Multiverse: One Universe or Many?

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

Now, having snipped out the content relating to the proving/disproving of theories...

 

Posted yesterday at 07:31 PM · Report post

"Extrapolating from what is determined in an Earthly laboratory to what actually holds true in a distant galaxy is an act of assumption on your part, Pantheory."

 

Assumptions of theory mean those characteristics of reality that do not directly follow from theory. For instance General Relativity does not directly follow from the BB model in that it cannot be derived from the theory. But it is not considered an assumption of the theory since it is part of mainstream physics, which is assumed to be correct by nearly all models. Homogeneity of the universe cannot directly be derived from the BB model, because a BB could have resulted in an uneven distribution of matter. In the same way General Relativity is not considered an assumption of the BB model, it would be an assumption if General Relativity were wrong, which in my model it is conceptually wrong.

 

All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth.

Your last sentence describes your model making a major assumption.  

But yesterday you claimed that your model requires NO major assumptions.  You seem to be contradicting yourself.  Yesterday your model made no major assumptions.  Today, by your own admission, it makes one.

This would be true unless the theory itself derives different laws, which my theory does concerning gravity, magnetism, the so-called forces of nature, and other things. So like I said, my own theory makes no assumptions, according to the definition of theoretical assumptions.

False.

Above you wrote... "All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth."

A universe-wide assumption is a MAJOR assumption.  So, today you've contradicted yourself within your own post.  You own model does make a major assumption.  Whereas yesterday... it didn't.  

As I stated before, respectable theories do not list ridiculous assumptions like stating that reality is not part of a matrix for instance.

Can we have a definitive answer to the question of whether your theory makes a major assumption, Pantheory?

Yesterday you said it didn't.

Today you say it does.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

...would you please provide a definitive answer as to whether your model makes a major assumption or not?

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

[pantheory]

 

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

Now, having snipped out the content relating to the proving/disproving of theories...

 

Posted yesterday at 07:31 PM · Report post

"Extrapolating from what is determined in an Earthly laboratory to what actually holds true in a distant galaxy is an act of assumption on your part, Pantheory."

 

Assumptions of theory mean those characteristics of reality that do not directly follow from theory. For instance General Relativity does not directly follow from the BB model in that it cannot be derived from the theory. But it is not considered an assumption of the theory since it is part of mainstream physics, which is assumed to be correct by nearly all models. Homogeneity of the universe cannot directly be derived from the BB model, because a BB could have resulted in an uneven distribution of matter. In the same way General Relativity is not considered an assumption of the BB model, it would be an assumption if General Relativity were wrong, which in my model it is conceptually wrong.

 

All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth.

Your last sentence describes your model making a major assumption.  

But yesterday you claimed that your model requires NO major assumptions.  You seem to be contradicting yourself.  Yesterday your model made no major assumptions.  Today, by your own admission, it makes one.

This would be true unless the theory itself derives different laws, which my theory does concerning gravity, magnetism, the so-called forces of nature, and other things. So like I said, my own theory makes no assumptions, according to the definition of theoretical assumptions.

False.

Above you wrote... "All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth."

A universe-wide assumption is a MAJOR assumption.  So, today you've contradicted yourself within your own post.  You own model does make a major assumption.  Whereas yesterday... it didn't.  

As I stated before, respectable theories do not list ridiculous assumptions like stating that reality is not part of a matrix for instance.

Can we have a definitive answer to the question of whether your theory makes a major assumption, Pantheory?

Yesterday you said it didn't.

Today you say it does.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

...would you please provide a definitive answer as to whether your model makes a major assumption or not?

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

Again, as I said before, the so-called laws of physics are never called by theorists or practitioners assumptions of theory. But if you like to be technical the so-called laws of physics can be, and have been derived from my cosmological model, because technically it is a theory of everything. I know of no other cosmology where this is true. This thread is not the place but you can look at my website, at pantheory.org., look under gravity, magnetism, quantum interactions etc. and you can see some derivations of equations and the asserted reasons why these equations should be valid.

[bornagainathiest]

All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth.

 

My own model, for instance, requires no major assumptions.

 

These are two mutually-exclusive statements, both made by you, Pantheory.

Since you assume that your model holds good throughout the entire universe, your model therefore makes a MAJOR assumption.  

Yet, you also claim that it makes no MAJOR assumptions.  These two conditions cannot both be true.  This is a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

If I may intrude, and I might be in way over my head here, but @pantheory I have the following questions after mulling over this topic a bit:

 

Doesn't the pan theory rely on the existence of the 'Pan' particle?

 

If so has it been observed? (Data?)

 

If the pan particle hasn't been observed isn't the entire hypothesis built on an assumption the pan particle exists?

 

You say your theory relies on no assumptions - to do that you must rely on direct observational data. Even distances to stars over 400 LY relies on assumptions about the brightness of stars outside 400 LY being homogeneous with stars inside 400LY. (Something gleefully pointed out by creationists)

 

What about age you calculate for the universe, size of the universe. etc? Beginning of the universe (First cause)

 

At some point you will have to take raw data and infer and/or assume something.

 

Thanks

LF

[bornagainathiest]

LF,

 

May I suggest something that could be useful for this discussion?

You and I are keen to know how Pantheory can claim that his model makes no major assumptions, yet still say that it holds true across the universe, right?   My suggestion would be to offer him an example through which he can demonstrate his claim.  The Andromeda galaxy (M31) seems like a suitable choice.

 

 

Pantheory has already agreed in this thread that the speed of light is finite, so here is where the claim about his model can be examined.

 

How can he claim that his model applies in M31 today, when any evidence he might use to verify that claim will take millions of years to reach him?

 

I contend that he assumes that his model holds good in M31 today, but he won't be able to verify this claim with evidence for over two million years.

 

Therefore, applying the same logic, his claim that his model holds true everywhere in the universe today, must be an assumption that it does.

 

And his other claim - that his model makes no major assumptions - cannot therefore be valid.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

 

If I may intrude, and I might be in way over my head here, but @pantheory I have the following questions after mulling over this topic a bit:

 

Doesn't the pan theory rely on the existence of the 'Pan' particle?

 

If so has it been observed? (Data?)

 

If the pan particle hasn't been observed isn't the entire hypothesis built on an assumption the pan particle exists?

 

You say your theory relies on no assumptions - to do that you must rely on direct observational data. Even distances to stars over 400 LY relies on assumptions about the brightness of stars outside 400 LY being homogeneous with stars inside 400LY. (Something gleefully pointed out by creationists)

 

What about age you calculate for the universe, size of the universe. etc? Beginning of the universe (First cause)

 

At some point you will have to take raw data and infer and/or assume something.

 

Thanks

LF

Yes, my model starts in the beginning with a hypothesis called the Ipan Bead Hypthesis. This hypothsis is not necessarily a precursur of the Pan Theory. This type of beginning hypothesis as a foundation for theory, is similar to Inflation theory stating the BB model, but instead this hypothesis is not needed. A different beginning hypothesis could explain the Pan Theory. It is though to be the most likely hypothesis.

 

Size of the universe cannot be calculated, but the minimum size and minimum age is calculated.

 

The firest cause, or prime mover, relates to the potential energy of the beginning entity.

 

As to distances, brightness's, observation angles etc. the theory has its own formulations which better calculate and  match observed reality.

[pantheory]

 

LF,

 

May I suggest something that could be useful for this discussion?

You and I are keen to know how Pantheory can claim that his model makes no major assumptions, yet still say that it holds true across the universe, right?   My suggestion would be to offer him an example through which he can demonstrate his claim.  The Andromeda galaxy (M31) seems like a suitable choice.

 

 

Pantheory has already agreed in this thread that the speed of light is finite, so here is where the claim about his model can be examined.

 

How can he claim that his model applies in M31 today, when any evidence he might use to verify that claim will take millions of years to reach him?

 

I contend that he assumes that his model holds good in M31 today, but he won't be able to verify this claim with evidence for over two million years.

 

Therefore, applying the same logic, his claim that his model holds true everywhere in the universe today, must be an assumption that it does.

 

And his other claim - that his model makes no major assumptions - cannot therefore be valid.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thead invovles the likelihood of multiveses. I will not discuss my own model unless it directly relates to the OP and those related questions asked.

 

For these questions I can be PM'ed for answers.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

This thead invovles the likelihood of multiveses. I will not discuss my own model unless it directly relates to the OP and those related questions asked.

 

For these questions I can be PM'ed for answers.

 

And if another thread is started to specifically discuss your claim (that your model makes no major assumptions) will you be forthcoming with answers, Pantheory?

 

 

[Joshpantera]

You know what they say about assuming, you make an ass out of u and me. lol

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

This thead invovles the likelihood of multiveses. I will not discuss my own model unless it directly relates to the OP and those related questions asked.

 

For these questions I can be PM'ed for answers.

 

If I understand correctly, the reason the thread is going the way it has is because in discussing multiverse hypothesis you stated that the BB model etc relies on assumptions which is unscientific.

 

My query would be, that while that is true, is it not also true of your theory thus making your theory unscientific by your own definition?

 

If your theory can be backed up with direct observational data without requiring any assumptions then you have a theory like no other. I'm not aware of any theories that don't require assumptions in some way or another.

 

Note I am not querying your theory, I'm querying your statement (Like BAA is) that it requires "no major assumptions". Your counter back on page 1 by you was that in comparison to your own theory BB did require major assumptions. For there to be no major assumptions one must have direct confirmed data yes?

[pantheory]

 

 

If I understand correctly, the reason the thread is going the way it has is because in discussing multiverse hypothesis you stated that the BB model etc relies on assumptions which is unscientific.

 

My query would be, that while that is true, is it not also true of your theory thus making your theory unscientific by your own definition?

 

If your theory can be backed up with direct observational data without requiring any assumptions then you have a theory like no other. I'm not aware of any theories that don't require assumptions in some way or another.

 

Note I am not querying your theory, I'm querying your statement (Like BAA is) that it requires "no major assumptions". Your counter back on page 1 by you was that in comparison to your own theory BB did require major assumptions. For there to be no major assumptions one must have direct confirmed data yes?

 

Something like that. All theories make unstated assumptions such as we are not in a matrix, or that the laws of physics are generally valid everywhere so that the theory does not need to derive all of laws of physics from the theory alone. But theories that have foundation pillars that are assumed hypothesis then these theories lack a sturdy foundation. I stated that, generally speaking, based upon the scientific definition of an assumption of theory, that my model makes no assumptions like described above.

 

Look at the Big Bang model. Assuming the laws of physics is never stated concerning assumptions of theory. In the same way such statements are not considered assummed  because the laws of physics are separate from the BB model. One cannot derive the laws of physics from the BB model.

 

My statement was the my own cosmology makes no major assumptions. Examples of assumptions are stated in the BB model. Hypothesis are not assumptions of theory but when these hypothesis support the main theory then there is a theoretical problem Such is the case for dark matter, the Inflation hypothesis, dark energy, warped space, an expanding universe, etc.etc.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Something like that. All theories make unstated assumptions such as we are not in a matrix, or that the laws of physics are generally valid everywhere so that the theory does not need to derive all of laws of physics from the theory alone. But theories that have foundation pillars that are assumed hypothesis then these theories lack a sturdy foundation. I stated that, generally speaking, based upon the scientific definition of an assumption of theory, that my model makes no assumptions like described above.

 

Look at the Big Bang model. Assuming the laws of physics is never stated concerning assumptions of theory. In the same way such statements are not considered assummed  because the laws of physics are separate from the BB model. One cannot derive the laws of physics from the BB model.

 

My statement was the my own cosmology makes no major assumptions. Examples of assumptions are stated in the BB model. Hypothesis are not assumptions of theory but when these hypothesis support the main theory then there is a theoretical problem Such is the case for dark matter, the Inflation hypothesis, dark energy, warped space, an expanding universe, etc.etc.

 

Let's untangle that last paragraph.

 

The universe is observed to expand, space is observed to be warped and Inflation has confirmed predictions to support it.  We observe those confirmed predictions.  These observations are not hypothetical - they are real.  Observations constitute evidence.  That which is supported by evidence should not be deemed to be 'hypothetical'.  

 

As well as not being hypothetical, the expanding universe is not a 'support' of the Big Bang.

The expanding universe was an observation which Big Bang theory was designed to explain.  Those observations preceded that theory.  Therefore the expanding universe should not be thought of 'supporting' the Big Bang.  Historically, it happened the other way round.  

 

Dark matter and dark energy are different.

They are hypothetical explanations of what is observed.  They currently lack the evidence base of Inflation, expanding space and warped space and so do qualify as hypotheses.

.

.

.

LogicalFallacy, please take note of the following points.

 

1.

Lumping different things together (as was done in the last paragraph of the quoted text) and presenting them as being the same is misleading.

 

2.

Reversing the historical order in which events occurred is also misleading.

 

3.

While the expanding universe and warped space have been observed and Inflation is supported by confirmed predictions, we currently do not know that status of the Pan particle.

Your question as to whether or not it has been observed was not answered.  You might like to get that resolved.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

 

This thead invovles the likelihood of multiveses. I will not discuss my own model unless it directly relates to the OP and those related questions asked.

 

For these questions I can be PM'ed for answers.

 

 

And if another thread is started to specifically discuss your claim (that your model makes no major assumptions) will you be forthcoming with answers, Pantheory?

 

Isn't the question of model assumptions related to the "related questions asked"? @pantheory you did cause these questions to asked about your model because of a direct claim in post #13. BAA has already quoted the line, but so we don't have to find that post: "My own model, for instance, requires no major assumptions." - pantheory So isn't it fair in discussing models and assumptions therein that we address your claim in this thread? Personally I see no reason to open another thread, nor am I inclined to PM questions/answers as the process only benefits the sender/receiver, not the wider audience.

 

 

 

Something like that. All theories make unstated assumptions such as we are not in a matrix, or that the laws of physics are generally valid everywhere so that the theory does not need to derive all of laws of physics from the theory alone. But theories that have foundation pillars that are assumed hypothesis then these theories lack a sturdy foundation. I stated that, generally speaking, based upon the scientific definition of an assumption of theory, that my model makes no assumptions like described above.

 

What about the pan particle then? Is it a hypothesis, an assumption, a prediction?

 

@bornagainathiest

 

 

LogicalFallacy, please take note of the following points.

 

1.

Lumping different things together (as was done in the last paragraph of the quoted text) and presenting them as being the same is misleading.

 

2.

Reversing the historical order in which events occurred is also misleading.

 

3.

While the expanding universe and warped space have been observed and Inflation is supported by confirmed predictions, we currently do not know that status of the Pan particle.

Your question as to whether or not it has been observed was not answered.  You might like to get that resolved.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks BAA, I should have actually picked up on the fact that it was the discovery of an expanding universe that lead to the BB theory being developed. In fact, if I remember my reading correctly, the question scientists asked was if the universe was expanding, what was it expanding from. Some person in retort to the idea said maybe it was a big bang... cue theory name. Re Pan particle first I want to find out if its a hypothesis, assumed, or a prediction. If I have my meanings right a hypothesis doesn't yet have confirmed observations?

 

@Joshpantera

 

 

Yin and Yang...

 

What I like about the video is how the competition to Guth was made to foolish near the end of the talk. They complained and whined about an eternal cosmos, but then in the end had only another essentially eternal idea to offer. And that was made light of by both Guth and the moderator. People need to acknowledge the bloody obvious, which is that eternal existence, by one frame work or another, is the meat of the matter when it comes to understanding reality simply because there's no alternative. 

 So Josh what you are saying is that something cannot come from nothing (absolute nothing.... as in no thing... not Krauss's nothing) therefore there was always something?

 

That might ruin the Kalam Cosmological argument if there was never a nothing for there to be a prime mover to cause a something. (Not that the KCA stands anyway - it assumes more than.... a certain model does ... )

[Joshpantera]

 

So Josh what you are saying is that something cannot come from nothing (absolute nothing.... as in no thing... not Krauss's nothing) therefore there was always something?

 

 

That might ruin the Kalam Cosmological argument if there was never a nothing for there to be a prime mover to cause a something. (Not that the KCA stands anyway - it assumes more than.... a certain model does ... )

 

 

Yes, something gives way to something else. 

 

Both the Multiverse and Brane theories describe this. Nothing existing would mean nothing would exist now. No infinite replication, no branes in which to collide.

 

And also, nothing existing means no god existing, nothing at all.

 

So those apologists are working on a "something gives way to something else" assumption just like everyone else. There's never a situation where nothing existed (no existing god) and then something spontaneously existed (an existing god), unless they want to accept that their god came into existence out of non-existence. But they say the god always existed, so something (god) always existed. So it boils down to which description of something giving way to something else makes the most sense, or better describes reality. Everyone is on equal footing concerning something = something else, despite creation ex nihilo.