that exists, the Whole, the absolute Whole, the Totality.

He does this so skillfully with rhetorical sophistry and verbal trickery that you will never notice that he is defining his small cosmos as everything that exists.

But he still does not know the whole. Because he can never know if the sample of his observations are representative sample of the Whole.

***

How big is the new cosmos defined by the modern cosmologist?

The new cosmos is as big as that can be defined by the observational and analytical tools available to this cosmologist. Remember that cosmos is defined as a closed system knowable as a whole.

Once again we notice that the modern cosmologist defined the boundaries of the universe as a whole to be the same as the boundaries of the cosmos he defined.

So, Ms. Natarajan continues the cosmological tradition and defines a cosmos and then defines her cosmos as the entire universe.

But, it may be unfair to blame Ms. Natarajan for cosmos building as we’ve been explaining. Because she is not actually doing this. The cosmos as the universe as a whole had been created and formalized and registered in textbooks and made official by beautiful NASA graphics showing the photoshop history of the universe from the Big Bang to today long before Ms. Natarajan was born. Ms. Natarajan learned this fairy tale and creation myth in school and decided to sell it to the public as science. That’s what she is doing.

Her analytical tool du jour is General Relativity and her observational limits are defined by the resolution of the modern telescopes.

But no matter how big her cosmos is, it’s still not the entire universe.

***

So, after ridiculing his predecessors for being naive for defining a small part of the universe as the universe as a whole, the cosmologist explicitly states how much bigger the universe has become as revealed by his stronger telescopes. Then before you know it, he defines this new and larger cosmos as the universe as a whole.

***

Ms. Natarajan says that the universe is expanding. How can she know if the universe as a whole is expanding since she does not, and cannot know, the universe as a whole?

This idea of expanding universe originated with Edwin Hubble’s observation of 24 galaxies. From the observation of the motions of 24 galaxies the priests of cosmology deduced that the universe as a whole was expanding. This is either a prophesy, a divine revelation or charlatanism.

We know that 24 galaxies are not a representative sample of the universe as a whole because in order to know if your sample is representative you need to know the number of galaxies in the entire universe but you don’t know the total number of galaxies in the entire universe and you never will. You don’t even know if the universe is made of galaxies only.

So extrapolating from a pathetically non-representative sample to everything that exists and then selling this reckless extrapolation as a “remarkable scientific progress” is nothing other than a hoax.

***

Choose your own adjective to describe modern cosmology: 1. An elaborate scientific hoax, 2. Divine revelation, 3. Priestly miracle, 4. Creation myth, 5. Charlatanism.

Cosmology is not science we are sure of that. Cosmology is a corruption of astronomy and physics.

Notes:

— “Modern physics and the triumphs of general relativity have shifted humanity’s entire comprehension of space and time.”

General Relativity lives in spacetime. Every prediction General Relativity makes is for spacetime. But no General Relativity experiment or observation is done in spacetime. All are done in space and time existing as separate entities.

From this observation we deduce that the fundamental “triumph” of General Relativity, the spacetime, is a preternatural concept that exists only in the physical fairy tales invented by physicists.

— “Now we see the universe as a dynamic place...”

Classical conceptions of gravity i.e., Newtonian gravity, was dynamic too. The interpretation of Hubble’s observations as the expanding universe does not require any General Relativistic ideas.

— “...contributes a mere 4 percent of the total inventory of the universe.”

Here too Ms. Natarajan claims to have priestly or prophetic knowledge about the universe as a whole. I say that her knowledge must be priestly or prophetic or a revelation from the gods because no human being  —cosmologist or not— can know the totality. But Ms. Natarajan claims to know the "total inventory of the universe" otherwise he cannot know its 4 percent. So she observes in the observable universe and projects to the universe as a whole. But if we ask Ms Natarajan, no doubt, she will be the first to admit that there is a part of the universe from where no light reaches us and therefore will always remain unknown to us. How can she claim to know the totality of the universe while at the same time admitting that she only knows a small part of the universe?

— “We have confirmed the existence of planets orbiting other stars.”

Great. This is astronomy, not cosmology. The existence of other planetary systems is deduced by using “classical conceptions of gravity developed in the 17th century” not “the triumphs of General Relativity.”

— “We question the existence of other universes.”

I have an article about absurdity of claiming the existence of other universes. This is nothing more than a rhetorical deception used by cosmologists or a play on meanings of the word universe.

If Ms. Natarajan uses the word universe in its proper sense of “universe as a whole” his claim to assert existence of other universes makes no sense. Because, surprise, surprise, “universe as a whole” means “universe as a whole.” Universe as a whole is all inclusive therefore supposed universes will be included in the universe as a whole.

As an example, suppose A is the class of living cats. This class includes all cats. Suppose B is another class of all cats. Suppose C is another class of cats. But this is absurd. Then, D = A+B+C becomes the class of all cats. Calling A, B, or C “the class of all cats” is absurd. It is more than absurd it doubletalk. It is rhetorical deception. There is only one universal class. All other universal classes are invented by professional hoaxers called cosmologists.

Physics has demoted mass 1

I will be writing a series of short comments about this article by Jim Baggott, Physics has demoted mass: modern physics has taught us that mass is not an intrinsic property.

***

What is the main thesis of this article?

It’s this:

Physicists figured that mass is not an intrinsic property of matter. But more importantly, matter does not exist.

But this article has an important problem. The author does hot define the words “matter” and “mass”. So we don’t know what he means when he uses these words.

When the author uses the word “matter” he may mean the absolute indivisible unit assumed to make up all solids. But he may also use the word “matter” colloquially to mean objects that appear as solids to us.

And indeed he uses “matter” in both senses in the article without making explicit which meaning he means. This is important because his arguments are based on exploiting this confusion.

When he uses “matter” as the absolute indivisible unit, or the indivisible “building blocks” of matter, he assumes the doctrine of atomic materialism, the fundamental and sacred doctrine of physics. This has been so since the founding father of physics, The Newton, defined nature to be made of indivisible particles.

Newton’s disciples the physicists continue to believe blindly this doctrine defined by Newton. The atomic materialism is so ingrained in physics that there are physicists who call themselves “particle” physicists. How can a physicist who calls himself a “particle” physicist question the sacred doctrine of atomic materialism?

But particle physics is not fundamental, the true fundamental research is the one that tries to answer the question “Is nature atomic?”

Is the world made of indivisible particles which make up everything around us? No physicist can ask this question.

If we do not assume atomic materialism, that is, if we do not assume a discontinuous nature, we could easily question everything physicists attributed to the concept of mass to save Newton’s authority.

Just by denying Newtonian atomic materialism and by reasoning outside of official physics tropes we easily arrived at idea that mass is a superfluous concept and it is not an intrinsic property of matter because we did not assume matter to begin with.

The author arrives at the same conclusion but he must present several old and discarded models of matter and mass first and then switch to the chemical notion of matter and mass and then switch finally to the fairy tales of the Standard Model to deny the existence of matter and mass. All this happens because he failed to define clearly what he meant by matter and mass. So he fooled us but more importantly he fooled himself.

The lack of proper definitions is a problem here too. The author and the physicists cannot decide if quarks are indivisible spherical “building blocks” of matter or just a label for “quantum field” since quarks are nothing more than oscillations of the quantum field. And quantum fields are not spherical particles.

Sabine Hossenfelder on Multiple Wholes

Sabine Hossenfelder writes:

Our universe is one of infinitely many [universes].

Let me try to decipher the meaning of this sentence.

The problem is that you are using the word “universe” with two different meanings in the same sentence. [Of course, when I say “you” I don’t mean you. Don’t take it personally. Just like the word “universe” the word “you” have two meanings. It may refer to you, or to a generic particle physicist representing your colleagues who are the lovers of null results and corrupters of physics.]

The word universe can have two meanings. First let me explain the difference between the words “universe” and “cosmos”. Today these two words are used interchangeably but historically they were used to refer to two different entities. 

The word “universe” meant “the universe as a whole.” This means that, by definition, the word “universe” cannot have a plural because it is the name of the absolute whole. It’s like the word “God” in a monotheistic religion. By definition there is only one God. It makes no sense to say “our God is one of many Gods” because you defined a monotheistic religion with one God. Similarly, the plural of the word universe, “universes”, does not make sense because by definition we decided that the word “universe” referred to everything that exists, the absolute whole. (Physicists are the major corrupters of the English language.) There can only be one whole. Do you dispute this? How can you dispute it? There can only be one Whole. I even wrote it with a capital letter to emphasize that it is a unique entity and it does not have a plural. The Whole is whole. The Whole is One. These are definitions that cannot be changed.

Cosmos, on the other hand, is a truncation of the Whole. Since the ancient times, the professional class who owned the subject of astronomy defined a cosmos. The owners of astronomy and cosmology always have been a priestly class working for the rulers. This priestly class obtained their power from their supposed knowledge of the entire universe. Did they know the entire universe? Of course not. So what did they do? They defined a cosmos and defined the cosmos they defined to be the entire universe. So rest assured that what you are doing is nothing new, on the contrary it is the oldest trick in the profession.

What is this trick?

Let’s repeat. The professional priests of astronomy know that they cannot know the Whole. But their power comes from their claim to know the Whole. So they define a cosmos. This cosmos is the part of the universe visible to them by using their current technology. For instance, naked eye cosmos is limited with the spheres of fixed stars. The priests claim that this cosmos they defined is also the universe as a whole, or what we’ve been calling “the Whole.”

But with the discovery of the telescope, the lies of this priestly professionals are revealed and the new generations of astronomers observing with telescopes discover that the universe is much bigger than their predecessors believed. You would think that this new generation would say “we don’t know the Whole, we will never know the Whole, all we can know is the observable universe and what we can infer from it scientifically.” No. These are professionals and their job is to lie and define a cosmos and sell it as the Universe as a Whole. And that’s what they do. They claim that the Whole is made of galaxies.

Again, the priestly class who work for the ruling powers defined a cosmos and then sold their cosmos as the Universe as a Whole. In short, every generation of cosmologists markets its cosmos as the Whole. Then the next generation comes with more powerful observational tools and markets its cosmos as the Whole. This charlatanism has been going on for millennia and furthermore it is been sold as the progress of science. This is not progress. This is lying.

I’m sure that now you understand clearly the difference between a cosmos and the universe as a whole.

Let’s look at your sentence again.

When you say “our universe” you actually mean “our cosmos” because if you use the word “universe” here to mean “universe as a whole”, “-our- universe as a whole” does not make sense. By using the word “our” you delimit or truncate the Whole and you implicitly and tacitly assume a cosmos. The way you start your sentence with “our” makes it clear that you are talking about a cosmos, “our cosmos” or the visible universe plus the inferable universe.

You admit that there is a part of the Whole from where no light reaches you and no light will ever reach you. The unknown part is not a different Whole. The fact that you do not know that unknowable part does not make that part another Whole. Don’t forget the Whole is whole. By definition. So when we clearly define the word universe in your sentence, it turns out you are saying something trivial because your sentence simply means “our cosmos is one of infinitely many cosmoses that we can define.” Please note, a cosmos is a defined entity. You can define as many cosmoses as you wish.

But I’m sure that you will deny that when you say “universe” you mean “cosmos”. You claim that your “universe” refers to the universe as a whole. Because just like all priestly professional astronomers and cosmologists before you, you defined a cosmos and assert that your cosmos is the Whole. But you also have become a masterful sophist and surpassed your professional ancestors in the art of doubletalk because now it is impossible for us to tell when you mean “universe as a whole” and when you mean “cosmos”. I bow respectfully under this level of sophistry.

***

But since the word universe has only two meanings we can read your sentence by writing explicitly the meanings of the word “universe”. So the universe can mean

1. The Whole; or
2. The part, or the cosmos.

Simple as that.

So all the permutations of meanings of your sentence are these:

1. Our Whole is one of many Wholes.
2. Our Whole is one of many parts.
3. Our part is one of many parts.
4. Our part is one of many Wholes.

(I eliminated the word "infinity", since it is not essential to the meaning.) 

Probably you assert the first meaning: “Our Whole is one of many Wholes.” This is a masterful example of scholastic doubletalk. You define the Whole to be a part and a part to be the Whole.

Above I gave the example of the concept of God in a monotheistic religion. God is unique, the way the Whole is unique. It makes no sense to say “Our unique God is one of infinitely many Gods.” This makes your God one God among many. But this contradicts your axiom that your God was unique. Same with the Whole. Don’t you see this? I’m sure you do. It makes no sense to say "Our unique Whole is one of many Wholes." This is absurd: “Our universe as a whole is not unique, there are infinitely many universes as a whole.”

Written like this, the absurdity of your sentence becomes clear. But this sentence is not only absurd but it is a linguistic slight of hand. It is sophistry. If “our universe” is the universe as a whole then there cannot be another universe as a whole inside it because that second “universe” will be a part of “our universe as a whole”.

So which meaning do you really believe! You believe in all of them as the case may be! Yes you can, and will, defend each of the four meaning permutations as the case may be. This is called casuistry, as I explain below.

So if I accuse you of claiming something as absurd as the first permutation, you will simply say “No” and claim to defend the third meaning. Or another one. You will always be right. This cannot change. Because you are the present representative of the priestly class who owned cosmology for millennia.

Your “multiverse” should really be “multimos” from “multicosmos”. But no one will take you seriously if you speculate about a small part of the universe. You are the priests of cosmology and you know the secrets of the universe as a whole so you make grandiose claims about the universe as a whole even though you admit that you know nothing about the unkowable parts of the Whole. This is where your mastery scholastic sophistry comes handy. You sell yourself as an expert on what you admit you know nothing about. This is the bonus of being the hereditary Doctors of Philosophy.

***

The above analysis showing the absurdity of the concept of multiverse (a concept defining multiple Wholes or exploiting the word “Whole” by corrupting it) is so simple that it is not possible for a physicist not to understand it. But they don’t. Why? How come a physicist can utter a sentence meaning “our universe as a whole is one of many universes as a whole” with a straight face and build philosophical sand castles on this sophistry and doubletalk? How can a physicist claim that the Whole is a part of many Wholes? Well, this type of doubletalk by corrupting the meanings of words is the oldest trick in the book of scholasticism. This is called casuistry. It is a well-known, standard method of argument used by all Doctors of Philosophy including academic doctors and lawyers and politicians. They secretly define a word multiple times and then choose a meaning case by case. If you argue the letter of the law, the lawyer will argue the spirit of the law. If you argue the spirit he will argue the letter. Same with the cosmologist and physicist. They are in the same profession. People who call themselves “physicists” today are the professional descendants of the ancient scribes who go as far back as ancient Egypt. They continue the tradition of defining a cosmos for their employers, the rulers, and market this cosmos as the universe as a whole.

***

We may also ask why these priestly professionals needed to invent the multiverse, the infinitely many Wholes? One answer may be that they love the absurd. The more absurd a concept is, the more papers you can write about it. (See my next article on this topic.)

Notes:

--- Sabine Hossenfelder's article where she talks about "naturalness" and "our universe" being one of infinitely many [universes] is A philosopher's take on “naturalness” in particle physics. Her article about Multiverse nonsense is The Multiworse Is Coming
— To repeat: when I say “you” I don’t mean you. Don’t take it personally. Just like the word “universe” the word “you” have two meanings. It may refer to you, or to a generic physicist representing your colleagues who are the lovers of null results. 

Naturalness in particle physics

This is a philosophical topic. The professional title of the person who writes about "naturalness" does not change the fact that the topic is a philosophical topic. The topic is philosophical and it is independent of the professional title of the person who writes about this topic. If the person who writes about naturalness in particle physics is a physicist this does not make the topic physics but makes the physicist a philosopher.

Sabine Hossenfelder writes that

naturalness, [is] an idea that has become a prominent doctrine in particle physics. In brief, naturalness requires that a theory’s dimensionless parameters should be close to 1, unless there is an explanation why they are not. [...] Assuming a probability distribution for the parameters at high energies, you can then quantify the likelihood of finding a theory with the parameters we do observe. If the likelihood is small, the theory is said to be “unnatural” or “finetuned”. The mass of the Higgs-boson is unnatural in this sense, so is the cosmological constant, and the theta-parameter.

So physicists need to invent philosophical mumbo jumbo in order to call that old ad hoc term, the cosmological constant, "unnatural." What can be more pathetic than physicists discussing this ad hoc term they dubbed "cosmological" and "constant" for over a century. Cosmological constant is neither "cosmological" nor "a constant" but an ad hoc parameter. These physicists, don't they have anything more substantial to discuss?

The second, and newer, type of naturalness, is based on the idea that our universe is one of infinitely many that together make up a “multiverse.” In this case, if you assume a probability distribution over the universes, you can calculate the likelihood of finding the parameters we observe. Again, if that comes out to be unlikely, the theory is called “unnatural.” This approach has so far not been pursued much. Particle physicists therefore hope that the standard model may turn out to be natural in this new way.

Physicists discuss naturalness of theories they invent by assuming that "our universe is one of infinitely many that together make up a "multiverse." Why?

In this case, if you assume a probability distribution over the universes, you can calculate the likelihood of finding the parameters we observe. Again, if that comes out to be unlikely, the theory is called "unnatural." 

Not sure if this is a parody of philosophy or if it is a parody of physics. I guess this is what happens if people who spend their education --a very long education, about 25 years-- to study how to solve differential equations and make calculations by using 18th century methods and spending years and years learning data analysis techniques and bad programming but study zero --yes, zero-- hours of philosophy but when they grow up and start writing papers they write bad philosophy or physicophilosophical mumbo jumbo and call it physics!

These physicists are real jokes. Their professional title is Doctor of Philosophy but their knowledge of philosophy is nada, zilch.

For a physicist philosophy is any topic that falls outside of legal physics tropes he is familiar with.

Their professional titles should really be "Doctors of Data Reduction and Calculation". Because this is what they learn to do. Even their philosophy is about calculation. To find out if a theory they invented is natural they compute some probability in potential hypothetical universes that may exist only to make the theories they invented natural.

Well, I have to give credit to Sabine Hossenfelder. I was writing the above as I was reading her article paragraph by paragraph but then I saw that she ridicules and destroys these naturalness arguments so eloquently that I cannot hope to match even if clones of myself wrote about the topic in infinity of multiverses for infinity of time dimensions invented by Lisa Randalls of physics.

Ms. Hossenfelder writes:

The biggest problem, however, is the same for both types of naturalness: You don’t have the probability distribution and no way of obtaining it because it’s a distribution over an experimentally inaccessible space. To quantify naturalness, you therefore have to postulate a distribution, but that has the consequence that you merely get out what you put in. Naturalness arguments can therefore always be amended to give whatever result you want.

Damn these physicists! They are not only charlatans but they are crooks too:

And that really is the gist of the current trend. The LHC data has shown that the naturalness arguments that particle physicists relied on did not work. But instead of changing their methods of theory-development, they adjust their criteria of naturalness to accommodate the data. This will not lead to better predictions.

 ***

How did this happen? How did we allow these crooks corrupt the old science of physics into this state of corruption? Who is responsible? What can we do to cleanse academic physics from these useless and unnaturally bad philosophers who posture as physicists?

***

But this is not over. The charlatanism in physics hit the fan long time ago:

You see what is happening here. Conjecturing a multiverse of any type (string landscape or eternal inflation or what have you) is useless. It doesn’t explain anything and you can’t calculate anything with it. But once you add a probability distribution on that multiverse, you can make calculations. Those calculations are math you can publish. And those publications you can later refer to in proposals read by people who can’t decipher the math. Mission accomplished. 

The reason this cycle of empty predictions continues is that everyone involved only stands to benefit. From the particle physicist who write the papers to those who review the papers to those who cite the papers, everyone wants more funding for particle physics, so everyone plays along.

Academic physicists especially theoretical so called physicists are a bunch of corrupt academic opportunists, it looks like.
 
Notes:

--- These are the the referenced articles, by Sabine Hossenfelder, A philosopher's take on “naturalness” in particle physics, The Multiworse Is Coming

--- More on Lisa Randall.