Hypothetical Reality, Is It Possible?

[Doveaman]

If a house is built using hypothetical materials that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would the house itself be considered a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified?

And if the house itself is a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would that house have any basis in reality?

 

[Cabal]

*sigh* not this again....
{Yes, Yes}

 

[Doveaman]

Hypothetical Reality, Is It Possible?

If a house is built using hypothetical materials that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would the house itself be considered a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified?

And if the house itself is a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would that house have any basis in reality?

{Yes, Yes}

If the hypothetical structure has not been confirmed to be real how can it be based in reality?

 

[Cabal]

If the hypothetical structure has not been confirmed to be real how can it be based in reality?

Because not knowing the properties of the material doesn't mean that there isn't something there having an effect.

 

[Doveaman]

Because not knowing the properties of the material doesn't mean that there isn't something there having an effect.

The "something there having an effect" is real, but the hypothetical explanation given for it has not been confirmed. So does the unconfirmed explanation have any basis in reality without it being confirmed to be an accurate or close to accurate description of the "something"?

For example, has the hypothetical dark energy/inflation been confirmed?

If not, then how can you build a theoretical structure of the universe using dark energy/inflation as hypothetical materials even though these hypothetical materials have not been confirmed to be real? They don't exist in nature. At least not by confirmation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The "something there having an effect" is real, but the hypothetical explanation given for it has not been confirmed. So does the unconfirmed explanation have any basis in reality without it being confirmed to be an accurate or close to accurate description of the "something"?

If it accurately explains the phenomena, then it is a valid hypothesis.

For example, has the hypothetical dark energy/inflation been confirmed?

Yes. There is sufficient evidence to convince most astrophysicists that dark matter exists.

If not, then how can you build a theoretical structure of the universe using dark energy/inflation as hypothetical materials even though these hypothetical materials have not been confirmed to be real? They don't exist in nature. At least not by confirmation.

They haven't been confirmed to exist, but neither have they been refuted. They remain a valid possibility. I don't think you quite understand what is meant by the term 'hypothetical'. It's hardly a pejorative.

 

[Cabal]

The "something there having an effect" is real, but the hypothetical explanation given for it has not been confirmed. So does the unconfirmed explanation have any basis in reality without it being confirmed to be an accurate or close to accurate description of the "something"?

Some explanations will be more reasonable than others, given what is observed. Any contenders, though, will require additional data before they

For example, has the hypothetical dark energy/inflation been confirmed?

I don't know why you're pairing the two. Inflation has been confirmed. The rate, however, isn't what was expected, leading to the hypothesis of dark energy.

If not, then how can you build a theoretical structure of the universe using dark energy/inflation as hypothetical materials even though these hypothetical materials have not been confirmed to be real? They don't exist in nature. At least not by confirmation.

Again, pieces of the puzzle are in place, but not all. The flaw in your analogy is you're saying the structure is entirely hypothetical. It's not.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I detect a very distinct trollish pattern in Doveaman's posts. My suggestion is just ignoring him until he bursts from indignation.

 

[DoubtingJesus]

If a house is built using hypothetical materials that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would the house itself be considered a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified?

And if the house itself is a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would that house have any basis in reality?

If a house has already been build with the material, then it is no longer a hypothetical material since it has been demonstrated to be a building material already. The structure has already been described as a 'house' so it isn't a hypothetical structure either.

 

[Doveaman]

If a house has already been build with the material, then it is no longer a hypothetical material since it has been demonstrated to be a building material already. The structure has already been described as a 'house' so it isn't a hypothetical structure either.

Well, the house is indeed built, but the material it is made of is not factually known because the house has never been seen up close. So it is sometimes assumed that it is made of dark-energy even though no one has ever seen dark-energy in nature.

The house being built out of dark-energy, then, is only an assumption, a hypothetical explanation that has no basis in reality since no one has ever seen dark-energy in reality.

Some people say dark-energy is a possibility, but I personally don't know how anything can be a possibility if it has never been witnessed as a possibility before.

Snow is possible, been witnessed. Rain is possible, been witnessed. Hail is possible, been witnessed. But dark-energy, never been witnessed by anyone. So I don't know who made it a possibility.

Sounds more like a manufactured possibility to me, something only God can do because "with God all things are possible."...Mat 19:26.

 

[Doveaman]

Again, pieces of the puzzle are in place, but not all. The flaw in your analogy is you're saying the structure is entirely hypothetical. It's not.

If you remove the hypothetical DE and DM from the structure the whole structure falls apart. Therefore the structure is entirely hypothetical since it cannot exist without these hypotheticals.

 

[Cabal]

If you remove the hypothetical DE and DM from the structure the whole structure falls apart.

No, it doesn't. The universe exists regardless of whether or not we know for sure whether DE or DM exists. In fact it goes on existing regardless of how little we know about it in any respect.

Therefore the structure is entirely hypothetical since it cannot exist without these hypotheticals.

And again, that doesn't change the fact that there are still measurable effects present - the universe doing as it pleases, whether or not we understand it or not. Us being wrong about DE and/or DM isn't going to change that.

 

[Doveaman]

No, it doesn't. The universe exists regardless of whether or not we know for sure whether DE or DM exists. In fact it goes on existing regardless of how little we know about it in any respect.

And again, that doesn't change the fact that there are still measurable effects present - the universe doing as it pleases, whether or not we understand it or not. Us being wrong about DE and/or DM isn't going to change that.

No one is talking about the real universe itself, only your description of it.

The hypothetical gravitational universe model established by the mainstream in their efforts to try to explain what we are observing in the real universe cannot stand without these hypothetical dark entities which do not exists in the real universe.

The plasma universe model, however, can because plasma makes up more than 99.9% of the universe.

You should take a closer look beginning here: Plasma: The other 99.9% and here: Plasma Cosmology .net