The philosophy and scientific evidence of the cosmology of origins

[shunyadragon]

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?

"IF anything can and will happen," is an anecdotal unknown claim. The reality is that the scientific evidence does easily conclude that not just "anything can and will happen." There is sufficient evidence to conclude that "somethings cannot likely happen." Carrying this to a logical conclusion remains and 'Argument from Ignorance." Unknowns cannot define nor limit potential of scientific investigations concerning what can and cannot happen.

I believe Guth's citation is taken out of context of his whole view concerning his models of cosmological origins, and his view on the possible 'Theory of Everything (ToE)' The video I cited reflects this conclusion.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;389629]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:

I have accepted Steinhardt's view as his, but again his view does not reflect the consensus of all the scientists, and I believe by the 'sound bit' citation that by Guth does not reflect his whole view of the ToE, as cited in another source by Guth. Guth and Vilenkin still strongly support their multiverse models and the possibility of a ToE.

A selective citation of individual scientists does not reflect the whole picture of the science of cosmological origins, ToE nor Quantum Mechanics. For example: Andrei Lindt's optimistic positive view that the scientific evidence definitely represents a strong argument for the falsification of multi-verse models and the ToE, does not reflect the consensus of the scientists.

[seer]

I have accepted Steinhardt's view as his, but again his view does not reflect the consensus of all the scientists, and I believe by the 'sound bit' citation that by Guth does not reflect his whole view of the ToE, as cited in another source by Guth. Guth and Vilenkin still strongly support their multiverse models and the possibility of a ToE.

Are you being dense on purpose? Steinhardt is not speaking of Guth's ToE, he is not even addressing that! And I'm sure that Steinhardt understands what Guth means about "anything" better than you or I. And consensus is meaningless here because it would be a fundamental flaw with the ability to falsify a theory where anything can and will happen. Tell me in principle how that can be done? How can you falsify a theory where anything can and will happen?

[oxmixmudd]

Are you being dense on purpose? Steinhardt is not speaking of Guth's ToE, he is not even addressing that! And I'm sure that Steinhardt understands what Guth means about "anything" better than you or I. And consensus is meaningless here because it would be a fundamental flaw with the ability to falsify a theory where anything can and will happen. Tell me in principle how that can be done? How can you falsify a theory where anything can and will happen?

Perhaps this statement is better understood as being "anything that can happen will happen". This is quite different from "anything can and will happen" taken 'literally'. I think also you must recognize that when speaking of the multiverse, one is speaking of not just our universe's 'settings' as it were, but all possible values for universe 'settings'. Science still remains valid within our universe, but it may not be valid when applied to ALL possible universes.


Jim

[shunyadragon]

Are you being dense on purpose? Steinhardt is not speaking of Guth's ToE, he is not even addressing that! And I'm sure that Steinhardt understands what Guth means about "anything" better than you or I. And consensus is meaningless here because it would be a fundamental flaw with the ability to falsify a theory where anything can and will happen. Tell me in principle how that can be done? How can you falsify a theory where anything can and will happen?

oxmixmudd understand this in a reasonable way.

There in reality is not 'Theory of Anything' realistically proposed by by anyone in science. Steinhardt is using rhetorical sarcasm here.

[seer]

Perhaps this statement is better understood as being "anything that can happen will happen". This is quite different from "anything can and will happen" taken 'literally'. I think also you must recognize that when speaking of the multiverse, one is speaking of not just our universe's 'settings' as it were, but all possible values for universe 'settings'. Science still remains valid within our universe, but it may not be valid when applied to ALL possible universes.


Jim

How does that solve the problem? Guth says that all these universes would have very different sets of physics - what then can a multiverse theory predict? What kind of physics can we expect to see? What kind of values or observations can confirm it? If anything can happen then when could we say - no this observation or test falsifies the theory? In principle that seems impossible.

[seer]

oxmixmudd understand this in a reasonable way.

There in reality is not 'Theory of Anything' realistically proposed by by anyone in science. Steinhardt is using rhetorical sarcasm here.

Yes he is being sarcastic, but it is based on what Guth was actually claiming.

[shunyadragon]

How does that solve the problem? Guth says that all these universes would have very different sets of physics - what then can a multiverse theory predict? What kind of physics can we expect to see? What kind of values or observations can confirm it? If anything can happen then when could we say - no this observation or test falsifies the theory? In principle that seems impossible.

Guth proposes that it is possible that all universe may have different sets of laws. He does not say that this is definitively the case that all possible universes have different laws and constants. The degree of the possible variation of laws and constants indeed remains unknown,

[seer]

Guth proposes that it is possible that all universe may have different sets of laws. He does not say that this is definitively the case that all possible universes have different laws and constants. The degree of the possible variation of laws and constants indeed remains unknown,

That doesn't change the problem shuny. What laws and constants (as you say) could we observe or test that could possibly falsify the theory? What could we point to and say - that falsifies the multiverse theory - that could not happen, if the theory was correct. Can you give one possible example?

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't change the problem shuny. What laws and constants (as you say) could we observe or test that could possibly falsify the theory? What could we point to and say - that falsifies the multiverse theory - that could not happen, if the theory was correct. Can you give one possible example?

Falsification is a process over time is based on the changing knowledge of science, and not a yes and no scenario. The evolving knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is the basis for the falsification of cosmological models and hypothesis. Almost all the scientists you cite support the scientific evidence for the possible existence of a multiverse cosmos. All scientists involved acknowledge the problems involved with these models and hypothesis, but by far most still support a multiverse concept in one form or another. Your skepticism is dominantly based on what you consider unknowns, which is an 'appeal to ignorance.' Your selective citing of individual scientists that are skeptical or cite these problems represents 'cherry picking,' and not acknowledging almost all these scientists still support the multiverse cosmos.

This article discusses different well-known scientists and their views of the multi-verse concept. It is interesting, because it quotes them describing some of the problems involved with the models. Note that many of these questions are not resolved and coached in 'IF' statements.

http://www.space.com/31465-is-our-un...ultiverse.html

Source: http://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html

Most scientists support cosmic inflation because it can account for the origin and structure of our cosmos and explain several profound problems. Sir Martin Rees, the U.K.'s Astronomer Royal, calls the multiverse "speculative science, not just metaphysics." He said he's confident there is far more to physical reality than the vast domain that we see through our telescopes, and he would be amazed, he said, "if the universe didn't extend thousands of times beyond what we can see."

But there are unanswered questions, and Rees raised two critical ones: "First, is our Big Bang the only one? And, second, if there are many Big Bangs, are they all governed by the same laws of physics?"

The "fascinating option," said Rees, is that different physical laws govern the other universes — "space may be different, gravity may be different, atoms may be different. This would mean that reality would consist of all these universes, governed by different laws, and only some tiny subset of them would be governed by laws that would allow complexity to evolve. Most universes would be sterile because, for example, gravity would be too strong to allow complex structures, or atoms would not be stable."

If, indeed, many Big Bangs generate an immense variety of physical laws, then, Rees said, only science fiction can describe all that might happen.

"These inflationary bubble or pocket universes expand at speeds approaching the speed of light," Vilenkin noted. "So we cannot possibly travel to other universes. For practical purposes, each of these inflationary bubble universes is a separate, self-contained unit — and they can in principle have different physical properties."

How could different laws in different universes be generated? Leonard Susskind, a physicist at Stanford University in California and one of the originators of string theory, gives one answer: Multiple universes (the innumerable pocket universes) are populated by possible laws of physics emerging from possible structures of string theory. This theory postulates that reality at its most fundamental level consists of miniscule, one-dimensional "strings," whose size is nearly the smallest possible Planck length, ~10^-35- m, or 100 million trillion times smaller than a proton. Their vibrations in multiple dimensions of space-time (10, 11 or 26 dimensions, depending on the specific string theory) give rise to all the laws of physics, the theory says. String theory seems almost impossible to test experimentally, but the elegance and the beauty of its explanatory powers convince its adherents.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Falsification is a process over time is based on the changing knowledge of science, and not a yes and no scenario. The evolving knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is the basis for the falsification of cosmological models and hypothesis. Almost all the scientists you cite support the scientific evidence for the possible existence of a multiverse cosmos. All scientists involved acknowledge the problems involved with these models and hypothesis, but by far most still support a multiverse concept in one form or another. Your skepticism is dominantly based on what you consider unknowns, which is an 'appeal to ignorance.' Your selective citing of individual scientists that are skeptical or cite these problems represents 'cherry picking,' and not acknowledging almost all these scientists still support the multiverse cosmos.

Stop lying Shuny, I am not cherry picking anything. And your references do not change the problem I or Steinhardt mentioned. It is not an 'appeal to ignorance' - that is the line you always run to when you are backed in a corner. Neither you or your reference have offered any way to falsify the multiverse theory - even in principle. Can you name any physical quality or value that we could actually test or observe that could falsify it? Just one?

[shunyadragon]

Stop lying Shuny, I am not cherry picking anything. And your references do not change the problem I or Steinhardt mentioned. It is not an 'appeal to ignorance' - that is the line you always run to when you are backed in a corner. Neither you or your reference have offered any way to falsify the multiverse theory - even in principle. Can you name any physical quality or value that we could actually test or observe that could falsify it? Just one?

I never said that the problem cited by Stainhardt, Guth and others are not real problems, nor are they resolved. It is very real that most scientists consider these problems part of the work in progress concerning their research, and still support a multiverse cosmos. Actually, If you have continuing problems with these scientists belief in their support for a multiverse cosmos contact them and ask them.

It is our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics in general that is used in the process of falsification. One important emphasis on future research by far most scientists consider most important is Quantum Gravity, which is in need of further research.

Whenever new major theories and models are proposed for falsification in history there is indeed a lot of disagreement and controversy among scientists concerning unknowns, like evolution and global climate change, as you mentioned. Fortunately as more knowledge and information is gathered to support these theories and models in the process of falsification the more they ae supported and firmed up by the consensus of by far most scientists. The process for models and hypothesis of cosmological origins is in the early process of falsification and research, therefore there are many problems and unknowns, and a diverse number of models and hypothesis.

[Sea of red]

Stop lying Shuny, I am not cherry picking anything. And your references do not change the problem I or Steinhardt mentioned. It is not an 'appeal to ignorance' - that is the line you always run to when you are backed in a corner. Neither you or your reference have offered any way to falsify the multiverse theory - even in principle. Can you name any physical quality or value that we could actually test or observe that could falsify it? Just one?

No gravity waves in the CMB, no inflaton field, and large anistropy in the universe would prove it wrong. If you could falsify supersymmetry that would essentially be the end of string theory too.

[seer]

No gravity waves in the CMB, no inflaton field, and large anistropy in the universe would prove it wrong. If you could falsify supersymmetry that would essentially be the end of string theory too.

That is false Sea, concerning gravity waves, to quote Steinhardt again:

The BICEP2 incident has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?

The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multi*verse, every*thing that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-...bubble-1.15346

So the lack of gravitational waves is not a falsification.

[Sea of red]

How does that solve the problem? Guth says that all these universes would have very different sets of physics - what then can a multiverse theory predict? What kind of physics can we expect to see? What kind of values or observations can confirm it? If anything can happen then when could we say - no this observation or test falsifies the theory? In principle that seems impossible.

If a theory comes along that better explains the universe that would be a start. Paul Steinardt and Neil Turok have one, but it predicts a universe with no real beginning.