Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
multiverse theory finaly testable?
- Thread starter nemesiss
- Start date
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
This sounds like chassing leprechauns to me, I don't know, I might be wrong.
@Master_Ghost_Knight
It manifests as that, yeah. We found something interesting (it seems pretty anomalous to me). It could be that empirical inquiry could not be brought to shed light on this issue beyond a certain point. Of course, that doesn't mean that Rational inquiry will end. I found these reports interesting. Perhaps not greatly significant though.
What if M-theory is right and it is impossible to ever prove it?
If we have a theory that is elegant, arithmaticaly sound, applicable, but never testable, is it worthless? I wonder if this is a threshold science is going to have to reach to move to new paradigms. It just seems to me that if M-theory does describe reality, but there is no way to test it, by our current models of what is "science" we are screwed.
Is there a way to say something is true enough, without it being testable? If so, perhaps science is not good enough to describe a real multiverse, if it is real of course.
Remember: the positive concept that matters in empirical science is <confirmation> rather than <proof>. I am still undecided on the multiple universe hypotheses.
"Confirmation: The relation between evidence and theory in virtue of which the evidence supports the theory. There are three conceptions of confirmation: qualitative confirmation, namely, evidence e confirms or supports hypothesis H; comparative confirmation, namely, evidence e confirms hypothesis H more strongly than it confirms hypothesis H'; and, finally, quantitative confirmation, namely, the degree of confirmation of hypothesis H by evidence e is r, where r is a real number. Current theories of confirmation rely heavily on probabilistic relations between the evidence and the theory."
"Confirmation, absolute vs. relative: A piece of evidence e absolutely confirms some hypothesis H if the probability of H given e (i.e., prob(H/e)) is greater than a fixed number r, where r should be between 1/2 and 1. Accordingly, e is evidence for H only if e is not evidence for the negation of H. This requirement is meant to capture the view that evidence should provide a good reason to believe. Relative confirmation, in contrast, is incremental confirmation: a piece of evidence e confirms some hypothesis H if the probability of H given e (i.e., prob(H/e)) is greater than the probability of H in the absence of e (i.e., prob(H/-e)). Accordingly, relative confirmation is a relation of positive relevance, namely, that a piece of evidence confirms a theory if it increases its probability, no matter by how little."
(Psillos, Stathis. Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. p. 44)
I recommend Brian Greene's new book The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos:
"From the best-selling author of The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos comes his most expansive and accessible book to date,a book that takes on the grandest question: Is ours the only universe?
There was a time when 'universe' meant all there is. Everything. Yet, in recent years discoveries in physics and cosmology have led a number of scientists to conclude that our universe may be one among many. With crystal-clear prose and inspired use of analogy, Brian Greene shows how a range of different 'multiverse' proposals emerges from theories developed to explain the most refined observations of both subatomic particles and the dark depths of space: a multiverse in which you have an infinite number of doppelgängers, each reading this sentence in a distant universe; a multiverse comprising a vast ocean of bubble universes, of which ours is but one; a multiverse that endlessly cycles through time, or one that might be hovering millimeters away yet remains invisible; another in which every possibility allowed by quantum physics is brought to life. Or, perhaps strangest of all, a multiverse made purely of math.
Greene, one of our foremost physicists and science writers, takes us on a captivating exploration of these parallel worlds and reveals how much of reality's true nature may be deeply hidden within them. And, with his unrivaled ability to make the most challenging of material accessible and entertaining, Greene tackles the core question: How can fundamental science progress if great swaths of reality lie beyond our reach?
Sparked by Greene's trademark wit and precision, The Hidden Reality is at once a far-reaching survey of cutting-edge physics and a remarkable journey to the very edge of reality,a journey grounded firmly in science and limited only by our imagination.
(http://www.randomhouse.com/book/71272/the-hidden-reality-by-brian-greene)
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too."
(Williamson, Timothy. "Necessary Existents." In Logic, Thought and Language, edited by Anthony O'Hear, 233-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p. 247)
"It's only through the rational pursuit of theories, even those that whisk us into strange and unfamiliar domains, that we stand a chance of revealing the expanse of reality."
(p. 322)
"The subject of parallel universes is highly speculative. No experiment or observation has established that any version of the idea is realized in nature. So my point in writing this book is not to convince you that we're part of a multiverse. I'm not convinced,and, strictly speaking, no one should be convinced,of anything not supported by hard data, That said, I find it both curious and compelling that numerous developments in physics, if followed sufficiently far, bump into some variation on the parallel-universe theme. It's not that physicists are standing ready, multiverse nets in their hands, seeking to snare any passing theory that might be slotted, however awkwardly, into a parallel-universe paradigm. Rather, all of the parallel-universe proposals that we will take seriously emerge unbidden from the mathematics of theories developed to explain conventional data and observations.
My intention, then, is to lay out clearly and concisely the intellectual steps and the chain of theoretical insights that have led physicists, from a range of perspectives, to consider the possibility that ours is one of many universes. I want you to get a sense of how modern scientific investigations,not untethered fantasies like the catoptric musings of my boyhood,naturally suggest this astounding possibility. I want to show you how certain otherwise confounding observations can become eminently understandable within one or another parallel-universe framework; at the same time, I'll describe the critical unsolved questions that have, as yet, kept this explanatory approach from being fully realized. My aim is that when you leave this book, your sense of what might be,your perspective on how the boundaries of reality may one day be redrawn by scientific developments now under way,will be far more rich and vivid.
Some people recoil at the notion of parallel worlds; as they see it, if we are part of a multiverse, our place and importance in the cosmos are marginalized. My take is different. I don't find merit in measuring significance by our relative abundance. Rather, what's gratifying about being human, what's exciting about being part of the scientific enterprise, is our ability to use analytical thought to bridge vast distances, journeying to outer and inner space and, if some of the ideas we'll encounter in this book prove correct, perhaps even beyond our universe. For me, it is the depth of our understanding, acquired from our lonely vantage point in the inky black stillness of a cold and forbidding cosmos, that reverberates across the expanse of reality and marks our arrival."
(pp. 8-9)
(Greene, Brian. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011.)
"I want to show you how certain otherwise confounding observations can become eminently understandable within one or another parallel-universe framework."
So-called inferences to the best explanation play an important role both in physics and metaphysics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction
"My aim is that when you leave this book, your sense of what might be"¦will be far more rich and vivid."
Do you know Robert Musil's distinction between the Wirklichkeitssinn (sense of actuality/reality) and the Mà¶glichkeitssinn (sense of possibility/potentiality)?
If you think that there is insufficient empirical evidence to infer the existence of other universes....hmmm...perhaps. But remember, we cannot quote "directly" observe atoms either, and the idea that the world was made of them was once considered nothing more than a flight of fantasy!
According to David Lewis, possible worlds are spatiotemporally and causally isolated from one another. So all the possible worlds different from our actual world are empirically inaccessible to us in principle. An information transfer from one possible world to another is impossible.
So this pretty much sums it up I guess. Sorry for the length, but I simply wished to provide some external sources, since I'm not an expert.
We'll just have to wait until the hard evidence comes in, if indeed it does.
Until then, perhaps we should just stick to Mysterianism? :|
It manifests as that, yeah. We found something interesting (it seems pretty anomalous to me). It could be that empirical inquiry could not be brought to shed light on this issue beyond a certain point. Of course, that doesn't mean that Rational inquiry will end. I found these reports interesting. Perhaps not greatly significant though.
What if M-theory is right and it is impossible to ever prove it?
If we have a theory that is elegant, arithmaticaly sound, applicable, but never testable, is it worthless? I wonder if this is a threshold science is going to have to reach to move to new paradigms. It just seems to me that if M-theory does describe reality, but there is no way to test it, by our current models of what is "science" we are screwed.
Is there a way to say something is true enough, without it being testable? If so, perhaps science is not good enough to describe a real multiverse, if it is real of course.
Remember: the positive concept that matters in empirical science is <confirmation> rather than <proof>. I am still undecided on the multiple universe hypotheses.
"Confirmation: The relation between evidence and theory in virtue of which the evidence supports the theory. There are three conceptions of confirmation: qualitative confirmation, namely, evidence e confirms or supports hypothesis H; comparative confirmation, namely, evidence e confirms hypothesis H more strongly than it confirms hypothesis H'; and, finally, quantitative confirmation, namely, the degree of confirmation of hypothesis H by evidence e is r, where r is a real number. Current theories of confirmation rely heavily on probabilistic relations between the evidence and the theory."
"Confirmation, absolute vs. relative: A piece of evidence e absolutely confirms some hypothesis H if the probability of H given e (i.e., prob(H/e)) is greater than a fixed number r, where r should be between 1/2 and 1. Accordingly, e is evidence for H only if e is not evidence for the negation of H. This requirement is meant to capture the view that evidence should provide a good reason to believe. Relative confirmation, in contrast, is incremental confirmation: a piece of evidence e confirms some hypothesis H if the probability of H given e (i.e., prob(H/e)) is greater than the probability of H in the absence of e (i.e., prob(H/-e)). Accordingly, relative confirmation is a relation of positive relevance, namely, that a piece of evidence confirms a theory if it increases its probability, no matter by how little."
(Psillos, Stathis. Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. p. 44)
I recommend Brian Greene's new book The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos:
"From the best-selling author of The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos comes his most expansive and accessible book to date,a book that takes on the grandest question: Is ours the only universe?
There was a time when 'universe' meant all there is. Everything. Yet, in recent years discoveries in physics and cosmology have led a number of scientists to conclude that our universe may be one among many. With crystal-clear prose and inspired use of analogy, Brian Greene shows how a range of different 'multiverse' proposals emerges from theories developed to explain the most refined observations of both subatomic particles and the dark depths of space: a multiverse in which you have an infinite number of doppelgängers, each reading this sentence in a distant universe; a multiverse comprising a vast ocean of bubble universes, of which ours is but one; a multiverse that endlessly cycles through time, or one that might be hovering millimeters away yet remains invisible; another in which every possibility allowed by quantum physics is brought to life. Or, perhaps strangest of all, a multiverse made purely of math.
Greene, one of our foremost physicists and science writers, takes us on a captivating exploration of these parallel worlds and reveals how much of reality's true nature may be deeply hidden within them. And, with his unrivaled ability to make the most challenging of material accessible and entertaining, Greene tackles the core question: How can fundamental science progress if great swaths of reality lie beyond our reach?
Sparked by Greene's trademark wit and precision, The Hidden Reality is at once a far-reaching survey of cutting-edge physics and a remarkable journey to the very edge of reality,a journey grounded firmly in science and limited only by our imagination.
(http://www.randomhouse.com/book/71272/the-hidden-reality-by-brian-greene)
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too."
(Williamson, Timothy. "Necessary Existents." In Logic, Thought and Language, edited by Anthony O'Hear, 233-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p. 247)
"It's only through the rational pursuit of theories, even those that whisk us into strange and unfamiliar domains, that we stand a chance of revealing the expanse of reality."
(p. 322)
"The subject of parallel universes is highly speculative. No experiment or observation has established that any version of the idea is realized in nature. So my point in writing this book is not to convince you that we're part of a multiverse. I'm not convinced,and, strictly speaking, no one should be convinced,of anything not supported by hard data, That said, I find it both curious and compelling that numerous developments in physics, if followed sufficiently far, bump into some variation on the parallel-universe theme. It's not that physicists are standing ready, multiverse nets in their hands, seeking to snare any passing theory that might be slotted, however awkwardly, into a parallel-universe paradigm. Rather, all of the parallel-universe proposals that we will take seriously emerge unbidden from the mathematics of theories developed to explain conventional data and observations.
My intention, then, is to lay out clearly and concisely the intellectual steps and the chain of theoretical insights that have led physicists, from a range of perspectives, to consider the possibility that ours is one of many universes. I want you to get a sense of how modern scientific investigations,not untethered fantasies like the catoptric musings of my boyhood,naturally suggest this astounding possibility. I want to show you how certain otherwise confounding observations can become eminently understandable within one or another parallel-universe framework; at the same time, I'll describe the critical unsolved questions that have, as yet, kept this explanatory approach from being fully realized. My aim is that when you leave this book, your sense of what might be,your perspective on how the boundaries of reality may one day be redrawn by scientific developments now under way,will be far more rich and vivid.
Some people recoil at the notion of parallel worlds; as they see it, if we are part of a multiverse, our place and importance in the cosmos are marginalized. My take is different. I don't find merit in measuring significance by our relative abundance. Rather, what's gratifying about being human, what's exciting about being part of the scientific enterprise, is our ability to use analytical thought to bridge vast distances, journeying to outer and inner space and, if some of the ideas we'll encounter in this book prove correct, perhaps even beyond our universe. For me, it is the depth of our understanding, acquired from our lonely vantage point in the inky black stillness of a cold and forbidding cosmos, that reverberates across the expanse of reality and marks our arrival."
(pp. 8-9)
(Greene, Brian. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011.)
"I want to show you how certain otherwise confounding observations can become eminently understandable within one or another parallel-universe framework."
So-called inferences to the best explanation play an important role both in physics and metaphysics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction
"My aim is that when you leave this book, your sense of what might be"¦will be far more rich and vivid."
Do you know Robert Musil's distinction between the Wirklichkeitssinn (sense of actuality/reality) and the Mà¶glichkeitssinn (sense of possibility/potentiality)?
If you think that there is insufficient empirical evidence to infer the existence of other universes....hmmm...perhaps. But remember, we cannot quote "directly" observe atoms either, and the idea that the world was made of them was once considered nothing more than a flight of fantasy!
According to David Lewis, possible worlds are spatiotemporally and causally isolated from one another. So all the possible worlds different from our actual world are empirically inaccessible to us in principle. An information transfer from one possible world to another is impossible.
So this pretty much sums it up I guess. Sorry for the length, but I simply wished to provide some external sources, since I'm not an expert.
We'll just have to wait until the hard evidence comes in, if indeed it does.
Until then, perhaps we should just stick to Mysterianism? :|
I'm very sceptical about all that pattern seeking stuff. In fact, this study found the opposite: the CMB is fully consistent with standard cosmology:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268
They actually mention the result of Feeney et al in the published version of their paper. But I guess that finding no anomalies is not newsworthy.
@Dean: what the hell is all that?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268
They actually mention the result of Feeney et al in the published version of their paper. But I guess that finding no anomalies is not newsworthy.
@Dean: what the hell is all that?
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Dean said:Lengthy post.
You don't have to worry, I'm scientifically trained, I know what is an observation and the importance of hypothesis and the following of superficialy aparent dead ends. I can recognise what science is, however I can also recognise what science isn't, and it isn't mental jerking to inconsequential conjectures just because we find them mentaly pleasing inregards if it is actually true or not. If it is a hypothesis that is in equal footing to other theories but simpler to work then it has a merit if not only for the benefit of making our work much easier.
If something is truly unknowable it means that no experiment we could ever setup would produce any diffrence what so ever in order for us to be able to pass judgement, and when that happens it might as well not be true at all because for all it maters it doesn't matter at all. But this doesn't stop you from being wrong, and wrong ideas create resistance to right ones, you can elaborate wonderfully on this idea that can not be proven and it is irrelevant that it is true or not, but when we find out that we are wrong and in fact makes a diffrence then that idea is wrong because it speculated indifrence when in fact it is not true at all, and wasting time on unprovable ideas certainly did not help to establish this potentialy new idea (that makes a diffrence and that it is usefull) that supreceeded it.
It maybe that there are things in the Universe that we will never know, but we don't fill that gaps with speculation, because we don't work from the top down but from the bottom up and the only thing that can happen is that you will be proven wrong, and even if we can never be proven wrong then it is inconsequential.
This is not science.
Now to the story in question. It is chasing leprechauns in the sense that the conclusion is a direct consequence of nitpicking details from the noise, they start from the apriory conclusion and they force an explenation to the nitpicked details that somehow lands on the apriory conclusion because of the nitpicked details already observed. Grantedly it is not as simple as this and they do claim that they are expecting for future data to test (despite the fact that the conclusion is already blown out of proportion), however I do not see how can they not after getting the new data just claim that it was the signature of neighboring "universes" no matter what data they get (which by the way they already admited to be causaly disconected which would entail that you should not get any data at all that could possibly confirm anything that they claim).
This is picking "bubbles" in the microwave-background. I've heard some people saying that analyzing gravity waves (if their existence is confirmed) could give, and I quote "clues" that could lead us to the multiple-universes Idea.Pulsar said:I'm very sceptical about all that pattern seeking stuff. In fact, this study found the opposite: the CMB is fully consistent with standard cosmology:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268
They actually mention the result of Feeney et al in the published version of their paper. But I guess that finding no anomalies is not newsworthy.
@Dean: what the hell is all that?
Master_Ghost_Night:
Yeah. I don't disagree. So far, the whole thing strikes me as something of simple conjecture...perhaps mathematics (only). But not very scientific. :|
Oh...just one thing. I don't know much (if anything) about folklore. Could you elaborate just a tiny bit on where the allegory "chasing leprechauns" came from? :lol:
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Here is the jits of it, rainbows are an optical ilusion, acient people didn't knew allot about how stuff works and they saw a rainbow they believed that they physicaly existed and they were sprouting somewhere from the ground. Many people tryed to chase rainbows only to findout that they could never get to it. On a slightly related note because noone could have ever reached the end of the rainbow it was speculated the existance of magical beings called leprechauns that could get to the end of rainbows and there is where they stash their gold and pot (gold pot). So people eventualy started make cunning plan, tricks and traps to catch the leprechauns so they can rough them up litle and get the gold pot as a ransom. And with a massive nitpicking of random details they would form theories (not in the scientific sense but in the prejorative sense) of where the leprechauns lived and where they use to go by so they could maximize their chances of catching one, they eventualy never catched one because the right circunstance never arrived, but the evidence was there! Of course now that we know what rainbows are it is a bit silly. Of course this is an analogy to the construction of wild hypotesis not based on observation and the nitcpicking of details that might not mean anything, and consequential where does it eventualy lead (i.e. going after fictious things which doesn't really exist). Given that there are more ways to be wrong than to be right, you do the math.Dean said:Oh...just one thing. I don't know much (if anything) about folklore. Could you elaborate just a tiny bit on where the allegory "chasing leprechauns" came from? :lol:
There is also the expression of "Phd in dragon slaying" for people who get degrees that don't amount to anything, you can know everything there is to know about slaying a dragon, setting traps for dragons, what to do once the dragon is slayed. Ok congratulations you got your Phd, there aren't any dragons but you would be the first person that we would call if there was one, i.e. we would never call you at all.