Does the lack of practicality or verifiability of multiverse theories make scientific inquiry worthless?

Brian Greene’s book, The Hidden Reality, examines the hypotheses of the multiverse, refuting the argument that scientific inquiry is worthless because of its lack of practicality and verifiability, and emphasizing the need to carefully evaluate the value of science.

 

Brian Greene’s book, The Hidden Reality, introduces the various forms of multiverse hypotheses currently being discussed among scientists. Many of these hypotheses are difficult to understand with common sense, and we don’t even know which ones are correct yet. In the middle of the book, the author poses the question: “Is it worthwhile to explore the multiverse when we have no real-world applications and no way to verify what is true?” Indeed, when the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) successfully detected gravitational waves on February 11, 2016, there was a huge investment in building LIGO, which is over 4 kilometers long, even though there is no immediate possibility of using the discovery of gravitational waves. It has been commonly argued that such investments overestimate the value of the object of study, and there have been criticisms that such scientific pursuits are worthless. However, these arguments are based on a lack of understanding of how science develops, and it is very difficult to assess the value of science.
First, there are three main criteria that people use to categorize science as worthless. First, if there is no current practical application or if the result of the inquiry is expected to have a low probability of practical application. In the case of multiverse theory, it is unlikely that such knowledge will contribute to improving our standard of living, even if the multiverse theory becomes a reality. A similar case arises when the benefits of science are low compared to the costs invested in science. For example, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has a particle accelerator that is 27 kilometers long and maintained at an internal temperature of minus 271 degrees Celsius, but because of the low probability of practical applications of research topics such as superstring theory or dark energy compared to the astronomical costs of maintaining and using such a facility, it is argued that this is not worthwhile science and should be abandoned.
Second, we can theorize and build a body of knowledge, but we don’t have the means to verify it. Multiverse theories offer many different theories and there is competition between them, but there is no way to verify their claims. This is because most multiverse hypotheses assume that it is impossible to jump from one universe to another. For example, the quilted multiverse essentially assumes that the universe is infinite in size, making it impossible to find parallel universes. In a bubble multiverse, it is impossible to travel to another universe because the universe and universes are blocked by an inflaton field. In the case of the brain multiverse, it would be highly plausible if the superstring theory could be verified, but even verifying the superstring theory itself is difficult. There is an argument that no matter how plausible these theories are, they are not worth pursuing because they are impossible to verify.
Third, there is the case where the purpose of the research is for the scientists’ own interest, away from the public interest. Multiverse theory research is often driven by the intellectual curiosity of the scientists themselves rather than any specific plan or social contribution. It has been argued that research that follows the interests of individual scientists, rather than being planned to address societal concerns or contribute to the well-being of humanity, is worthless and should be reconsidered for funding.
I have outlined three main arguments for viewing the search for the multiverse as worthless, and these arguments are based on a lack of understanding of how science develops. If we look at the development of science throughout history, we see that the value of scientific knowledge or inquiry is not something that can be judged immediately at the point of knowledge accumulation, either during or after the inquiry. History is replete with examples of scientific knowledge only coming to light because of advances in the surrounding science and technology.
For the first argument, that knowledge is worthless if it doesn’t have a practical application, we can think about when Einstein first published his theory of relativity. Since relativity only works in situations that require very large speeds or gravitational forces, it’s likely that his contemporaries thought the theory had little room for real-world application. However, modern GPS requires a significant gravitational difference between the satellite and the user, and the high precision required by the nature of GPS means that the time distortion effects of general relativity must be taken into account. Therefore, time correction is required to match the time between the satellite and the ground.
The second argument, that if it can’t be verified, it’s not worth anything, may seem similar to Karl Popper’s statement that “a scientific proposition must be practically verifiable in order to be recognized as such.” However, scientific propositions that have not yet been verified, or for which the means of verification are unclear, are not, and will not be, worthless. This is because what was thought to be unverifiable at the time of the emergence of scientific knowledge may become verifiable due to advances in the surrounding sciences. When Democritus claimed that all matter is composed of indivisible particles, there was no way to verify his claim, but in modern times, atomism has been verified by various methods.
Third, regarding the argument that science is worthless because it follows the interests of scientists, many of the breakthroughs in various fields and the knowledge that has become practical for humanity have come from the interests of scientists. For example, electromagnetism, the driving force behind modern society, began when Michael Faraday was experimenting with electricity and was intrigued by the movement of a nearby compass. While it may seem like a scientist’s interest is fleeting, it doesn’t mean that such behavior is without potential.
So there you have it, three arguments against science as worthless. While the study of parallel universes and multiverses may seem worthless from a certain perspective, we still know far too little about the universe, so it would be very rash to myopically devalue research into theories like multiverses, and society should take a broader view and carefully evaluate the value of science. From this perspective, no scientific knowledge or theory that is currently being studied can be said to be worthless, and the general public and public opinion should not pessimistically view scientific research just because they are not familiar with it, but should accurately grasp its value and importance.