- #1
richard9678
- 93
- 7
Why do astronomers talk about multiple universes, that is philosophising - isn't it?
Basically, yes. Although there are some very serious scientists (Sean Carroll comes to mind) who believe in the multiverse there is absolutely zero evidence to support it and the multiverse theories make no falsifiable predictions. Popper argues that this clearly means such theories are not science but Carroll says we need to rethink the whole business of falsifiability as a test on theories. I admire Carroll but I hope science does not go down that road.richard9678 said:Why do astronomers talk about multiple universes, that is philosophising - isn't it?
phinds said:Carroll says we need to rethink the whole business of falsifiability as a test on theories. I admire Carroll but I hope science does not go down that road.
Yes, the strongest reason I've heard is that there are too many variables with just the precise value to make it likely that our universe could exist (but not impossible!). The multiverse hypothesis says that many of the possible universes have popped into existence, and so our 'improbable' universe becomes probable because it is just one of many, equally probable universes that exists.richard9678 said:Why do astronomers talk about multiple universes, that is philosophising - isn't it?
richard9678 said:I'd actually say, that if someone believes that billions of years ago there was a big bang, it's a matter of well, common sense there would be multiple universes.
yamex5 said:Yes, the strongest reason I've heard is that there are too many variables with just the precise value to make it likely that our universe could exist (but not impossible!).
I agree, and it's a damn shame!...DelcrossA said:Moreover, I find it ridiculous how negative of a connotation philosophy has amongst some scientists.
If we were to follow rigidly the falsificationist account of what is science then it's metaphysics. But then we should include in the same category superstring theory and so on. Personally I think things are much more complex.richard9678 said:Why do astronomers talk about multiple universes, that is philosophising - isn't it?
metacristi said:Yet the future can be full of surprises, the case for the Multiverse can still become very well as compelling (via Rationality) for physicists as it is the inflationary scenario now, applying rigidly the criterion of falsifiability can only harm fully legitimate directions of research
metacristi said:If we were to follow rigidly the falsificationist account of what is science then it's metaphysics.
Theories are 'free creations of the mind', to paraphrase Einstein, and it does not have any importance where they come from (dreams, sudden inspiration, religious beliefs, pondering on the consequences of accepted theories and so on are equally valid sources). What really count in science is the confirmation part, the theories should be testable, with some of the predictions separating them from the other existing hypotheses. If the theories (+ their auxiliary assumptions in reality) survive the test of reality and are (much) more confirmed than the alternatives then they usually become part of scientific knowledge, the 'normal paradigm' of the day.Orien Rigney said:Knowing absolutely nothing of physics, I depend on the intellect of others to row me across the lake; so to speak. When some hypotheticals such as strings theory or multiverses are hashed over, where does the theories come from? Is there ways of calculating their possibility, or physical proof that they can or do exist? I ask this only because, if they are just ideas, we all have a few to offer. Let me put one of Dr. Penrose's out there that hypothesizes a cyclic universe..
I do like the theory but there is little I can offer other than ideas. But listening to the stutter steps he makes in explaining the theory baffles me. Very possibly there has been enough theory and calculus from Penrose and Hawking to go deeper into the possibility that such a universe may exist. With what is being found out about dark matter etc. and the increase in exansion velocity, many of the answers may be right in front of us. Can anyone help in looking into such a possibility further?
metacristi said:(although I really doubt that the scientific community will always pay attention to very good ideas coming from outsiders :) ).
phinds said:there is absolutely zero evidence to support it and the multiverse theories make no falsifiable predictions.
Quds Akbar said:It may explain Dark Matter, it may explain why Dark energy's strength is the way it is, it presents ideas and solutions that many find satisfying.
What are the observable claims?Drakkith said:Not necessarily. I've seen at least one multiverse theory that makes observable claims. I think it's important to make a distinction between what isn't observable in principle and what isn't observable because we just haven't seen it yet.
Isn't that being a bit snobbish? If someone came to me and stated that my house was on fire, my first question wouldn't be: "Are you a Fireman"?metacristi said:Theories are 'free creations of the mind', to paraphrase Einstein, and it does not have any importance where they come from (dreams, sudden inspiration, religious beliefs, pondering on the consequences of accepted theories and so on are equally valid sources). What really count in science is the confirmation part, the theories should be testable, with some of the predictions separating them from the other existing hypotheses. If the theories (+ their auxiliary assumptions in reality) survive the test of reality and are (much) more confirmed than the alternatives then they usually become part of scientific knowledge, the 'normal paradigm' of the day.
In the case of Penrose I suppose that his 'conversion' was triggered also by the existing proposals regarding the cyclical Universe (apart from the theoretical considerations he presented). Now in what regard the confirmation context I don't think we can advance any objective prior probability of such hypotheses being true and as far as I know no experiment indicates them as 'the winner' (they are falsifiable). Yet although at least some variants are still definitely viable (also in light of the fact that the results of BICEP 2 study was put in a different perspective by Planck observations) they are by no means the first choice program deserving to be pursued further at this time (not ultimately because they have lower coherence with the accepted body of scientific knowledge).
To conclude anyone can propose hypotheses but only those which pass the experimental test can succeed to become science (although I really doubt that the scientific community will always pay attention to very good ideas coming from outsiders :) ).
Orien Rigney said:Isn't that being a bit snobbish?
richard9678 said:Why do astronomers talk about multiple universes, that is philosophising - isn't it?
Dark Matter might be the gravitational effects of a universe hovering right above us. Dark energy exists in the exact numbers it should to support life, a little bit less and the universe would collapse on itself, a little bit more and the universe would be expanding too rapidly. But with the existence of an infinite multiverse with huge amounts of multiverses, a multiverse with those properties would be normal, you would expect to find a universe like this.Orien Rigney said:What are the observable claims?
Uh ... how do you "hover right above" something in all directions and predominantly in galactic halos? This really doesn't make any sense.Quds Akbar said:Dark Matter could be the gravitational effects of a universe hovering right above us.
The universe could be above us, I think this wording would explain it.phinds said:Uh ... how do you "hover right above" something in all directions and predominantly in galactic halos? This really doesn't make any sense.
(1) Kaku is a gadfly who is not to be taken seriously.Quds Akbar said:The universe could be above us, I think this wording would explain it.
"let's say that our universe is a sheet of paper. We live our entire life on this sheet of paper, but directly above us there could be a parallel universe, hovering right over us, perhaps inches, centimeters away and objects in this parallel universe would be invisible. Light travels beneath the universe, so we never see this other galaxy. But gravity, gravity goes between universes because gravity is nothing but the bending of space, so if the space between two sheets of paper is bent slightly gravity then moves across. This other galaxy in another universe would be invisible, yet it would have mass. That's exactly what dark matter is. Dark matter is massive—it has gravity—but it's invisible." (Michio Kaku,2011)
Thanks! But somehow I always seem to put my foot in my mouth at the wrong angle and time. Since all fields of science need new ideas constantly, I see nothing wrong with offering my thoughts on a subject. That doesn't mean that I have an answer or solution, only questions that, if the right person gets hold of them, may have an an answer just waiting to pop out. Thanks again.magneticnorth said:Theorizing , hypothesizing and philosophizing ...are all valid roads to science . If Occam's Razor is to be considered as a credible /usable postulate . Looking at things from that angle , String Theory , and Multiverse, can fall into the category of philosophizing . When testability and falsifiability or at least predictability ,become available , they then become Science . Does that sound logical ?
Yes, I do not aid this parallel universe idea, you bring up a very good point, but others do believe in it, that is why people believe in a multiverse, that is the point of this thread. If you go to my second reply, I used the term might be.phinds said:(2) this does not explain why dark matter is mostly in galactic haloes not does it even come close to explaining the bullet cluster, just to name one problem with it.