Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An infinite series of finite causes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by element771 View Post
    It is a tough one. I will give you two examples of why it is difficult for me personally.

    I am a Christian who is also a scientist. I often am accused of cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization simply because I do not fit the mold. This is offensive to me because it isn't like I haven't thought these things through. What really gets me is that the people who tell me this are not scientists themselves. They will go as far as to say that I must not be a good scientist. Once again, I try to hold my tongue but it is difficult.

    The second pertains to this message board. I try to treat everyone with respect and for the most part, I am treated the same way. The rub is when you see an atheist calling a person stupid for believing in God. The same person that you get along with. It is hard to not take that personally because they must also think that you are stupid. It also works the other way as well when theists criticize atheists for being arrogant or blind. I could see how that is a problem for another person that will get offended.

    I think that the fact is when we come to a message board, we already have our guard up. Any sign of an offense and its go time.
    Perhaps. And I certainly have been guilty of getting defensive. It gets old being told I am dishonest, disengenous, moving the goal posts, and all of the other ways people have of communicating that they don't think you're a person of integrity. I keep trying to remind myself of a scene I once saw in Candid Camera. They replaced a store clerk with an actor who took people's money and never made change. When asked about it, the clerk would simply point to a sign and explain that it was a new store policy not to give change back. Then they filmed the resulting reactions. There was this one long-haired young man I will never forget. When the clerk made the explanation, he just nodded, smiled, gave the clerk a thumbs-up and left. When they did the post-segment interviews, they caught up to this young man, explained the gag, and asked him about his reaction. His answer was precious: "I don't rent nobody space in my head." Setting aside the poor grammar, the sentiment has always struck me and I have tried to remind myself of it - though I dare say I am not as successful as that young man was.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by element771 View Post
      Don't forget a computer simulation, hologram, dream of a super being, a universe that is entirely created by one self (solipsism), brains in the vats, the matrix, the matrix within the matrix, the matrix within the matrix within the matrix, spirits in a material world...did I miss anything?
      Only the limits of the reality of the current evidence concerning the nature and possible origins of our universe and all possible universes.

      I do not believe there are any, maybe a few on heavy meds, of Physics and Cosmology scientists that take the above seriously.

      The question of computer simulations; What is put in from the anthropomorphic perspective is what comes out without considering the limitations of computer simulations.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-01-2018, 04:42 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Only the limits of the reality of the current evidence concerning the nature and possible origins of our universe and all possible universes.

        I do not believe there are any, maybe a few on heavy meds, of Physics and Cosmology scientists that take the above seriously.

        The question of computer simulations; What is put in from the anthropomorphic perspective is what comes out without considering the limitations of computer simulations.
        Are you fibbing again...

        http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universe
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Only the limits of the reality of the current evidence concerning the nature and possible origins of our universe and all possible universes.

          I do not believe there are any, maybe a few on heavy meds, of Physics and Cosmology scientists that take the above seriously.

          The question of computer simulations; What is put in from the anthropomorphic perspective is what comes out without considering the limitations of computer simulations.
          But why not?

          If you are going to rely on a model with no empirical verification, then there is nothing abnormal about the suggestions I made.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            So funny! You're a legend in your own mind little man.
            Not trying to be a legend ya nincompoop. Just getting unadulterated pleasure out of calling you out on your trollishness, is all.

            There is nothing to which to respond in this offensive rant of yours.
            Yea, because it's all true!

            The fact is that there are reputable theoretical physicists, who consider that the question of an infinite universe, including it being past eternal, is by no means resolved.
            If by 'resolved', you mean 'so sure that no attempts are undertaken anymore at falsification', then of course not. The fact of the matter is that ALL of the evidence is BEST EXPLAINED by the Big Bang Model.

            Now, I know you have a bunch of models up your sleeve that you're just gonna slam on the table and demand that the Christian explain where it's wrong. Lucky for you, this is my bread and butter! But even if it wasn't, it's still the case that the Big Bang Model is, at present, the best explanation of the evidence. If you don't want to proportion your views to the evidence, that's your problem. What you choose not to understand is that the scientific evidence is subject to change; that's why philosophers look at the scientific evidence as the icing on the cake. You'd be able to appreciate this more if you actually took the time to read what I already wrote for you, all about the interface of metaphysics and science, and the role that external conceptual problems pose for metaphysics and science (which you ignore). But this paragraph is already a little too long, so I better stop before all the sentences run together into some homogenous ball of goo relative to your dysfunctioning cognitive faculties.

            The point stands: the Big Bang Model is the best explanation (right now) of the evidence.

            So, let's take a look at this idea of "Cosmology from Quantum Potential" from Ali/Das. Now, first of all, of course I'm aware of the paper. Everyone in my line of work is aware of the paper. It's been around for almost 3 years now. And the fact of the matter is that this has not threatened the Big Bang Model in the slightest. Yes, the paper is exciting! I don't care where the scientific evidence points. I'm all for pummeling the Big Bang Model with a centuries long carpet bombing of falsification attempts. That's the way it works. The more the Big Bang Model survives such falsification, the better shape it's in. In the three years since Ali/Das published the paper, nothing much has come of it. It's been seen more as an interesting conceptual investigation, or what would follow if a certain quantum-corrected geometry can be consistently derived from relativity without entailing commitment to singularities.

            So, let's take a brief look at the paper. I don't have the characters for representing the mathematics, but I'll just assume you understand it, since you're such a genius.

            The following is a summary of how I've come to understand the paper after conversing with my colleagues over the years since the paper was published. Ali/Das try to eradicate the singularity implied by the Big Bang by deriving a semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GTR). Without the singularity, the universe can't have a beginning. Ali/Das take into account the Big Bang by interpreting the 'bang' as the result of a past-eternal 'quantum potential' that semi-classically caved into the hot, dense 'bang'. The postulation of 'something' that's past-eternal goes on all the time in my line of work to attempt to falsify the singularities implied by the Big Bang Model. At most, Ali/Das has been received by the scientific community, not as a hypothesis that may probably graduate to the status of a theory, but as a 'proof of concept', as it's called by my colleagues.

            Or, let me put it this way. Singularities are almost a mathematical inevitability in GTR. That's why many physicists think of it as an idealized mathematical point, and we can only take the laws of physics to the brick wall of what happens after the singularity. Because what happens during or before the singularity can't be handled by the laws of physics as we know them (yet), Ali/Das propose to just get rid of the singularity altogether. Which is fine! All power to them! They piggy-back on David Bohm's idea of quantum trajectories, instead of the classically understood geodesics. That's how Ali/Das were able to mathematically derive the semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from GTR mentioned above. From there, Ali/Das used the corrected Raychaudhuri equation to derive corrected Friedmann equations (mathematically representing the expansion of the universe). What's pretty cool about this model is that if a theory of quantum gravity is ever demonstrated, the latter can will be able to assimilate the former very elegantly.

            Ali/Das postulate a QUANTUM FLUID (described by the corrected Raychaudhuri equation, and capable of constantly contributing toward spatial expansion), made of gravitons (theoretically able to constitute Bose-Einstein condensates), that permeates the entire universe. Using the corrected Friedmann equation, the FLUID can be traced back in time in such a way that singularities and cosmological collapse are ruled out. The explanatory power and scope of Quantum Potential is it's purported capacity to explain dark energy and dark matter, which would be really cool! But the aims are special. There have been hundreds of models now in the 'model-graveyard' that had similar ambitions, with similar tweaks on the derivations from GTR.

            There is (as yet) no empirical evidence to justify the idiosyncratic ways Ali/Das have chosen to derive the corrected Raychaudhuri equation from GTR. All are agreed that the math looks good! But the evidence for the traditional way of understanding classical geodesics is still too strong to prefer Bohm's quantum trajectories. Also, the idea of a quantum fluid has made many physicists uneasy because the metaphysics of the fluid cross over into the realm of philosophy. And at that point, I can easily raise objections from a philosophical vantage point.

            All in all, IT'S STILL THE CASE that the Big Bang Model is the BEST explanation of the evidence. That's all that has been claimed, and we Christians tend to proportion our beliefs in according the preponderance of the evidence. If you want to close your eyes, and tap your heels, and hold out hope that this model graduates to a theory (in order to shoehorn the evidence into your hope-for, Godless worldview), be my guest! It's a free country!

            For you to dismiss these models with such contemptuous certainty merely betrays your prejudices.
            I didn't dismiss anything with contemptuous certainty, you stupid dolt. Stop putting your dishonest words in my mouth, you fool.

            Okay, bye! See you next time, and you make the Christian do all the work. Go ahead! Fling out another model! We can play wack-a-mole again.

            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            When I let someone else govern how I interact - I give them control over my moral/ethical choices. And, as Gandhi is claimed to have said, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
            Not letting anyone govern how I interact. I'm freely laying down my rules for engaging in a civil conversation with anyone. Thanks Gandhi! Fortunately for all of us, my rules of engagement only (so far!) exclude two people on this entire forum. So perhaps we can keep Gandhi out of it for now.
            Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
            George Horne

            Comment


            • Originally posted by element771 View Post


              Right but I think that on some level it is a mistake and there are plenty of scientists who agree. It is not the idea of the multiverse that I have a problem with, it is the fact that most models are, by definition, not testable by observation or empirical measurement. If there is no way to test the mathematical model, how can you ever verify it? There have been plenty of times in physics were there have been multiple mathematical models describing the same thing. Without empirical verification...How do you ever determine which one is correct? How do you determine if any of them are correct? This represents a slippery slope IMO.
              The multiverse may be the best explanation of the existing data even though it cannot be empirically verified at this stage. That’s what scientific modeling is all about as I’m sure you’re aware. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning usually start with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds, via educated guesses based upon observed phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation, to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations.

              And this, I think, is where we are at with multiverse theory. It may turn out to be wrong, but it does answer otherwise unanswerable questions. And it’s really no more mind-boggling than the generally accepted notion that our universe inflated from an infinitely dense singularity which is thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation to the cosmos that we know today.
              Last edited by Tassman; 04-02-2018, 12:03 AM.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                Not trying to be a legend ya nincompoop. Just getting unadulterated pleasure out of calling you out on your trollishness, is all.



                Yea, because it's all true!



                If by 'resolved', you mean 'so sure that no attempts are undertaken anymore at falsification', then of course not. The fact of the matter is that ALL of the evidence is BEST EXPLAINED by the Big Bang Model.

                Now, I know you have a bunch of models up your sleeve that you're just gonna slam on the table and demand that the Christian explain where it's wrong. Lucky for you, this is my bread and butter! But even if it wasn't, it's still the case that the Big Bang Model is, at present, the best explanation of the evidence. If you don't want to proportion your views to the evidence, that's your problem. What you choose not to understand is that the scientific evidence is subject to change; that's why philosophers look at the scientific evidence as the icing on the cake. You'd be able to appreciate this more if you actually took the time to read what I already wrote for you, all about the interface of metaphysics and science, and the role that external conceptual problems pose for metaphysics and science (which you ignore). But this paragraph is already a little too long, so I better stop before all the sentences run together into some homogenous ball of goo relative to your dysfunctioning cognitive faculties.

                The point stands: the Big Bang Model is the best explanation (right now) of the evidence.

                So, let's take a look at this idea of "Cosmology from Quantum Potential" from Ali/Das. Now, first of all, of course I'm aware of the paper. Everyone in my line of work is aware of the paper. It's been around for almost 3 years now. And the fact of the matter is that this has not threatened the Big Bang Model in the slightest. Yes, the paper is exciting! I don't care where the scientific evidence points. I'm all for pummeling the Big Bang Model with a centuries long carpet bombing of falsification attempts. That's the way it works. The more the Big Bang Model survives such falsification, the better shape it's in. In the three years since Ali/Das published the paper, nothing much has come of it. It's been seen more as an interesting conceptual investigation, or what would follow if a certain quantum-corrected geometry can be consistently derived from relativity without entailing commitment to singularities.

                So, let's take a brief look at the paper. I don't have the characters for representing the mathematics, but I'll just assume you understand it, since you're such a genius.

                The following is a summary of how I've come to understand the paper after conversing with my colleagues over the years since the paper was published. Ali/Das try to eradicate the singularity implied by the Big Bang by deriving a semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GTR). Without the singularity, the universe can't have a beginning. Ali/Das take into account the Big Bang by interpreting the 'bang' as the result of a past-eternal 'quantum potential' that semi-classically caved into the hot, dense 'bang'. The postulation of 'something' that's past-eternal goes on all the time in my line of work to attempt to falsify the singularities implied by the Big Bang Model. At most, Ali/Das has been received by the scientific community, not as a hypothesis that may probably graduate to the status of a theory, but as a 'proof of concept', as it's called by my colleagues.

                Or, let me put it this way. Singularities are almost a mathematical inevitability in GTR. That's why many physicists think of it as an idealized mathematical point, and we can only take the laws of physics to the brick wall of what happens after the singularity. Because what happens during or before the singularity can't be handled by the laws of physics as we know them (yet), Ali/Das propose to just get rid of the singularity altogether. Which is fine! All power to them! They piggy-back on David Bohm's idea of quantum trajectories, instead of the classically understood geodesics. That's how Ali/Das were able to mathematically derive the semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from GTR mentioned above. From there, Ali/Das used the corrected Raychaudhuri equation to derive corrected Friedmann equations (mathematically representing the expansion of the universe). What's pretty cool about this model is that if a theory of quantum gravity is ever demonstrated, the latter can will be able to assimilate the former very elegantly.

                Ali/Das postulate a QUANTUM FLUID (described by the corrected Raychaudhuri equation, and capable of constantly contributing toward spatial expansion), made of gravitons (theoretically able to constitute Bose-Einstein condensates), that permeates the entire universe. Using the corrected Friedmann equation, the FLUID can be traced back in time in such a way that singularities and cosmological collapse are ruled out. The explanatory power and scope of Quantum Potential is it's purported capacity to explain dark energy and dark matter, which would be really cool! But the aims are special. There have been hundreds of models now in the 'model-graveyard' that had similar ambitions, with similar tweaks on the derivations from GTR.

                There is (as yet) no empirical evidence to justify the idiosyncratic ways Ali/Das have chosen to derive the corrected Raychaudhuri equation from GTR. All are agreed that the math looks good! But the evidence for the traditional way of understanding classical geodesics is still too strong to prefer Bohm's quantum trajectories. Also, the idea of a quantum fluid has made many physicists uneasy because the metaphysics of the fluid cross over into the realm of philosophy. And at that point, I can easily raise objections from a philosophical vantage point.

                All in all, IT'S STILL THE CASE that the Big Bang Model is the BEST explanation of the evidence. That's all that has been claimed, and we Christians tend to proportion our beliefs in according the preponderance of the evidence. If you want to close your eyes, and tap your heels, and hold out hope that this model graduates to a theory (in order to shoehorn the evidence into your hope-for, Godless worldview), be my guest! It's a free country!



                I didn't dismiss anything with contemptuous certainty, you stupid dolt. Stop putting your dishonest words in my mouth, you fool.

                Okay, bye! See you next time, and you make the Christian do all the work. Go ahead! Fling out another model! We can play wack-a-mole again.



                Not letting anyone govern how I interact. I'm freely laying down my rules for engaging in a civil conversation with anyone. Thanks Gandhi! Fortunately for all of us, my rules of engagement only (so far!) exclude two people on this entire forum. So perhaps we can keep Gandhi out of it for now.
                I don’t disagree with most of the stuff in this post; but you’ve spent all these too many paragraphs arguing a non issue. We agree that The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it, as most scientists say. But the issue is was it the first beginning, and will it be the last? This is what’s under discussion, not the undoubted dominance of the BB theory per se. And this is still open to question on many fronts. You should know that in science one can never say, as did Ethel Barrymore during her curtain calls, “This is all there is, there isn’t any more”. There is always more in science. .
                Last edited by Tassman; 04-02-2018, 12:01 AM.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  The multiverse may be the best explanation of the existing data even though it cannot be empirically verified at this stage.
                  Best explanation of what data?

                  Also, the multiverse idea can't be empirically verified period. This isn't a function of technology, this is embedded into the theory.

                  Furthermore, the multiverse theory started by wondering if all solutions to string theory were actualized. This is the first time I have ever heard of a function being basically under-fit and someone saying that all of the solutions are correct.


                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  And this, I think, is where we are at with multiverse theory. It may turn out to be wrong, but it does answer otherwise unanswerable questions. And it’s really no more mind-boggling than the generally accepted notion that our universe inflated from an infinitely dense singularity which is thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation to the cosmos that we know today.
                  What unanswerable questions does it answer?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                    Best explanation of what data?

                    Also, the multiverse idea can't be empirically verified period. This isn't a function of technology, this is embedded into the theory.

                    Furthermore, the multiverse theory started by wondering if all solutions to string theory were actualized. This is the first time I have ever heard of a function being basically under-fit and someone saying that all of the solutions are correct.
                    My understanding is that multiverse theory developed as a consequence of problems raised by quantum mechanics, whereby elementary particles like electrons exist simultaneously in multiple states. The question was raised as to how our perceived universe, where observations and experience seem to exist in just one place, results from all those possibilities? One possible solution is that of Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" model which posits our universe is just one of infinitely many parallel universes. .

                    My point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.

                    .
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      My point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.

                      .
                      In his last book didn't Hawking move from the multiverse theory to spontaneous creation out of nothing? The only requirement being the law of gravity?

                      Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own"


                      http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...n-hawking.html
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        My understanding is that multiverse theory developed as a consequence of problems raised by quantum mechanics, whereby elementary particles like electrons exist simultaneously in multiple states. The question was raised as to how our perceived universe, where observations and experience seem to exist in just one place, results from all those possibilities? One possible solution is that of Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" model which posits our universe is just one of infinitely many parallel universes. .

                        My point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.

                        .
                        Multiverse theory has none of that objective verifiable evidence you require when it's something that doesn't support your pet worldview.

                        You do yourself no favours by being so inconsistent in your thinking.
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                          Not letting anyone govern how I interact. I'm freely laying down my rules for engaging in a civil conversation with anyone. Thanks Gandhi! Fortunately for all of us, my rules of engagement only (so far!) exclude two people on this entire forum. So perhaps we can keep Gandhi out of it for now.
                          No one said you were not "laying down your rules" freely. But you are doing so specifically in response to someone else's style. That is what I was referring to. Responding in kind, when the "in-kind" is a descent into childishness, diminishes the speaker - not the one spoken to - IMO. But that's one person's point of view. Obviously, you will make your own choices.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            My understanding is that multiverse theory developed as a consequence of problems raised by quantum mechanics, whereby elementary particles like electrons exist simultaneously in multiple states.
                            This is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum. I guess it could technically be called a multiverse but I don't think that is what people typically mean when they use the term multiverse. The primary motivation for positing the multiverse is two fold (at least the major motivations).

                            1. When comparing the experimental vs the theoretical value of the cosmological constant, it was found that there was a discrepancy of 120 orders of magnitude (10^-120). One way to explain this is that if there are many universes, this would explain why there is one with such a discrepancy.

                            2. There are many solutions to the equations that underlie String Theory....around 10^500. Because there is no unique solution (which is typically a big problem when fitting an equation), it was posited that instead of the theory being under-determined....maybe all of the solutions are a physical reality.

                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The question was raised as to how our perceived universe, where observations and experience seem to exist in just one place, results from all those possibilities? One possible solution is that of Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" model which posits our universe is just one of infinitely many parallel universes..
                            I am pretty sure that the Hartle-Hawking model is typically used to get away from a specific beginning of the universe. If you take the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum, then I suppose you could imagine that the other probability space of the wave function could be other universes. The problem with this model is that it uses imaginary time. While this is a perfectly legit in terms of mathematical modeling / theory, it isn't clear in the least if imaginary time could actually exist in reality.


                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            My point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.
                            I understand that and I am not dismissing the multiverse as irrelevant. I am critical of the fact that you cannot test these theories by definition. This isn't a technology problem or an intellectual problem...the other universes are not accessible to us. So the question then becomes...is that science? IMO, if you let this type of theory in the door as far as not being empirically verifiable, then you cannot justifiably exclude ID or astrology. I know that William Demski could generate an internally consistent mathematical model that would determine evolution isn't possible.

                            I will stop you right there as I know where you are going to go...evolution is settled and astrophysics is not.

                            The problem with that is the motivation of the multiverse. One of the main motivations is to explain the fine-tuning problem which is a meta-physical problem. The scientists are uneasy with the constants just being finely tuned for life. All of the current evidence points to a single universe that is fine-tuned for life. But this idea is metaphysically uncomfortable for some so there are other possibilities posited like the multiverse.

                            What I am not saying is that we should stop looking for evidence to explain astrophysics...what I am saying is that I don't think we should modify the standard way that science is done to fit the multiverse hypothesis in it.
                            Last edited by element771; 04-03-2018, 08:20 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by element771 View Post



                              I am pretty sure that the Hartle-Hawking model is typically used to get away from a specific beginning of the universe. If you take the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum, then I suppose you could imagine that the other probability space of the wave function could be other universes. The problem with this model is that it uses imaginary time. While this is a perfectly legit in terms of mathematical modeling / theory, it isn't clear in the least if imaginary time could actually exist in reality.
                              Whilst accepting the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe as we know it, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether or not it was the first beginning and will it be the last. Indeed, quantum mechanics compels us to ask such questions.

                              I understand that and I am not dismissing the multiverse as irrelevant. I am critical of the fact that you cannot test these theories by definition. This isn't a technology problem or an intellectual problem...the other universes are not accessible to us. So the question then becomes...is that science? IMO, if you let this type of theory in the door as far as not being empirically verifiable, then you cannot justifiably exclude ID or astrology. I know that William Demski could generate an internally consistent mathematical model that would determine evolution isn't possible.
                              Neither can you test what happened during the Planck epoch of the Big Bang during which currently the understood laws of physics did not apply. Same problem in principle!

                              I will stop you right there as I know where you are going to go...evolution is settled and astrophysics is not.
                              Correct! Many scientific theories such as Evolution are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially, whereas astrophysics in relation to multiverse theory et al, is not as yet so established.

                              The problem with that is the motivation of the multiverse. One of the main motivations is to explain the fine-tuning problem which is a meta-physical problem. The scientists are uneasy with the constants just being finely tuned for life. All of the current evidence points to a single universe that is fine-tuned for life.
                              There is no “fine tuning problem”. The “constants are not finely tuned for life”; life evolved to fit the constants. One can readily conceive of a universe where there is no life. And, indeed, there’s very little life in our universe...it is largely hostile to life. So the “fine tuning” for life is a non-issue and generally reserved for apologetics.

                              But this idea is metaphysically uncomfortable for some so there are other possibilities posited like the multiverse.
                              You are again attributing unworthy motives to others. It is perfectly reasonable that people posit multiverse theory on the basis of genuine research as the sole motivation.

                              What I am not saying is that we should stop looking for evidence to explain astrophysics...what I am saying is that I don't think we should modify the standard way that science is done to fit the multiverse hypothesis in it.
                              Nor should we modify the current model to exclude multiverse and related theories. They are all part of the rich tapestry that is modern astrophysics.
                              Last edited by Tassman; 04-04-2018, 12:02 AM.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                                There is no “fine tuning problem”. The “constants are not finely tuned for life”; life evolved to fit the constants. One can readily conceive of a universe where there is no life. And, indeed, there’s very little life in our universe...it is largely hostile to life. So the “fine tuning” for life is a non-issue and generally reserved for apologetics.

                                You are again attributing unworthy motives to others. It is perfectly reasonable that people posit multiverse theory on the basis of genuine research as the sole motivation.

                                The fine tuning argument is not about life evolving or the amount of life being in our universe. It is a problem that pertains the presence of anything in the universe or even that there is a universe that has lasted this long. If you vary the cosmological constant by about 1%, you either blow the universe apart or you collapse in a very small amount of time.

                                Also, I disagree that the fine tuning problem is a "non-issue" and only a apologetics argument. For example...

                                Originally posted by Fred Hoyle
                                Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
                                Fred Hoyle was an atheist obviously.

                                Also there is this....

                                https://www.ted.com/talks/harry_clif...end_of_physics

                                I get that you don't buy the fine tuning argument but it is disingenuous to assert that it is a non-issue.

                                That would be like me saying that the problem of evil is a non-issue so I don't really see why I need to address it. I would imagine that you would find that a little too convenient.
                                Last edited by element771; 04-04-2018, 08:42 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X