An Infinite Past?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

And how do you actually test this in real life?

In exactly the manner described. Again, I'll certainly agree that it's not the most pragmatic of experiments, but falsifiability does not rely upon pragmatism.

[seer]

In exactly the manner described. Again, I'll certainly agree that it's not the most pragmatic of experiments, but falsifiability does not rely upon pragmatism.

Well no Boxing, what would we actually look for in our universe - what specific measurable physical property. And how again would this actually falsify a multiverse theory?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well no Boxing, what would we actually look for in our universe - what specific measurable physical property. And how again would this actually falsify a multiverse theory?

I don't understand what you are asking for. I explicitly described the entire process for falsifiying the particular multiverse hypothesis which I had presented. The actual duration of time exceeded before the occurrence of a quantum event is a measurable, physical property.

[seer]

I don't understand what you are asking for. I explicitly described the entire process for falsifiying the particular multiverse hypothesis which I had presented. The actual duration of time exceeded before the occurrence of a quantum event is a measurable, physical property.

What? Can you actually set the experiment up? Can I start shooting at you?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What? Can you actually set the experiment up? Can I start shooting at you?

Again, that's an issue of pragmatism. Not an issue of falsifiability.

[seer]

Again, that's an issue of pragmatism. Not an issue of falsifiability.

So I can't start shooting at you? So it is merely a thought experiment. No practical way to work it out. So we are back to actual observable properties in our actual universe and what physical condition or properties could disprove a multiverse theory.

[shunyadragon]

So I can't start shooting at you? So it is merely a thought experiment. No practical way to work it out. So we are back to actual observable properties in our actual universe and what physical condition or properties could disprove a multiverse theory.

Still living in an antiquated Newtonian Universe.

[Tassman]

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?

Again Tass, is falsification necessary for good science - yes or no?

Falsification is an essential requirement for a true scientific theory, as opposed to the pseudo-science we find among ID proponents for example. But with the multiverse we are not dealing with established scientific theory but a collection of hypotheses still at the testing stage - even so, it’s increasingly evident that the convergence of evidence is supporting some form of multiverse.

Furthermore, as shunya keeps reminding you, the type of observational evidence and falsification you demand is grounded in the Classical Mechanics of Newton, which almost certainly won’t be applicable to the multiverse and it's grounding in the counter-intuitive mechanics of Quantum Physics. The evidence and falsification will of necessity be based upon inference and mathematical formulas not direct observation. I.e. considerably more than for your preferred ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis, which is only supported by subjective religious experience and revelation.

[Leonhard]

Furthermore, as shunya keeps reminding you, the type of observational evidence and falsification you demand is grounded in the Classical Mechanics of Newton, which almost certainly won’t be applicable to the multiverse and it's grounding in the counter-intuitive mechanics of Quantum Physics.

Its kinda fun to hear this kind of physics being discussed by people who haven't had much education in it. Shunya mainly graduated from the college of science blogs, colourful paper pop-articles, interview citation and wikipedia skimming. You I'm not sure about, but it sounds like you come from the same school.

[Leonhard]

Still living in an antiquated Newtonian Universe.

The Standard Big Bang Cosmology is thoroughly General Relativistic and takes about as much of Quantum Field Theory into account as we know how to do. If we do use newtonian mechanics, please out where.

In reality though Shunya, you don't have any clue about quantum mechanics other than knowing that its "weird".

[Leonhard]

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?

Actually this is wrong as well. Just because you have infinite number of oranges, it doesn't mean you'll encounter an apple. Finding cosmological scale gravitational waves might be good for falsifying the Standard Model of Cosmology, however its not impossible to find evidence that can falsify certain multiverse types.

[Leonhard]

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.

I love this quote, its horrible, however I respect you tabibito for saying "I don't know".

[Leonhard]

And seer wonders why I don't participate in this thread.

[tabibito]

I love this quote, its horrible, however I respect you tabibito for saying "I don't know".

Has the "popping into existence from the quantum vacuum (or whatever)" been experimentally verified? or is it thus far a hypothesis?

[Tassman]

The Standard Big Bang Cosmology is thoroughly General Relativistic and takes about as much of Quantum Field Theory into account as we know how to do. If we do use newtonian mechanics, please out where. .

Well yes - it is after the Planck Epoch, where the quantum effects of gravity dominated physical interactions. But the issue under discussion is the multiverse, genius, not Big Bang Cosmology.

Has the "popping into existence from the quantum vacuum (or whatever)" been experimentally verified? or is it thus far a hypothesis?

Indeed it has. The vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence and their existence is detectable via the so-called Casimir Effect.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...m/casimir.html