Announcement

**Tassman** · 11-14-2016, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

This thread is for scientific issues of the evidence, scientific methods, and the associated philosophy concerning the theories, models and hypothesis of the cosmological origins. The science of cosmological origins is the cutting edge of modern physics fraught with many uncertainties and unanswered questions. I believe part of the problem is how scientists communicate to the public that leads to a great deal of misunderstanding. An example of this miscommunication is Vilenkin's reference to the 'metaphysical nature of models and hypothesis of cosmological origins' without further explanation. Based on his other statements I believe he is referring scientific metaphysics and philosophical issues of cosmological origins, but since Vilenkin was not clear it opens the door to misunderstandings.

Sea of Red for one apparently wishes a dialogue without the 'contamination of metaphysical/religious discussions.' This thread will deal with scientific issues and the philosophy of science only. Te evidence for the models and hypothesis of cosmological origins is dominantly in the evolving knowledge of Quantum Physics

I considered either Philosophy 201 or Natural Science 301 as the home for this thread. Since it deals with the science and the philosophy of cosmological origins, I chose Natural Science 301.

I will begin with a reference concerning the issues of the philosophy of science. This reference includes an interview with Tim Maudlin.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

What existWhat Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmologyed before the big bang?

What is the nature of time? Is our universe one of many? On the big questions science cannot (yet?) answer, a new crop of philosophers are trying to provide answers.

. . .

In December, a group of professors from America's top philosophy departments, including Rutgers,* Columbia, Yale, and NYU, set out to establish the philosophy of cosmology as a new field of study within the philosophy of physics. The group aims to bring a philosophical approach to the basic questions at the heart of physics, including those concerning the nature, age and fate of the universe. This past week, a second group of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge announced their intention to launch a similar project in the United Kingdom.

One of the founding members of the American group, Tim Maudlin, was recently hired by New York University, the top ranked philosophy department in the English-speaking world. Maudlin is a philosopher of physics whose interests range from the foundations of physics, to topics more firmly within the domain of philosophy, like metaphysics and logic.

Your group has identified the central goal of the philosophy of cosmology to be the pursuit of outstanding conceptual problems at the foundations of cosmology. As you see it, what are the most striking of those problems?

Maudlin: So, I guess I would divide that into two classes. There are foundational problems and interpretational problems in physics, generally --say, in quantum theory, or in space-time theory, or in trying to come up with a quantum theory of gravity-- that people will worry about even if they're not doing what you would call the philosophy of cosmology. But sometimes those problems manifest themselves in striking ways when you look at them on a cosmological scale. So some of this is just a different window on what we would think of as foundational problems in physics, generally.

Then there are problems that are fairly specific to cosmology. Standard cosmology, or what was considered standard cosmology twenty years ago, led people to the conclude that the universe that we see around us began in a big bang, or put another way, in some very hot, very dense state. And if you think about the characteristics of that state, in order to explain the evolution of the universe, that state had to be a very low entropy state, and there's a line of thought that says that anything that is very low entropy is in some sense very improbable or unlikely. And if you carry that line of thought forward, you then say "Well gee, you're telling me the universe began in some extremely unlikely or improbable state" and you wonder is there any explanation for that. Is there any principle that you can use to account for the big bang state?

This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state" is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology. This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state" -- the search for a physical explanation of it -- is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology, and there are a couple different lines of thought about it. One that's becoming more and more prevalent in the physics community is the idea that the big bang state itself arose out of some previous condition, and that therefore there might be an explanation of it in terms of the previously existing dynamics by which it came about. There are other ideas, for instance that maybe there might be special sorts of laws, or special sorts of explanatory principles, that would apply uniquely to the initial state of the universe.

© Copyright Original Source

In short, the BB or the Inflation scenario for the beginning of our universe both have likely antecedent conditions from which they arose, i.e. they weren't necessarily the beginning of all that is. This is all I've been trying to argue...and you too I think.

**shunyadragon** · 11-14-2016, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Tassman View Post

In short, the BB or the Inflation scenario for the beginning of our universe both have likely antecedent conditions from which they arose, i.e. they weren't necessarily the beginning of all that is. This is all I've been trying to argue...and you too I think.

That is an important issue, but not the only one in the thread in Apologetics. It would be a good subject here as how science considers various possible types of 'beginnings' in cosmological origins.

The whole article of the interview with Tim Maudlin is well worth the read. He also discusses the problem of fine-tuning, but that topic will not be discussed here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...mology/251608/

**shunyadragon** · 11-16-2016, 09:06 PM

Andrei Lind is probably the most optimistic physicist supporting that the 'scientific evidence' of Quantum Physics does indeed strongly support the existence of a multi-verse cosmos and that the multi-verse is indeed falsifiable. He describes our inflationary multiverse in terms of an inflationary universe leaving open the possibility of a cosmos composing of multiple multiverses. I mentioned this as a possibility in the other thread, but I do not believe it was taken seriously. My view is somewhere between Andrei Linde, and the skeptics the consider the existence of a multi-verse at present not falsifiable, in that I consider the multi-verse and the natural origin of our universe and all possible universes subject to the process of falsification, possibly falsifiable in the future, and supported by scientific evidence.

In his presentations he describes the models and hypothesis for the multi-verse as:

Source: http://www.ftpi.umn.edu/misel/2014/Inflationary%20Multiverse%20Minnesota%20Linde.pdf

Numerous predictions of inflationary theory have been tested and confirmed by many cosmological observations. Some parts of theory of the inflationary multiverse are still under construction, but the only well developed.

However, the theory of inflationary multiverse is much more general, and it solves many problems that we could not solve otherwise. Some parts of theory of the inflationary multiverse are still under construction, but the only well developed alternative to inflationary multiverse is an inflationary universe.

© Copyright Original Source

This reference http://www.ftpi.umn.edu/misel/2014/I...ta%20Linde.pdf and another one: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0526.pdf are brief summaries of the theories and math that support his possible multiverse models,

**seer** · 11-17-2016, 08:11 AM

And Paul Steinhardt one of the fathers of inflation theory disagrees:

Theories of Anything

A pervasive idea in fundamental physics and cosmology that should be retired: the notion that we live in a multiverse in which the laws of physics and the properties of the cosmos vary randomly from one patch of space to another. According to this view, the laws and properties within our observable universe cannot be explained or predicted because they are set by chance. Different regions of space too distant to ever be observed have different laws and properties, according to this picture. Over the entire multiverse, there are infinitely many distinct patches. Among these patches, in the words of Alan Guth, "anything that can happen will happen�and it will happen infinitely many times". Hence, I refer to this concept as a Theory of Anything.

Any observation or combination of observations is consistent with a Theory of Anything. No observation or combination of observations can disprove it. Proponents seem to revel in the fact that the Theory cannot be falsified. The rest of the scientific community should be up in arms since an unfalsifiable idea lies beyond the bounds of normal science. Yet, except for a few voices, there has been surprising complacency and, in some cases, grudging acceptance of a Theory of Anything as a logical possibility. The scientific journals are full of papers treating the Theory of Anything seriously. What is going on?

...I draw the line there. Science is useful insofar as it explains and predicts why things are the way they are and not some other way. The worth of a scientific theory is gauged by the number of do-or-die experimental tests it passes. A Theory of Anything is useless because it does not rule out any possibility and worthless because it submits to no do-or-die tests. (Many papers discuss potential observable consequences, but these are only possibilities, not certainties, so the Theory is never really put at risk.)

I think a priority for theorists today is to determine if inflation and string theory can be saved from devolving into a Theory of Anything and, if not, seek new ideas to replace them. Because an unfalsifiable Theory of Anything creates unfair competition for real scientific theories, leaders in the field can play an important role by speaking out�making it clear that Anything is not acceptable�to encourage talented young scientists to rise up and meet the challenge. The sooner we can retire the Theory of Anything, the sooner this important science can progress.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25405

**shunyadragon** · 11-17-2016, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by seer View Post

And Paul Steinhardt one of the fathers of inflation theory disagrees:

I have no problem with disagreements among scientists particularly on the subject of the cosmology of models and hypothesis of the origins of our physical existence. The purpose of this thread is to discuss these different views based on the 'scientific evidence' and Methodological Naturalism. I already noted that there is a range of views from Andrei Lind to the skeptics, one of which you are citing.

Thank you for your post I will go over it and respond.

**seer** · 11-17-2016, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

I have no problem with disagreements among scientists particularly on the subject of the cosmology of models and hypothesis of the origins of our physical existence. The purpose of this thread is to discuss these different views based on the 'scientific evidence' and Methodological Naturalism. I already noted that there is a range of views from Andrei Lind to the skeptics, one of which you are citing.

Thank you for your post I will go over it and respond.

Yes you really need to understand what Steinhardt is saying, it is devastating.

**shunyadragon** · 11-17-2016, 01:20 PM

Source: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25405

Theories of Anything

A pervasive idea in fundamental physics and cosmology that should be retired: the notion that we live in a multiverse in which the laws of physics and the properties of the cosmos vary randomly from one patch of space to another. According to this view, the laws and properties within our observable universe cannot be explained or predicted because they are set by chance. Different regions of space too distant to ever be observed have different laws and properties, according to this picture. Over the entire multiverse, there are infinitely many distinct patches. Among these patches, in the words of Alan Guth, "anything that can happen will happen�and it will happen infinitely many times". Hence, I refer to this concept as a Theory of Anything.

© Copyright Original Source

I half agree here, but accept the possibility that 'different regions of space can possibly have different laws and properties, but that is not necessarily the only possible case. It is unknown to what degree 'natural laws and properties' could vary. It is possible that the laws and properties vary very little throughout the possible multi-verse. As Einstein said, '. . . the dice may be loaded.'

Source: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25405

Any observation or combination of observations is consistent with a Theory of Anything. No observation or combination of observations can disprove it. Proponents seem to revel in the fact that the Theory cannot be falsified. The rest of the scientific community should be up in arms since an unfalsifiable idea lies beyond the bounds of normal science. Yet, except for a few voices, there has been surprising complacency and, in some cases, grudging acceptance of a Theory of Anything as a logical possibility. The scientific journals are full of papers treating the Theory of Anything seriously. What is going on?

© Copyright Original Source

Problem here, 'What is going on?' First, nothing can be disproved by scientific methods. I do not believe that science has progressed to the point that we can conclude that a 'Theory of Everything' can be falsified or not.

Source: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25405

...I draw the line there. Science is useful insofar as it explains and predicts why things are the way they are and not some other way. The worth of a scientific theory is gauged by the number of do-or-die experimental tests it passes. A Theory of Anything is useless because it does not rule out any possibility and worthless because it submits to no do-or-die tests. (Many papers discuss potential observable consequences, but these are only possibilities, not certainties, so the Theory is never really put at risk.)

© Copyright Original Source

There are at present few if any scientist that consider the current models and hypothesis for possible multi-verses with certainty. Adrei Linde is possibly closest

Source: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25405

I think a priority for theorists today is to determine if inflation and string theory can be saved from devolving into a Theory of Anything and, if not, seek new ideas to replace them. Because an unfalsifiable Theory of Anything creates unfair competition for real scientific theories, leaders in the field can play an important role by speaking out�making it clear that Anything is not acceptable�to encourage talented young scientists to rise up and meet the challenge. The sooner we can retire the Theory of Anything, the sooner this important science can progress.

© Copyright Original Source

I do not believe that it can be assumed that the Theory of Everything is not falsifiable. His priorities are justified, but he needs to word things better.

**seer** · 11-17-2016, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

Theories of Anything

I do not believe that it can be assumed that the Theory of Everything is not falsifiable. His priorities are justified, but he needs to word things better.

It is not the theory of everything Shuny, it is the theory of ANYTHING.

He quotes Guth: "anything that can happen will happen�and it will happen infinitely many times"

Do you understand what Steinhardt is saying based on Guth's quote?

**shunyadragon** · 11-17-2016, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by seer View Post

It is not the theory of everything Shuny, it is the theory of ANYTHING.

He quotes Guth: "anything that can happen will happen�and it will happen infinitely many times"

Do you understand what Steinhardt is saying based on Guth's quote?

I fully understand both Guth's and Steinhardt's quote's, i do not believe guth here was referring to the theory. I consider Steinhardt's use of 'Theory of Anything,' to be sarcasm for the possible 'Theory of Everything.' The following describes the theory.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

A theory of everything (ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[1]:6 Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force.[2]:122

Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible � they cannot both be right. Since the usual domains of applicability of GR and QFT are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used.[3][4]:842�844 As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QFT is apparently only an issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve this conflict, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of GR and QFT into a seamless whole: a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena. In pursuit of this goal, quantum gravity has become an area of active research.

Listen to this video by Guth which discusses The 'Theory of Everything.'Our Place in an Infinite Universe | Alan Guth | The Search for the Theory of Everything' at http://www.goodreads.com/videos/6208...-for-the-theor

**Sea of red** · 11-17-2016, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by seer View Post

Yes you really need to understand what Steinhardt is saying, it is devastating.

No, it's not.

**psstein** · 11-17-2016, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by seer View Post

Yes you really need to understand what Steinhardt is saying, it is devastating.

He's right that a lot of the ToE "evidence" can't be confirmed (or even tested) by modern science. He's pointing out that, for the time being, the multiverse theory is far closer to philosophy than cosmology or science.

The issue with what Steinhardt is saying is that falsifiability is not the only arbiter of what is science and what is not science...

**shunyadragon** · 11-18-2016, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by psstein View Post

He's right that a lot of the ToE "evidence" can't be confirmed (or even tested) by modern science. He's pointing out that, for the time being, the multiverse theory is far closer to philosophy than cosmology or science.

I do not think this represents Steinhardt's view. He does claim that the ToE is not falsifiable. I support the view that falsification is progressive process and not a yes/no process. It is good that seer posted Steinhardt's view, because part of the purpose of this thread is to present contrasting view of different scientists.

The skeptical view of Strinhardt is not devastating.

I disagree that it is necessarily more philosophy than science, because if we did not have scientific methods of falsification and the science of Quantum Physics, we would not have the models of cosmological origins. I will grant that philosophy is heavy at the present, but also th difference between the Quantum Mechanics and the world of our universe described by the science of the Theory of Relativity and that is the reason I started the thread with a discussion on the philosophy involved.

The Philosophy in science would be the how the scientific evidence is used in the falsification process. For example: There is not any scientific evidence for cosmological origins beyond the beginning of the expansion of our universe. The evidence is in the science of Quantum Mechanics and modeling based on the assumption of uniformity and the math we use applies outside our universe. Steinhardt may be called a skeptic that the Quantum Mechanics necessarily applies uniformly, and whether based on the 'scientific evidence' a ToE is falsifiable.

The issue with what Steinhardt is saying is that falsifiability is not the only arbiter of what is science and what is not science...

What other arbiter would Steinhardt be referring too? Falsification is a progressive process using scientific methods, and not in and of itself and arbiter.

**seer** · 11-18-2016, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Sea of red View Post

No, it's not.

According to Steinhardt it is - if "anything" can and will happen as Guth said, then what could we observe or discover that could possibly falsify the theory?

**seer** · 11-18-2016, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

I fully understand both Guth's and Steinhardt's quote's, i do not believe guth here was referring to the theory. I consider Steinhardt's use of 'Theory of Anything,' to be sarcasm for the possible 'Theory of Everything.' The following describes the theory.

Again shuny, Steinhardt is not arguing against a possible theory of everything. You still fail (willfully or not) to understand what he is saying. If as Guth said, with a multiverse, "anything" can and will happen, then what observable effect or property or value could not be included in "anything?" What could falsify such a theory? Even in principle?

To quote Steinhardt again:

Since 1983, it has become clear that inflation is very flexible (parameters can be adjusted to give any result) and generically leads to a multiverse consisting of patches in which any outcome is possible. Imagine a scientific theory that was designed to explain and predict but ends up allowing literally any conceivable possibility without any rule about what is more likely. What good is it? It rules out nothing and can never be put to a real test.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lped-conceive/

	Topics		Statistics	Last Post
	China's domination in alternative energy sources. by eider Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM		48 responses 157 views 0 likes	Last Post by eider Today, 12:59 AM
	Eclipse of 2024 by Ronson Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM		41 responses 166 views 0 likes	Last Post by Ronson 04-12-2024, 09:08 AM

Announcement

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

The philosophy and scientific evidence of the cosmology of origins

The philosophy and scientific evidence of the cosmology of origins

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Related Threads