Jon,
A: my apologies for describing you as “closed minded” as my concern was that you did not seem to be open to the idea of a “multiverse.” Now I see that you are. Â
B. More on my own definition of a “multiverse” in a later post. Thanks for bringing it in. Â
C. You are correct that multiverse theory is not “proven” although there are some tantalizing clues emerging from brane theory. If big history is genuinely “big” then I do think this deserves inclusion in big history. Â
D. Beyond “particles” (or energetic structures) popping in and out of existence, I’d like to raise the issue of the entire universe as a continuously emergent process. Â
E. I respect your restrictive definition of a scientist as someone who has published experimental results in a peer reviewed journal and, in those terms, I may qualify as a “scientist.” More on that later. In the meantime, I do consider Brian a scientist in the widely accepted definition of being “a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”   Â
