Multiverses Require Faith For Belief

[pantheory]

Is Smolin suggesting a black hole to white hole exchange? Where material going into a black hole in one universe jets out of a white hole creating a new universe, and perhaps a new big bang in a birthing universe? Anything like that would require the same faith that Smolin accuses the multiverse proponents of having. And at the end of the day even the faith allegation has no bearing in these cosmological circles because obviously everyone knows that they're theorizing and hypothesizing and not blindly believing in the concrete existence of extra universal realities without substantial evidence to support it. 

 

He is suggesting an energy exchange from Black Holes which accordingly would be converted into great quantities of new matter. This is similar to the "'C' field" creation of new matter by the Quasi-Steady-State theory. This new matter should be observable as coming from galactic Black Holes such as the galactic black hole jets that we observe, which we presently think are only the result of the breakdown and expulsion of surrounding torus matter.  This could be the evidence not requiring faith, but the reinterpretation of present and past observations.

[Joshpantera]

And the size of this universe? 

 

Infinite and steady state? 

[FreeRadical]

I've more or less dabbled in layman's cosmology. I wish I could speak better on this topic, as it greatly interests me, but I just don't have the math and won't have it soon enough ;-P.

 

 

I would like to bring up the point that something can only be untestable if it is both unfalsifiable but necessary. That which is the case must necessarily be, so that which is unnecessary is at odds with what is the case.

 

I would conjecture that paradigms are the epistemology of necessity, and that forming new paradigms redefines the standard for necessity. For example, the Genesis creation myth would otherwise be untestable (think magic) were it not completely unnecessary under cosmology and evolution. Since it is patently absurd against everything scientific since Galileo (or whoever), the whole bible falls apart from the first verse in the face of its pressing need for endless ad-hoc explanations. We can safely say that a claim, theory, or religion is not true if it is entirely unnecessary against a superior standard.

 

Now, we are indeed facing the same situation with cosmology. Well-written theories can abound endlessly to explain the gaps of a paradigm, but how can we know what is really the case when any, all, or none of them may be correct? When a proper theory comes around to rest on an assumption by necessity, then it is by definition unfalsifiable until that assumption is no longer necessary. The idea that our universe is the lucky one of an infinite number of other lucky universes that just so happened to have the right balance of laws for life is worthy of even greater ridicule than intelligent design, because the need for necessity is completely vanquished by such thinking. Clearly, a new paradigm is needed.

 

 

On Smolin's principles for a new paradigm...

 

1) There is just one universe.

This is perfectly fine. I am a pretend atheist because God is not here but elsewhere, so living as though he does not exist both expels magical thinking, confusion, and superstition, and also leaves me fully responsible for my life. When the day comes for whatever, then is the time to consider the things that matter only then.

 

2) Time is real and the laws of physics are not timeless but evolve.

I have nothing to say about whether time is a fundamental construct or just an emergent property; it doesn't matter to my inexperienced mind yet. On the second part, I smell a whiff of a rebounding universe theory. Fine, I'll think about that when I'm ready for the math.

 

3) And the third is that mathematics is limited in its predictive scope.

Wonderful pro-tip. I think math is probably a terrible thing to predict with because it's so open to guesses that conveniently fit.

 

 

Edit:

 

I forgot to say that the cure to faith is, amusingly, non-attachment. Belief of fact is subject to a degree of uncertainty, and faith is a failure of one to come to terms with it. We see neither fear, disgust, nor impatience as ideal, but, rather, a passiveness of mind, for it is easiest to simply accept uncertainty and revisit later with renewed understanding.

[pantheory]

And the size of this universe? 

 

Infinite and steady state? 

 

Smolin is a Big Bang advocate, and as such believes the universe is finite concerning times past -- and that there was nothing that existed before it.  As to the size of the universe, I expect his ideas must be consistent with the time the universe has existed -- but how he thinks the Inflation hypothesis might have effected the size of the universe,  I could not find where he speculated on this question. But accordingly I think his writings imply that he believes the universe would be also finite in its size (quantity of matter).

[pantheory]

I've more or less dabbled in layman's cosmology. I wish I could speak better on this topic, as it greatly interests me, but I just don't have the math and won't have it soon enough ;-P.

 

 

I would like to bring up the point that something can only be untestable if it is both unfalsifiable but necessary. That which is the case must necessarily be, so that which is unnecessary is at odds with what is the case.

 

I would conjecture that paradigms are the epistemology of necessity, and that forming new paradigms redefines the standard for necessity. For example, the Genesis creation myth would otherwise be untestable (think magic) were it not completely unnecessary under cosmology and evolution. Since it is patently absurd against everything scientific since Galileo (or whoever), the whole bible falls apart from the first verse in the face of its pressing need for endless ad-hoc explanations. We can safely say that a claim, theory, or religion is not true if it is entirely unnecessary against a superior standard.

 

Now, we are indeed facing the same situation with cosmology. Well-written theories can abound endlessly to explain the gaps of a paradigm, but how can we know what is really the case when any, all, or none of them may be correct? When a proper theory comes around to rest on an assumption by necessity, then it is by definition unfalsifiable until that assumption is no longer necessary. The idea that our universe is the lucky one of an infinite number of other lucky universes that just so happened to have the right balance of laws for life is worthy of even greater ridicule than intelligent design, because the need for necessity is completely vanquished by such thinking. Clearly, a new paradigm is needed.

 

 

On Smolin's principles for a new paradigm...

 

1) There is just one universe.

This is perfectly fine. I am a pretend atheist because God is not here but elsewhere, so living as though he does not exist both expels magical thinking, confusion, and superstition, and also leaves me fully responsible for my life. When the day comes for whatever, then is the time to consider the things that matter only then.

 

2) Time is real and the laws of physics are not timeless but evolve.

I have nothing to say about whether time is a fundamental construct or just an emergent property; it doesn't matter to my inexperienced mind yet. On the second part, I smell a whiff of a rebounding universe theory. Fine, I'll think about that when I'm ready for the math.

 

3) And the third is that mathematics is limited in its predictive scope.

Wonderful pro-tip. I think math is probably a terrible thing to predict with because it's so open to guesses that conveniently fit.

 

 

Edit:

 

I forgot to say that the cure to faith is, amusingly, non-attachment. Belief of fact is subject to a degree of uncertainty, and faith is a failure of one to come to terms with it. We see neither fear, disgust, nor impatience as ideal, but, rather, a passiveness of mind, for it is easiest to simply accept uncertainty and revisit later with renewed understanding.

 

Don't worry about the math. I believe you form theories based upon observations and logic, and afterwords you formulate the math attempting to be able to make accurate quantitative predictions. If one formulates the math first then I think one can get all kinds of "crazy," competing hypothesis, where quantum mechanics could be a good example.

 

If a theory is not falsifiable, it cannot be tested, then IMHO its merit will always be in question. According to Smolin, the reason the universe has specific rules/ laws that it follows may be based upon the process of the evolution of galaxies, clusters, etc. and their collective domain. They can only evolve in one single way as to how it all relates to the collective -- so it is no wonder that we have the universe that we observe. Accordingly the universe could only look different if it were in accordingly an earlier or later stage of evolution.

 

Note: I do like Smolin's views but have my own theories which are very different from mainstream theory as well as different from Smolin's. 

 

As to a beginning God, which you mentioned as being a "pretend" atheist, you can be a theist and a scientist, but it is very hard to believe in the scriptures of any religion when so much of them are totally and obviously ridiculous concerning their history or assertions. I'm glad that you have come to the conclusion that only you are responsible for the success of your own life. I think this is a good starting point.

 

Yes, Smolin has discussed a rebounding aspect of the universe, but as to my understandings, he appears to hold to a Big Bang beginning of some sort, concerning the whole of the universe. 

 

3) And the third is that mathematics is limited in its predictive scope.

Wonderful pro-tip. I think math is probably a terrible thing to predict with because it's so open to guesses that conveniently fit.

 

 

Math can often be a very accurate predictor of exactness, but as you say -- it (variables, data) can also be altered when calculations do not  conveniently fit observations. This can also work well for "retrodiction."

 

I forgot to say that the cure to faith is, amusingly, non-attachment. Belief of fact is subject to a degree of uncertainty, and faith is a failure of one to come to terms with it. We see neither fear, disgust, nor impatience as ideal, but, rather, a passiveness of mind, for it is easiest to simply accept uncertainty and revisit later with renewed understanding.

 

 

Sounds good to me

[FreeRadical]

I believe you form theories based upon observations and logic, and afterwords you formulate the math attempting to be able to make accurate quantitative predictions.

 

...

 

According to Smolin, the reason the universe has specific rules/ laws that it follows may be based upon the process of the evolution of galaxies, clusters, etc. and their collective domain. They can only evolve in one single way as to how it all relates to the collective -- so it is no wonder that we have the universe that we observe. Accordingly the universe could only look different if it were in an earlier and later stage of evolution.

 

 

I like theories like these; they have a heart and soul. In my own thought experiments and theory of the universe, I see life as playing an integral part in the, lets say, evolution of the universe. Perhaps a unified theory would only work with life as part of the equation.

 

 

If a theory is not falsifiable, it cannot be tested, then IMHO its merit will always be in question.

 

 

This is exactly the type of terminology I need to familiarize myself with to have a clearer perspective of argumentation. Thanks .

[pantheory]

 

I believe you form theories based upon observations and logic, and afterwords you formulate the math attempting to be able to make accurate quantitative predictions.

 

According to Smolin, the reason the universe has specific rules/ laws that it follows may be based upon the process of the evolution of galaxies, clusters, etc. and their collective domain. They can only evolve in one single way as to how it all relates to the collective -- so it is no wonder that we have the universe that we observe. Accordingly the universe could only look different if it were in an earlier and later stage of evolution.

 

I like theories like these; they have a heart and soul. In my own thought experiments and theory of the universe, I see life as playing an integral part in the, lets say, evolution of the universe. Perhaps a unified theory would only work with life as part of the equation.

 

If a theory is not falsifiable, it cannot be tested, then IMHO its merit will always be in question.

 

This is exactly the type of terminology I need to familiarize myself with to have a clearer perspective of argumentation. Thanks .

 

 

I always thought of evolution as biological evolution and was surprised that some religious people think of evolution to include the universe and other things. I think that is OK as long as one does not make conclusions of one based upon the other.  I like to talk to people who are interested also in what I have to say, but not with people who just like to argue but don't consider other points of view. Have a great New Year 2016, best regards.

[FreeRadical]

Edit: Post removed.

 

[pantheory]

The difference between MWI as a possible interpretation of the measurement problem in QM and religious faith is that there really is a scientifically well-established "measurement problem" in QM, in the sense that it is difficult to derive a coherent ontological theory from the formalism of the mathematics. MWI isn't properly a scientific hypothesis at the moment in that we have no way to test it, but it at least is supported by an abductive argument that is based on scientific data and well-established theory.

 

Whether speaking of faith purely in terms of epistemology or whether dealing with other religious connotations of the term, MWI is very different in this respect from (for example) "faith" in the resurrection of Christ. In order to properly compare the two propositions (A=There are multiple worlds, B=Jesus resurrected from the dead) you're going to need a philosophy of science and epistemology a bit more sophisticated. It's as if you're dealing with only two buckets, one for "facts" and one for "conjecture", and dumping both the resurrection and MWI into the second bucket, but while they are both conjecture (in some sense), there is quite a lot of difference between how rational they are as conjectures.

 

Nice posting (#3)