Is a possibel error/bias in the method of physics testable?

[LaraLara]

Never mind.

I never minded. I am socializing

 

[lesliedellow]

Such a research will not proof that god exist but it might show that "the god of the gaps" will stay a bit longer than assumed.

God of the gaps will always be here, because our knowledge will always be incomplete. And you don't only have that from me; you have it from the former president of the Royal Society.

Not that the continued existence of the god of the gaps is necessarily a good thing, even from a theologian's point of view. As most theologians would be anxious to point out, if God exists, he is God of all creation; not merely of the holes science has yet to fill in.

 

[LaraLara]

God of the gaps will always be here, because our knowledge will always be incomplete.

I still believe physics could trick itself if it does not access what it is doing in total. You propably did not saw my multiverse parody but I have a problem with science that is always right no matter what the test results are. I find the atheist arguments based on such reasoning weak.

 

[lesliedellow]

I still believe physics could trick itself if it does not access what it is doing in total. You propably did not saw my multiverse parody but I have a problem with science that is always right no matter what the test results are. I find the atheist arguments based on such reasoning weak.

I doubt if any physicist regards a multiverse as anything other than speculation. So far as I know, nobody has offered it up as a scientific theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... every atheist says that it is not OK to compare the propability of the actual values against the possible values (any).

Over-generalise much?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I doubt if any physicist regards a multiverse as anything other than speculation. So far as I know, nobody has offered it up as a scientific theory.

Except to the extent that is a prediction or extrapolation of a scientific theory.

 

[lesliedellow]

Except to the extent that is a prediction or extrapolation of a scientific theory.

It is an "extrapolation" of a couple of theories. The politest thing which can be said about the string theorists' "argument" is that it is less than wholly convincing.

As for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is what its name suggests.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is an "extrapolation" of a couple of theories. The politest thing which can be said about the string theorists' "argument" is that it is less than wholly convincing.

Well, as I understand it, String Theory suggests that a universe can potentially have any of 10^500 variations, not that there necessarily are that many universes - it's more usually associated with the multiverse of Eternal Inflation that continually produces 'bubble' universes, where it's suggested that a bubble may have any of the String Theory variations - although variations are not restricted to String Theory. See The Case for Parallel Universes.

As for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is what its name suggests.

Superpositions in QM are already effectively a branch or split into separate classical universes at the position of the superposition. The question then is whether the interactions of a superposition with the surroundings expand the superposition to cause a 'delamination' of the universe into separate versions, or whether you introduce some ad-hoc mechanism to avoid that (collapse of the wave function). Many Worlds just takes the quantum formalism literally and adds no extra unexplained mechanisms.

I'd prefer some Feynman-style sum-over-histories solution, where all the possible branches cancel out to leave the one we experience, but it seems hard to extend the path-integral principle from individual particles to the wider situation.

A deeper philosophical question with interpretations of this kind is whether we can ever say we're describing reality, or whether we must restrict ourselves to saying only that, whatever the 'true' nature of reality, what we observe behaves as if it is like our model. In other words, we can have effective theories without claiming that they describe reality as it really is.

But there are also more classically intuitive multiverse versions, such as that where our observable universe is just a tiny region of a very large (or infinite) universe. In this version, widely separated regions that condense out of the big bang during expansion (or inflation) can do so with different physical parameters (depending on quantum fluctuations) and are widely enough separated that equilibration can't occur because no signal can ever reach from one area to the other (and the metric expansion at that separation means they're receding faster than light). This would be a huge universe that is effectively a multiverse.

 

[toLiJC]

Some people feel that physics is heading in the wrong direction because it increasingly relies on untestable concepts to fill the holes in it's knowledge:

"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result."

Now feelings and instincts can not be discussed with atheists - or at least not in relation with science. I wondered if the problem - should it be existing - could be quantified. I came up with the following ideas and questions:

Would it be possible to count how often physics papers reference untestable concepts versus testable concepts and compare that over time? Would it be better to count the papers that are about untestable concepts?

Has such a research already be done?

What would be a good charity or university to lift such a project?

Such a research will not proof that god exist but it might show that "the god of the gaps" will stay a bit longer than assumed.

how could smallest ants know the elephant's anatomy?! - it is ridiculous

Blessings

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, as I understand it, String Theory suggests that a universe can potentially have any of 10^500 variations, not that there necessarily are that many universes - it's more usually associated with the multiverse of Eternal Inflation that continually produces 'bubble' universes, where it's suggested that a bubble may have any of the String Theory variations - although variations are not restricted to String Theory. See The Case for Parallel Universes.

Superpositions in QM are already effectively a branch or split into separate classical universes at the position of the superposition. The question then is whether the interactions of a superposition with the surroundings expand the superposition to cause a 'delamination' of the universe into separate versions, or whether you introduce some ad-hoc mechanism to avoid that (collapse of the wave function). Many Worlds just takes the quantum formalism literally and adds no extra unexplained mechanisms.

I'd prefer some Feynman-style sum-over-histories solution, where all the possible branches cancel out to leave the one we experience, but it seems hard to extend the path-integral principle from individual particles to the wider situation.

A deeper philosophical question with interpretations of this kind is whether we can ever say we're describing reality, or whether we must restrict ourselves to saying only that, whatever the 'true' nature of reality, what we observe behaves as if it is like our model. In other words, we can have effective theories without claiming that they describe reality as it really is.

But there are also more classically intuitive multiverse versions, such as that where our observable universe is just a tiny region of a very large (or infinite) universe. In this version, widely separated regions that condense out of the big bang during expansion (or inflation) can do so with different physical parameters (depending on quantum fluctuations) and are widely enough separated that equilibration can't occur because no signal can ever reach from one area to the other (and the metric expansion at that separation means they're receding faster than light). This would be a huge universe that is effectively a multiverse.

String theorists seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to possible universes; the only problem is that they don't seem able to tell us which one is this one. When it comes to different regions of this universe having different physical laws, it seems very convenient that none of them are supposed to be observable. If they were, that would mess up astrophysics good and proper.

Inventing one actual universe for each possible universe is probably something physicists wouldn't even have dreamt of if they did not have cosmic fine tuning to account for. After all, scientific theories are supposed to be empirically testable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

String theorists seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to possible universes; the only problem is that they don't seem able to tell us which one is this one. When it comes to different regions of this universe having different physical laws, it seems very convenient that none of them are supposed to be observable. If they were, that would mess up astrophysics good and proper.

There are some proposed ways to test some multiverse versions, but they generally depend on probabilistic events such as another bubble universe appearing close enough to affect ours, or the effects on the CMB of the different mechanisms.

Inventing one actual universe for each possible universe is probably something physicists wouldn't even have dreamt of if they did not have cosmic fine tuning to account for.

Not really - String Theory started well before the FT debate, and bubble universes 'fall out' of Eternal Inflation - of which ours is one, and it accounts for several otherwise puzzling properties of our universe.

After all, scientific theories are supposed to be empirically testable.

True, and it's not clear how testable various multiverses are, but if they are predictions of an otherwise effective theory (i.e. that has made other testable predictions that panned out), it's quite reasonable to provisionally accept them and hope for more ideas for testing those predictions. After all, that's what happened with black holes.

 

[Tanj]

I have a problem with science that is always right no matter what the test results are.

So do I. However, how do you feel about religious viewpoints that are always right no matter what the test results are?

I find the atheist arguments based on such reasoning weak.

I find your constant irrelevant sniping at atheists pointless. Weak reasoning is not the sole purview of athiests with regards to theoretical physics.

 

[lesliedellow]

So do I. However, how do you feel about religious viewpoints that are always right no matter what the test results are?

A scientific theory needs to meet the criteria for a scientific theory; religious faith does not. Exactly what test are you planning to perform on God - assumining he plays along, of course?

 

[Tanj]

A scientific theory needs to meet the criteria for a scientific theory; religious faith does not. Exactly what test are you planning to perform on God - assumining he plays along, of course?

My comment was directed at those Christians that consider physical evidence. If what you said was true there'd be no creationists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some people feel that physics is heading in the wrong direction because it increasingly relies on untestable concepts to fill the holes in it's knowledge:

"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result."

Now feelings and instincts can not be discussed with atheists - or at least not in relation with science. I wondered if the problem - should it be existing - could be quantified. I came up with the following ideas and questions:

Would it be possible to count how often physics papers reference untestable concepts versus testable concepts and compare that over time? Would it be better to count the papers that are about untestable concepts?

Has such a research already be done?

What would be a good charity or university to lift such a project?

Such a research will not proof that god exist but it might show that "the god of the gaps" will stay a bit longer than assumed.

String theory, inflation,... these are pretty much (as far as I understand, anyway) competing hypothesis which are not at all accepted as accurate models of reality in any meaningfull way buy the scientific community.

These are rather mere attempts at trying to zero-in on some kind of appropriate model that is in fact testable. The mere abstractness of it, just shows (imo) just how much in the dark physics really is at this point, at the frontier of knowledge.

This is not analogous to some kind of "god of the gaps" nonsense.

The god of the gaps is the exact opposite of the scientific exercise.

Science first and foremost acknowledges gaps and then goes to work in an attempt to fill them with actual demonstrable and testable knowledge. And in doing so, scientists will be wrong many many times along the way. And that's fine. It's how you make progress.

As for the actual "god of the gaps" arguments, those are the very opposite... The purpose of stuffing gods in gaps is in fact to END the process of questioning and merely pretend that you have the answer.

I don't think you'll find a single scientist working in any of these fields, even frantically pursuing things like string theory, who would EVER dare to say that his model is an accurate and/or testable description of reality.

At best, I think you'll get something like "they are interesting ideas. interesting enough to justify exploring them further".

Science is pretty honest and trasparant when it comes to such.

 

[Michael]

Such a research will not proof that god exist but it might show that "the god of the gaps" will stay a bit longer than assumed.

You're right, it wouldn't prove God, but it would demonstrate that scientists also engage themselves in 'dark matter of the gaps'. They engage in 'dark energy of the gaps", SUSY theory of the gaps, graviton theory of the gaps, etc., and they surf around in lots of other gaps too.

Atheists tend to only complain with the gaps relate to the topic of 'God', otherwise they tend to be just hunky dory with gap arguments.

 

[Michael]

There are some proposed ways to test some multiverse versions, but they generally depend on probabilistic events such as another bubble universe appearing close enough to affect ours, or the effects on the CMB of the different mechanisms.

LOL! Even those proposed CMB 'mechanisms' lack empirical support in the lab. The departure from empirical physics begins the moment you talk about the CMB in relationship to any "space expansion" theory. The concept of 'testing' in cosmology today has *nothing* to do with empirical physics, or controlled empirical testing in a lab.

String theories and multiverse theories just take it to the 'next level', but all space expansion claims are already way outside of/beyond any type of empirical testing.

 

[Michael]

I think it would be a good idea for scientists to notify us if/when they leave the path of methodological naturalism.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but scientists have almost always deviated from the path of methodical naturalism. In fact every proposed hypothetical entity in physics deviates from that standard, at least at first. They often "propose" that the hypothetical entity in question is 'natural', but often in spite of a complete lack of empirical evidence to support that 'act of faith'. How "natural' are 11 dimensions of spacetime?

 

[quatona]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but scientists have almost always deviated from the path of methodical naturalism. In fact every proposed hypothetical entity in physics deviates from that standard, at least at first. They often "propose" that the hypothetical entity in question is 'natural', but often in spite of a complete lack of empirical evidence to support that 'act of faith'. How "natural' are 11 dimensions of spacetime?

It´s ok, Michael.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists tend to only complain with the gaps relate to the topic of 'God', otherwise they tend to be just hunky dory with gap arguments.

Actually, atheists tend to complain only when the one trying to stuff a gap with an undemonstrable entity pretends to have certainty and to be holding the "truth and nothing but the truth".

I have no problems at all with scientists trying to "stuff gaps" by coming up with hypothesis and trying to make it fit the available data and trying to make sense of it.

In fact, it's their job to do that.