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 Past?

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

  • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    Just as with all other scientific hypotheses, we start with the data that we have, form predictions, and construct experiments which would disconfirm these predictions. I must admit that I am woefully ignorant, currently, about many of the specifics of the different multiverse hypotheses, but one example of such an experiment comes to mind. It's called the Quantum Suicide experiment, and has been a subject of discussion by Many Worlds proponents for quite some time.

    Let's imagine that we have set up a room with a gun which is triggered by a random quantum event. Let us further say that, on average, you observe that this gun is firing about 1 round per second. With exceptionally careful timing, you interpose your head between the gun and its target after a bullet has been fired. Then you wait. In the multiverse predicted by the Many Worlds interpretation, there are universes in which the next random triggering of the gun occurs significantly later than the average would have us believe. The Many Worlds interpretation predicts that there are universes where you will last 10 seconds, 5 minutes, 20 years, or even longer before the random event triggers the firearm. Some iteration of you will last, say, 5 minutes in this experiment, and upon removing your head from the gun's trajectory, you will see the average firing of 1 bullet-per-second resume as before. Such an event would be unfathomably improbable, and would lend incredible weight to the predictive and explanatory power of the Many Worlds interpretation.

    Of course, the downside to this experiment is that there would be an infinity of universes in which this experiment would lead to an inconclusive early death for the experimenter, and it would be impossible for the successful experimenter to communicate his findings to those other universes. Still, it at least shows that there are experiments which could falsify such a multiverse model, even if they are not the most pragmatic.
    I'm not sure Boxing how this would actually correlate to actual physical properties we would see or not see in possible universes. What physical property could we actually observe that would falsify the multiverse model.
    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 seer View Post
      I'm not sure Boxing how this would actually correlate to actual physical properties we would see or not see in possible universes. What physical property could we actually observe that would falsify the multiverse model.
      This would be an experiment with the hypothesis that the researcher lives in a universe amongst the posited multiverse wherein that quantum event was delayed for an inordinately longer than average period of time. An early death would falsify that hypothesis.
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        I'm not sure Boxing how this would actually correlate to actual physical properties we would see or not see in possible universes. What physical property could we actually observe that would falsify the multiverse model.
        A number of possible models have been falsified and not considered possible based on our present knowledge of physics and cosmology. Various current models have unresolved problems, such as variations that include the standard Big Bang expansion models, and Steinhardt's cyclic model, but these problem have not as of yet falsified these models. Remember the theorems and models are developed to demonstrated possibility of multiverses and not that they already exist. The same scientific methods were used to demonstrate the possibility of black holes, dark matter and energy.
        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 Boxing Pythagoras View Post
          This would be an experiment with the hypothesis that the researcher lives in a universe amongst the posited multiverse wherein that quantum event was delayed for an inordinately longer than average period of time. An early death would falsify that hypothesis.
          Yes, that is a clever argument. But how does that translate in to the actual physical properties we observe in the 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
            A number of possible models have been falsified and not considered possible based on our present knowledge of physics and cosmology. Various current models have unresolved problems, such as variations that include the standard Big Bang expansion models, and Steinhardt's cyclic model, but these problem have not as of yet falsified these models. Remember the theorems and models are developed to demonstrated possibility of multiverses and not that they already exist. The same scientific methods were used to demonstrate the possibility of black holes, dark matter and energy.
            Wrong shuny, this only proves that once again you don't understand Steinhardt's argument against the multiverse model.
            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


            • There are things that pop into existence out of nothing though, and disappear split seconds later (quarks?)
              I don't know the science that is involved - but it seems conceivable that these things aren't actually popping in and out of existence, but crossing from universe to universe.
              Or if not these things, some other particles perhaps.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Yes, that is a clever argument. But how does that translate in to the actual physical properties we observe in the universe.
                I'm not sure I understand. I think the idea that a universe is one amongst a multiverse is a fairly obvious physical property indicated in that hypothesis.
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  I'm not sure I understand. I think the idea that a universe is one amongst a multiverse is a fairly obvious physical property indicated in that hypothesis.
                  What? I'm trying to find out how you could actually falsify the multiverse theory by observation. Let me re-post Steinhardt's objection (who BTW was one of the early fathers of inflation theory).

                  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 inflation, 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.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...te-Past/page72
                  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 tabibito View Post
                    There are things that pop into existence out of nothing though, and disappear split seconds later (quarks?)
                    I don't know the science that is involved - but it seems conceivable that these things aren't actually popping in and out of existence, but crossing from universe to universe.
                    Or if not these things, some other particles perhaps.
                    They are not popping into and out of (absolutely) nothing nor existence. They are popping into and out of the Quantum zero point field, which underlies all of our physical existence.
                    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


                    • Thanks.
                      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Thanks.
                        Which btw does not mean nothing. The zero point field simply means the lowest possible energy state of the field and that field is subject to fluctuations in its energy state.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          What? I'm trying to find out how you could actually falsify the multiverse theory by observation.
                          Generally, experiments are formed to falsify particular aspects or properties of a model. It is usually asking far to much to address a whole model by a single experiment. In rare cases, the property being tested is so crucial to the model that the whole concept falls apart without it, but more often than not, falsification of one property leads to a refinement-- not an abandonment-- of the model.

                          That is to say, you are asking too much by expecting a single experiment which could falsify even all of a single multiverse hypothesis, let alone the several disparate ones which are being explored.
                          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            I'm asking you Tass, what would you need to believe in God?
                            About the same as I would need to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

                            If He spoke to you? Would that do it? And really, how is the multiverse theory any more than a philosophical argument since it can not be falsified by observation?
                            You mean if I believed it was a deity speaking as opposed to a neuropathological occurrence?

                            There is good reason to think that such experiences are no more than an evolved biological feature of the human brain and amenable to normal scientific study – as has been undertaken by the likes of Cosimo Urgesi, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Udine and many others, who are investigating the neural basis of spiritual experiences.

                            No Tass, you really do not understand Steinhardt’s objection. You could NEVER falsify ANY multiverse theory by observation. Try to follow the logic here. Any type of multiverse could produce any kind of universe - literally an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of different properties or configurations. The only universe we can actually observe is ours - and our universe has specific properties. But a multiverse could produce ANY outcome. How could you EVER falsify a theory that could literally produce ANY outcome by observation?
                            To repeat, multiverse theory is not just one model. It’s a complex collection of interlocking models and hypotheses based upon observation, inference, mathematics and prediction, i.e. the very same procedures which have already established several cosmological theories, including the existence of Black Holes.

                            Even though only some components of the multiverse models have been verified and are falsifiable to date, the overall convergence of the evidence continues to support a multiverse because this is the model with the greatest explanatory power and the one which is continually being reinforced by ongoing exploration.

                            Frankly your demand for complete watertight evidence is unreasonable given the complexity and newness of multiverse theory - especially when your preferred ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis is supported by nothing more than subjective religious experience. Talk about double standards!

                            So Tass, in the future don't dare play the "science" card on me since it is clear you are willing to chuck the scientific method when it comes to your belief.
                            The only "clear" thing here is that you don't understand the scientific method as applied to cutting-edge cosmology.
                            “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


                            • A falsifiable Multi-verse would still not exclude God at any rate, since the question: "is the Greater Cosmos, the quantum vacuum, the zero point field, or whatever you want to call it, from out of which universes are born, is it itself eternal or created," would remain unanswered. But, we would still have no evidence of a creator, or a need for one.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                Generally, experiments are formed to falsify particular aspects or properties of a model. It is usually asking far to much to address a whole model by a single experiment. In rare cases, the property being tested is so crucial to the model that the whole concept falls apart without it, but more often than not, falsification of one property leads to a refinement-- not an abandonment-- of the model.

                                That is to say, you are asking too much by expecting a single experiment which could falsify even all of a single multiverse hypothesis, let alone the several disparate ones which are being explored.
                                I think you missed Dr. Steinhardt's point Boxing. By observation you could never falsify the theory. Again:

                                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 inflation, 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
                                If there can effectively be any outcome, like the actual universe we live in with its properties, then there could never, ever be any observable property of the universe that could falsify the theory.

                                He makes this point clear with the recent discovery of gravitational waves (which since has been rejected):

                                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.
                                So the inflation / multiverse theory predicts these left over gravitational waves from the early expansion of the universe. But they also say, that the theory would be valid with out them - why? Because there are literally an infinite number of possible universes with different properties. No observable evidence could ever falsify the theory. That Boxing is not merely about one experiment going bad - that is a fundamental flaw.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Machinist, 01-30-2021, 10:14 AM
                                141 responses
                                932 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Working...
                                X