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 seer View Post
    I think you missed Dr. Steinhardt's point Boxing. By observation you could never falsify the theory. Again:

    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.
    I understand Dr. Steinhardt's point. I simply find it to be somewhat obtuse. He's complaining that differing models of the multiverse hypothesis are being developed, and that disconfirmation of one particular model doesn't dissuade people from investigating other models of the multiverse. That seems patently silly, to me. Aristotle's theory of gravity held that weight is a result of an object's desire to be at the surface of the Earth. Upon that basis, he predicted that heavier objects should fall significantly faster than lighter objects. When this was disconfirmed by Galileo, we didn't simply abandon the idea of gravity. Newton's theory of gravity held that two masses attract one another through an absolute aetherframe of space. When this was disconfirmed by Special Relativity in 1905, we didn't simply abandon the idea of gravity. General Relativity holds that space-time curves in such a manner that any two objects with mass accelerate toward one another. When Quantum Mechanics disconfirmed the universality of General Relativity, we didn't simply abandon the idea of gravity.

    Conflating specific multiverse hypotheses with the broader, and vaguer, claim that "there might be a multiverse" is fairly preposterous. One might as well complain that Gravity is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

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

    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.
    One model of the inflation/multiverse predicts that the early expansion of the universe should have resulted in gravitational waves which would have been detected by BICEP2. That model may be disconfirmed. That doesn't mean that all other models which also happen to propose a multiverse should be abandoned.
    "[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
      One model of the inflation/multiverse predicts that the early expansion of the universe should have resulted in gravitational waves which would have been detected by BICEP2. That model may be disconfirmed. That doesn't mean that all other models which also happen to propose a multiverse should be abandoned.
      No Boxing, you are missing the point. What observable property (or properties) could falsify the theory if there are an infinite number of possible universes with an infinite number of possible configurations. An infinite number of possible outcomes. Can you think of even one? At least the theory of gravity is actually falsifiable, despite what you claim. This is not. Or don't you believe that possible falsification is necessary for good science?

      And Boxing, let me repeat Steinhardt was one of the early fathers of inflation theory and knows more than both of us, I linked one of his papers.

      http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf
      Last edited by seer; 09-05-2014, 07:21 AM.
      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
        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.
        Tell me Tass, if there are an infinite number of outcomes (i.e. an infinite number different universe with different properties) what observable physical property in our universe could falsify the multiverse theory. Can you even name one?

        The only "clear" thing here is that you don't understand the scientific method as applied to cutting-edge cosmology.
        Again Tass, is falsification necessary for good science - yes or no?
        Last edited by seer; 09-05-2014, 06:55 AM.
        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
          No Boxing, you are missing the point. What observable property (or properties) could falsify the theory if there are an infinite number of possible universes with an infinite number of possible configurations. An infinite number of possible outcomes. Can you think of even one? At least the theory of gravity is actually falsifiable, despite what you claim. This is not. Or don't you believe that possible falsification is necessary for good science?

          And Boxing, let me repeat Steinhardt was one of the early fathers of inflation theory and knows more than both of us, I linked one of his papers.

          http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf
          I understand that Steinhardt was one of the early fathers of inflation theory. That's irrelevant to the conversation at hand. He doesn't get a pass to make hasty generalizations about all competing multiverse models based on the failures of one.

          There is no single, overarching multiverse theory. There are several proposed models, each with their own predictions, and the falsifiability of each must be determined individually. It is simply obtuse to pretend that there is one grand unified theory of the multiverse which can be addressed.
          "[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 understand that Steinhardt was one of the early fathers of inflation theory. That's irrelevant to the conversation at hand. He doesn't get a pass to make hasty generalizations about all competing multiverse models based on the failures of one.
            That is not the point Boxing. His argument has NOTHING to do with one model failing.

            There is no single, overarching multiverse theory. There are several proposed models, each with their own predictions, and the falsifiability of each must be determined individually. It is simply obtuse to pretend that there is one grand unified theory of the multiverse which can be addressed.
            His point is that even in theory you could never falsify the multiverse model, any multiverse model by observation.

            Let me quote again:

            To be quantitatively precise, the word “some” above should be replaced with “an infinite number of.” In an eternally inflating universe, an infinite number of islands will have properties like the ones we observe, but an infinite number will not. The true outcome of inflation was best summarized by Guth: “In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times.”

            So is our universe the exception or the rule? In an infinite collection of islands, it is hard to tell. As an analogy, suppose you have a sack containing a known finite number of quarters and pennies. If you reach in and pick a coin randomly, you can make a firm prediction about which coin you are most likely to choose. If the sack contains an infinite number of quarter and pennies, though, you cannot. To try to assess the probabilities, you sort the coins into piles. You start by putting one quarter into the pile, then one penny, then a second quarter, then a second penny, and so on. This procedure gives you the impression that there is an equal number of each denomination. But then you try a different system, first piling 10 quarters, then one penny, then 10 quarters, then another penny, and so on. Now you have the impression that there are 10 quarters for every penny.Which method of counting out the coins is right?

            The answer is neither. For an infinite collection of coins, there are an infinite number of ways of sorting that produce an infinite range of probabilities. So there is no legitimate way to judge which coin is more likely. By the same reasoning, there is no way to judge which kind of island is more likely in an eternally inflating universe. Now you should be disturbed. What does it mean to say that inflation makes certain predictions—that, for example, the universe is uniform or has scale-invariant fluctuations—if anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times? And if the theory does not make testable predictions, how can cosmologists claim that the theory agrees with observations, as they routinely do?
            Last edited by seer; 09-05-2014, 08:21 AM.
            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
              That is not the point Boxing. His argument has NOTHING to do with one model failing.

              His point is that even in theory you could never falsify the multiverse theory
              There is no "the multiverse theory." This is a strawman.

              ...[or] any multiverse theory by observation.
              Not all multiverse hypotheses are alike. Again, each must be addressed on its own merits.

              Let me quote again:
              Just because there are an infinite number of cases for all possible configurations does not mean that there are an equal number of cases for all possible configurations. As counterintuitive as this might sound to someone unfamiliar with Set Theory, some infinities are larger than others. We can still form predictions about statistically probable outcomes regardless of the fact that there might be an infinite number of cases with improbable outcomes.
              "[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
                Just because there are an infinite number of cases for all possible configurations does not mean that there are an equal number of cases for all possible configurations. As counterintuitive as this might sound to someone unfamiliar with Set Theory, some infinities are larger than others. We can still form predictions about statistically probable outcomes regardless of the fact that there might be an infinite number of cases with improbable outcomes.
                Then Boxing, again, what properties of the observed universe could falsify the multiverse theory, any multiverse theory? No one can even name one. Not you or any one in the field that I know of.
                Last edited by seer; 09-05-2014, 09:02 AM.
                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
                  Then Boxing, again, what properties of the observed universe could falsify the multiverse theory
                  No matter how many times you insist upon using this phrase, there still is no such thing as "the multiverse theory."

                  [or] any multiverse theory? No one can even name one. Not you or any one in the field that I know of.
                  I provided one, earlier. As I said, the falsifiability of a claim is largely dependent upon the specific claim being addressed. I already stated that I am underequipped to deal with multiverse hypotheses, at large. You would most lilkely be best served in that arena by actually reading the scientific literature published by those exploring different multiverse models.
                  "[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
                    No matter how many times you insist upon using this phrase, there still is no such thing as "the multiverse theory."

                    I provided one, earlier. As I said, the falsifiability of a claim is largely dependent upon the specific claim being addressed. I already stated that I am underequipped to deal with multiverse hypotheses, at large. You would most lilkely be best served in that arena by actually reading the scientific literature published by those exploring different multiverse models.
                    Nonsense Boxing. I asked a question that can not be answered, by you or anyone else who is actually in the field. And you provided nothing along the lines of what actually was asked. So I will try again: what physical property or properties could we observe in this universe that could falsify a multiverse model. Can you come up with even one? Can they come up with even one?
                    Last edited by seer; 09-05-2014, 11:25 AM.
                    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
                      Nonsense Boxing. I asked a question that can not be answered, by you or anyone else who is actually in the field. And you provided nothing along the lines of what actually was asked. So I will try again: what physical property or properties could we observe in this universe that could falsify a multiverse model. Can you come up with even one? Can they come up with even one?
                      I already came up with one, for the only multiverse model with which I have some active familiarity.

                      That said, the fact that you and I are ignorant of answers is not sufficient to claim that you "asked a question that can not be answered." That's a fairly textbook Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
                      "[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 already came up with one, for the only multiverse model with which I have some active familiarity.

                        That said, the fact that you and I are ignorant of answers is not sufficient to claim that you "asked a question that can not be answered." That's a fairly textbook Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
                        Really Boxing? Tell me again, what physical property did you come up with? Is this the one?

                        One model of the inflation/multiverse predicts that the early expansion of the universe should have resulted in gravitational waves which would have been detected by BICEP2. That model may be disconfirmed. That doesn't mean that all other models which also happen to propose a multiverse should be abandoned.
                        And didn't Steinhardt deal with this:

                        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.
                        Last edited by seer; 09-05-2014, 12:22 PM.
                        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
                          Really Boxing? Tell me again, what physical property did you come up with? Is this the one?
                          Nope, the one I presented was this one:

                          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          [The quantum suicide experiment] 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.
                          But, moving on:
                          And didn't Steinhardt deal with this:
                          Without directly seeing the statements of the proponents of inflation whom Dr. Steinhardt is referencing, I can only assume that the model of inflation which they proposed was not dependent upon the detection of gravitation waves by BICEP2. I can make no further evaluation of the falsifiability of their hypotheses without actually knowing what their hypotheses are, and without direct quotes from such people, I have no way of determining whether Dr. Steinhardt's paraphrase of their position is an accurate representation. If it is accurate, I'd be happy to agree that the inflationary hypotheses proposed by such people would be unfalsifiable. That does not mean that all inflation hypotheses are unfasifiable, and it certainly does not mean that all multiverse hypotheses are unfalsifiable.
                          "[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
                            Nope, the one I presented was this one:
                            Boxing, but that tells me nothing about what actual observable physical properties we should see or not see if we were part of a multiverse.


                            Without directly seeing the statements of the proponents of inflation whom Dr. Steinhardt is referencing, I can only assume that the model of inflation which they proposed was not dependent upon the detection of gravitation waves by BICEP2. I can make no further evaluation of the falsifiability of their hypotheses without actually knowing what their hypotheses are, and without direct quotes from such people, I have no way of determining whether Dr. Steinhardt's paraphrase of their position is an accurate representation. If it is accurate, I'd be happy to agree that the inflationary hypotheses proposed by such people would be unfalsifiable. That does not mean that all inflation hypotheses are unfasifiable, and it certainly does not mean that all multiverse hypotheses are unfalsifiable.
                            OK, I have yet to see one proponent of any multiverse theory show how it could be falsified by observation. If you know of one please post it. In other words, what multiverse couldn't produce a universe like ours? Also do you agree that if a theory is unfalsifiable it is not science?
                            Last edited by seer; 09-05-2014, 12:48 PM.
                            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
                              Boxing, but that tells me nothing about what actual observable physical properties we should see or not see if we were part of a multiverse.
                              Sure it does. It just happens to be an extremely specific case. The researcher's existence in a universe wherein a particular quantum event experiences an inordinately large delay over the average time of occurrence would be an actual, observable property we would see on this particular multiverse hypothesis.

                              OK, I have yet to see one proponent of any multiverse theory show how it could be falsified by observation. If you know of one please post it.
                              Will do.
                              "[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
                                Sure it does. It just happens to be an extremely specific case. The researcher's existence in a universe wherein a particular quantum event experiences an inordinately large delay over the average time of occurrence would be an actual, observable property we would see on this particular multiverse hypothesis.
                                And how do you actually test this in real life?
                                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 shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                51 responses
                                210 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 08-29-2023, 08:00 AM
                                272 responses
                                1,517 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X