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

[carpedm9587]

You contradict yourself. Later in the post you made that requirement that valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. In terms of the hypothesis for he origins of our universe and the greater cosmos it is unknown and that is not the criteria for their hypothesis. It is the validity of the objective evidence and the math models that determine the validity of the math models.

I went back and I am not finding a place where I am contradicting myself. Can you give me the post #s or link me to them so I can figure out what you're seeing? The emphasized statement above appears to me to be problematic. It seems to say that it is the validity of the math models (and objective evidence) that determine the validity of the math models. That is a tautology. It is not telling me anything.

You terminology for science remains atrocious, theories and hypothesis are not proven, and there is no degree of 'proof' for theories and hypothesis.

The 'Big Bang Models are not remotely considered 'proven (yuck! yuch!!). There are competing models such as the cyclic universe, and the 'Black Hole' models that fit the objective evidence and math models. All of these hypothesis likewise are compatable with the 'possible' multiverse models for the greater cosmos.

I believe I have been fairly consistent with qualifying "proven" with "as much as science is able to prove anything." Science cannot provide a proof in the rigorous way that a mathematician can. Science can hypothesize, construct experiments, and use those experiments to provide support for the truth of the proposition represented by the hypothesis. As that body of evidence mounts, the hypothesis is considered more and more likely to be true. The Big Bang theory is about as close to "proven" as science gets, along with evolution, and atomic theory. There is a massive body of evidence that the Big Bang actually happened, and the reality of the Big Bang is not questioned in most scientific circles. There are still many questions about it, but the fact of its reality is considered well established.

Good scientists?!?! What a subjective mousy description of the preeminent scientists in physics and cosmology. They are not the judge alone as to the validity of their hypothesis. It is the peer review process, and the continuously evolving research concerning the validity of their hypothesis that ultimately determine if the hypothesis is valid.

No. The validity of a scientific hypothesis is based on the five criteria I previously linked to, and does not require scientific "consensus." I think you are confusing the validity of the hypothesis with the validity of the experimentation and its outcomes. Intelligent design is not an invalid scientific hypothesis because it has been through any peer-review process; it is invalid because it is unfalsifiable (i.e., no one can conceive of experimentation to test the hypothesis). Ergo, it is a theological or philosophical claim, not a scientific one. String theory is currently in the same bucket.

For the hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe, and the greater cosmos it is unknown at present whether they are falsifiable or not. The hypothesis are based on the known evidence from Quantum Mechanics, observations of our own universe, and math models. There are different competing hypothesis that at present fit the evidence.

I am not a QM expert, so I will defer to the experts on this one. If there is a means for testing/experimenting to confirm or refute the accuracy of the multiverse theory, then it is a valid scientific hypothesis. I am not familiar with any such experiments. If no one has been able to conceive of a means for testing/experimenting so as to confirm or refute the hypothesis, then it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. If the latter is true, then it is of the same type as intelligent design (at least until someone can conceive of a way to confirm/refute the hypothesis).

Your comparison with'Intelligent Design' puts you in the same bucket with the 'fundamentalist Christians.'

Something tells me that is not going to make them happy...

Not all, but nonetheless you are dodging responding to this.

It was a joke, Shuny. No offense meant.

Disagree, the source I gave covers scientific hypothesis. Some of the criteria for the validity of hypothesis overlaps in relation to scientific hypothesis.

So this suggests you ARE talking about hypotheses other than scientific ones, right? I have no problem with calling the multiverse theory a hypothesis. Generically, the term means, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." By that definition, any proposed explanation is a hypothesis. But a scientific hypothesis has stricter requirements for validity. My comments have been specifically about scientific hypotheses.

[element771]

Your comparison with'Intelligent Design' puts you in the same bucket with the 'fundamentalist Christians.'

Something tells me that is not going to make them happy...

You are wasting your time Carp. Shuny has an agenda and this perfectly illustrates that.

Even when he can't go back to his absurd "fundamentalist Christian" trope, he tells an atheist that they are in the same bucket as the "fundamentalist Christian". Only in Shuny's alternate demented reality would an atheist demanding empirical evidence be compared with a "fundamentalist Christian". Hell, only in this reality would I be labeled as a "fundamentalist".

Everything you are saying in your posts is spot on. Shuny either can't admit it because of his agenda or is too ignorant to understand why he is wrong.

For example, you can have a mathematical model that is internally consistent but it could also be completely wrong about its description of reality. This illustrates the need for empirical evidence, falsifiability, and unique predictive power to discriminate between other models.

[shunyadragon]

You are wasting your time Carp. Shuny has an agenda and this perfectly illustrates that.

Even when he can't go back to his absurd "fundamentalist Christian" trope, he tells an atheist that they are in the same bucket as the "fundamentalist Christian". Only in Shuny's alternate demented reality would an atheist demanding empirical evidence be compared with a "fundamentalist Christian". Hell, only in this reality would I be labeled as a "fundamentalist".

Everything you are saying in your posts is spot on. Shuny either can't admit it because of his agenda or is too ignorant to understand why he is wrong.

For example, you can have a mathematical model that is internally consistent but it could also be completely wrong about its description of reality. This illustrates the need for empirical evidence, falsifiability, and unique predictive power to discriminate between other models.

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.

I believe that carpedm9587 and I are in full agreement that this is false.

[element771]

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.

I believe that carpedm9587 and I are in full agreement that this is false.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[carpedm9587]

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.

I believe that carpedm9587 and I are in full agreement that this is false.

Well...it depends on how you are using "beginning." The matter/energy of this universe has been shown to have a beginning in a singularity (i.e., the Big Bang). That hypothesis is valid and predictions made on the basis of that hypothesis have consistently been shown to be accurate. However, we have no knowledge of what gave rise to the singularity, and no valid hypothesis, AFAIK, for that beginning. So if we're looking for an "ultimate" beginning, science does not have a great deal to say on that.

[element771]

Well...it depends on how you are using "beginning." The matter/energy of this universe has been shown to have a beginning in a singularity (i.e., the Big Bang). That hypothesis is valid and predictions made on the basis of that hypothesis have consistently been shown to be accurate. However, we have no knowledge of what gave rise to the singularity, and no valid hypothesis, AFAIK, for that beginning. So if we're looking for an "ultimate" beginning, science does not have a great deal to say on that.

Do you think that what happened before the beginning of time is a valid question?

[shunyadragon]

Well...it depends on how you are using "beginning." The matter/energy of this universe has been shown to have a beginning in a singularity (i.e., the Big Bang). That hypothesis is valid and predictions made on the basis of that hypothesis have consistently been shown to be accurate. However, we have no knowledge of what gave rise to the singularity, and no valid hypothesis, AFAIK, for that beginning. So if we're looking for an "ultimate" beginning, science does not have a great deal to say on that.

Yes, it depends on what you call a beginning, and I have made that clear in the past.

The claim by element771 is that it is a beginning as a 'finding' of science that can be used to support a theological argument.

This is one of the reasons element rejects the multiverse, because he believes his rejection is based on 100% science.

[element771]

This is one of the reasons element rejects the multiverse, because he believes his rejection is based on 100% science.

I don't believe that its based on science, I know that it is 100% based on science.

A beginning and the multiverse aren't mutually exclusive either.

[carpedm9587]

Do you think that what happened before the beginning of time is a valid question?

"Before" implies time, so "before the beginning of time" appears to be oxymoronic.

On the other hand, we know that the time/space continuum we experience in this universe has a beginning at the Big Bang. What we do NOT know is if the concept of "time" occurs "outside" or "before" this universe. The same is true of "space." In other words, we do not know if there are other time/space continua (e.g., multiverses) or if this universe springs from some "parent" time/space continuum. What science tells us is necessarily about what lies within this time/space continuum.

[element771]

"Before" implies time, so "before the beginning of time" appears to be oxymoronic.

On the other hand, we know that the time/space continuum we experience in this universe has a beginning at the Big Bang. What we do NOT know is if the concept of "time" occurs "outside" or "before" this universe. The same is true of "space." In other words, we do not know if there are other time/space continua (e.g., multiverses) or if this universe springs from some "parent" time/space continuum. What science tells us is necessarily about what lies within this time/space continuum.

Agreed.

Is asking what happened before the beginning of time a scientific question?

What if there is no way to empirically validate any model that explains "before time"? Does that model count as "science"?

[carpedm9587]

Agreed.

Is asking what happened before the beginning of time a scientific question?

What if there is no way to empirically validate any model that explains "before time"? Does that model count as "science"?

If there is no way to test a hypothesis, then it is not falsifiable. I don't see how it can be considered "science." Perhaps that is merely a limitation of what we know and can do today. It may, however, be a hard limit we can never overcome.

[element771]

If there is no way to test a hypothesis, then it is not falsifiable. I don't see how it can be considered "science." Perhaps that is merely a limitation of what we know and can do today. It may, however, be a hard limit we can never overcome.

Well then you and I are on the same page.

As usual, Shuny is left out in the cold.

[JimL]

If there is no way to test a hypothesis, then it is not falsifiable. I don't see how it can be considered "science." Perhaps that is merely a limitation of what we know and can do today. It may, however, be a hard limit we can never overcome.

The multiverse, which is not falsifiable, is an hypothesis which is the result of science. (Quantum Mechanics, Schrodingers equation, Everetts interpretation of Schrodingers equation.)

[carpedm9587]

The multiverse, which is not falsifiable, is an hypothesis which is the result of science. (Quantum Mechanics, Schrodingers equation, Everetts interpretation of Schrodingers equation.)

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.

[JimL]

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.

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?