Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[carpedm9587]

Both Multiverse and String theory, are based on science, they don't need be falsifiable to be based on the science. If they are derived of the science, how is it that they are not science?

They are not a "scientific hypothesis." In order for a hypothesis to qualify as "scientific" it must be falsifiable. That is to say, there needs to be a means for testing the hypothesis with experimentation. Intelligent design was put forward as a "scientific hypothesis" rooted in such things as the complexity of the universe, the "fine tuning" of the universe, and so forth. But the principle is not experimentally verifiable, so it is a theological claim dressed up to look like a scientific one. String theory is the same.

Science may give rise to any number of ideas and hypotheses. But the criteria for determining if a hypothesis is truly a scientific one includes the notion of testability and falsifiability.

[element771]

Both Multiverse and String theory, are based on science, they don't need be falsifiable to be based on the science. If they are derived of the science, how is it that they are not science?

How could you ever tell if either theory describes reality as opposed to being an internally consistent mathematical model?

Also, you could argue that ID is also based on science. I believe the Dembski actually used mathematical modeling to show that evolution is impossible. However, there is no way to falsify his hypothesis which means it isn't science.

[shunyadragon]

Well then you and I are on the same page.

As usual, Shuny is left out in the cold.

No,

Despite my disagreements with carpedm9587 your phony bogus assertions are still problematic. It is NOT the view of science that our universe or greater cosmos has a definitive beginning that may be considered a scientific 'finding' that may be used in thelogical arguments.

You made the claim that the view of science that our universe or greater cosmos has a definitive beginning that may be considered a scientific 'finding' that may be used in theological arguments.

This is false.

[element771]

No,

You made the claim that the view of science that our universe or greater cosmos has a definitive beginning that may be considered a scientific 'finding' that may be used in theological arguments.

This is false.

You made the claim that you do science for a living.

This is false.

[shunyadragon]

But it is not a "scientific hypothesis." String theory is also a hypothesis that has resulted from science. It is not considered a scientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable. Indeed, this is the primary critique of the theory.

I believe it is a scientific hypothesis, whether it is ultimately falsifiable has not been determined yet.

[element771]

I believe it is a scientific hypothesis, whether it is ultimately falsifiable has not been determined yet.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ot-even-wrong/

Yes, but that's not the main problem with them. Many ideas that are "not even wrong", in the sense of having no way to test them, can still be fruitful, for instance by opening up avenues of investigation that will lead to something conventionally testable. Most good ideas start off "not even wrong", with their implications too poorly understood to know where they will lead. The problem with such things as string-theory multiverse theories is that "the multiverse did it" is not just untestable, but an excuse for failure. Instead of opening up scientific progress in a new direction, such theories are designed to shut down scientific progress by justifying a failed research program.

[carpedm9587]

I believe it is a scientific hypothesis, whether it is ultimately falsifiable has not been determined yet.

Your beliefs notwithstanding, until it is shown to be falsifiable, it does not meet the criteria for a valid scientific hypothesis. That's how science works, Shuny. You may believe that it will someday be shown to be falsifiable, but that beliefs cannot be based on anything other than hope or speculation.

[shunyadragon]

Your beliefs notwithstanding, until it is shown to be falsifiable, it does not meet the criteria for a valid scientific hypothesis. That's how science works, Shuny. You may believe that it will someday be shown to be falsifiable, but that beliefs cannot be based on anything other than hope or speculation.

If that is what you believe none of the hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe and the greater cosmos are not valid, including your foolish notion that the Big Bang hypothesis beginning as a singularity is 'proven; (yuck yuck!), or oddly close to proven or whatever.

I believe most physicists and cosmologists the propose these hypothesis in their research disagree with you.

[Tassman]

But it is not a "scientific hypothesis." String theory is also a hypothesis that has resulted from science. It is not considered a scientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable. Indeed, this is the primary critique of the theory.

Neither is the Planck epoch of Big Bang theory, i.e. the period in traditional BB cosmology immediately after the event which began our known universe. Models that aim to describe the universe and physics during the Planck epoch are speculative, just as the models of mulriverse theory are speculative.

[element771]

Neither is the Planck epoch of Big Bang theory, i.e. the period in traditional BB cosmology immediately after the event which began our known universe. Models that aim to describe the universe and physics during the Planck epoch are speculative, just as the models of mulriverse theory are speculative.

But that doesn't invalidate that the BB made predictions that were empirically validated. You are setting up a false equivalence between the multiverse and BB theory.

As far as theories go, BB has the most data supporting it. Even if they can't go past the Planck era, this is the ONLY part that is speculative as opposed to the whole theory being speculative.

I am just glad that Carp and I agree. Not because I want to be correct (I know that I am), but it prevents people like Shuny from claiming that my opinions are based on my religious agenda.

[JimL]

They are not a "scientific hypothesis." In order for a hypothesis to qualify as "scientific" it must be falsifiable. That is to say, there needs to be a means for testing the hypothesis with experimentation. Intelligent design was put forward as a "scientific hypothesis" rooted in such things as the complexity of the universe, the "fine tuning" of the universe, and so forth. But the principle is not experimentally verifiable, so it is a theological claim dressed up to look like a scientific one. String theory is the same.

Science may give rise to any number of ideas and hypotheses. But the criteria for determining if a hypothesis is truly a scientific one includes the notion of testability and falsifiability.

It's science carpe. It's not just a willy nilly idea, it's not a conclusion, but it's an hypotheses derived of the science, which makes it a scientific hypotheses. Quantum mechanics is science, Schrodingers equation is science, and Everetts work interpreting Schrodinger, in opposition to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, was a scientific endeaver. So, it is not conclusive, but it is an hypotheses derived of science, which makes it a scientific hypotheses. Although, I think we are just splitting hairs here.

[carpedm9587]

If that is what you believe none of the hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe and the greater cosmos are not valid, including your foolish notion that the Big Bang hypothesis beginning as a singularity is 'proven; (yuck yuck!), or oddly close to proven or whatever.

I believe most physicists and cosmologists the propose these hypothesis in their research disagree with you.

They are welcome to disagree. The definition of "valid" in the context of "scientific hypothesis" is fairly well established. For the rest, I think I have been fairly clear about my use of "proven" in this context.

[carpedm9587]

Neither is the Planck epoch of Big Bang theory, i.e. the period in traditional BB cosmology immediately after the event which began our known universe. Models that aim to describe the universe and physics during the Planck epoch are speculative, just as the models of mulriverse theory are speculative.

I do not know enough about the Plank epoch to respond intelligently. I do agree that there are a lot of speculative models out there. I think they certainly serve a purpose. They simply don't rise to the level of "scientific hypothesis" until there is a way to experimentally test/verify them.

[carpedm9587]

It's science carpe. It's not just a willy nilly idea, it's not a conclusion, but it's an hypotheses derived of the science, which makes it a scientific hypotheses. Quantum mechanics is science, Schrodingers equation is science, and Everetts work interpreting Schrodinger, in opposition to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, was a scientific endeaver. So, it is not conclusive, but it is an hypotheses derived of science, which makes it a scientific hypotheses. Although, I think we are just splitting hairs here.

Jim, I am using the term "scientific hypothesis" in its strict sense. You seem to want to use the term more loosely, calling any hypothesis that arises from a scientific discipline a "scientific hypothesis." You are free to do so, but then you leave yourself no means for distinguishing between what might be better called scientific speculation (I like Tassman's use of that word) and a formal scientific hypothesis. The latter requires that the hypothesis be falsifiable. So a hypothesis that does not rise to that level I do not call a "scientific hypothesis."

In science, if we are not careful with language, we end up with some very odd positions. It's because of sloppy use of language that so many people say, "well, evolution is just a scientific theory, so it hasn't been shown to be true." They do not understand the meaning of the term "theory" in a formal scientific discourse. It does not mean, "an unproven speculation," which is what they are trying to imply.

[element771]

It's science carpe. It's not just a willy nilly idea, it's not a conclusion, but it's an hypotheses derived of the science, which makes it a scientific hypotheses.

Hypotheses derived from science are not necessarily scientific hypotheses.