Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are putting words in his mouth. He said "views contrary to the mainstream should be treated with caution."

'Twas ever thus...

One day I'm commended on my civility, friendliness, and perfect understanding of the poster's meaning; the next, I'm accused of being a chastising purveyor of ad-hominems, and multiple failings of netiquette - and all by the same poster

 

[Michael]

'Twas ever thus...

One day I'm commended on my civility, friendliness, and perfect understanding of the poster's meaning; the next, I'm accused of being a chastising purveyor of ad-hominems, and multiple failings of netiquette - and all by the same poster

Welcome to online debates.

 

[Loudmouth]

'Twas ever thus...

One day I'm commended on my civility, friendliness, and perfect understanding of the poster's meaning; the next, I'm accused of being a chastising purveyor of ad-hominems, and multiple failings of netiquette - and all by the same poster

Some people aren't able to differentiate between attacks on their ideas and attacks on their person. They tend to be the same people who think their right to free speech is violated when someone criticizes them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Welcome to online debates.

Thanks

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some people aren't able to differentiate between attacks on their ideas and attacks on their person. They tend to be the same people who think their right to free speech is violated when someone criticizes them.

How dare they!

 

[stevevw]

Yes, 'Many Worlds' does sound far-fetched. For a long time it was very unpopular in the physics community for that reason. But as time goes on and no substantive evidence or explanations emerge in support of the assumptions of other interpretations, more and more physicists are taking it seriously. Personally, I find it an intriguingly ironic counterpoint to the 'other dimensions' I read so much about in science fiction and fantasized about as a child, but it is also rather unsatisfying... like the multiverse solutions to the appearance of fine tuning - logical, but somehow disappointing. However, reality cares not a jot for my personal sentiments.

So my point has been all along that scientists are looking towards these ideas because as you say the evidence indirectly points in that direction through calculations based on trying to unite the quantum world with our reality. Though they cant directly prove things like multiverses they still consider it a viable preposition. So my position is if they are willing to consider this then why not a spiritual realm or life after death or that our conscience moves on after death to other dimensions.

This is still loosely based in how the quantum world works but its just a step further from what they are saying about multiverses ect. If we were to ever visit another parallel world I am sure we would feel like we were in another dimension or have to leave our reality to exist in another dimension. Or maybe we cant exist in these other dimensions because they are like spiritual dimensions based on their weird physics, who knows. But within all these dimensions there would be all sorts of possibilities. So whats the difference.

People have had imaginative fantasies about that kind of thing since language began, but the best ones involved interaction. As things stand, it seems the real world doesn't allow that.

But its the scientists who are postulating some of these ideas. they aren't basing them purely on imagination or fantasy. Their calculations allow for these things. The evidence they find in what they see with things like the quantum effect force them to come up with these ideas because it is only something like these far fetched ideas that will fit with what they are finding.

In fact I read an article about some scientists asking to lower the criteria for scientific verification with some of these ideas because they know they will never be able to completely prove them. So they wanted to change what evidence is needed to make it a proven hypothesis.

It is different, because all the Everettian many worlds have the same quantum formalism, which means the same physics, which means no. The universes of multiverse theory may all have different physics, but they are self-contained non-interacting bubbles in the 'bulk'; if it were possible for universes with different physical laws to interact, the consequences would be potentially catastrophic for them.

But dont they allow for many different states of physical existences. So there could be worlds closely aligned with ours where another you and me may exist living a slightly different life. To totally alien worlds where the physics allow for all sorts of crazy stuff to happen which would be hostile to us. That includes possible worlds where maybe quantum physics rules and things may pop in and out of existence or be able to move through solid walls as they claim in quantum physics.

 

[lesliedellow]

In fact I read an article about some scientists asking to lower the criteria for scientific verification with some of these ideas because they know they will never be able to completely prove them. So they wanted to change what evidence is needed to make it a proven hypothesis.

That would be the string theorists. They don't want to believe that, after 40 years, without a single falsifiable prediction, their idea has run its course. They are unlikely to get their way, because, if they did, at best physics would become a branch of pure mathematics, and at worst they would be giving every nutjob permission to come up with whatever wacko theory they liked, claiming that it was science.

 

[[serious]]

That would be the string theorists. They don't want to believe that, after 40 years, without a single falsifiable prediction, their idea has run its course. They are unlikely to get their way, because, if they did, at best physics would become a branch of pure mathematics, and at worst they would be giving every nutjob permission to come up with whatever wacko theory they liked, claiming that it was science.

String theory is turning into phish. Something you briefly get into during college, then grow out of.

 

[Larniavc]

there is no "seems" to it.
it's a verified fact, the placebo effect it proof of it.

The placebo effect is not beyond the material world.

 

[[serious]]

like i said earlier, i'm not into the god angle, just getting to the truth.
the work of kimura has cast serious doubt on the effects of natural selection.
here is what a cornell professor had to say:
Kimura, Ohta, Jukes, and Crow dropped a monkey wrench into the "engine" at the heart of the modern synthesis — natural selection — and then Gould and Lewontin finished the job with their famous paper on “the spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm”.
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html

it seems the entire edifice of the modern synthesis is falling out.
www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Are you thinking Gould is saying natural selection doesn't exist? Perhaps you should read both that paper and his other writings a bit more carefully. He objects to any single cause being called the be all and end all of evolution. how do you think hhe would feel about making that exact same error but swapping out one cause for another?

Let's consider other writings by him as well.
"Natural selection, an immensely powerful idea with radical philosophical implications, is surely a major cause of evolution, as validated in theory and demonstrated by countless experiments." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/

He freely admits it is a major factor in evolution. He only objects to trading it as the sole cause of evolutionary change.

That article, while having the same central message as the one you cited, is in my opinion better written. It's clearer, less needlessly provocative, and better supported.

 

[[serious]]

but why?
why should belief evolve?
using this line of reasoning, you can easily come to the conclusion that belief in god is only natural.
you could even take it further by saying belief in the supreme can make us supreme.
in this case, can we assume that god is a vital part in the evolution of humanity?

It's important to remember the distinction between belief in something and its existence. Superstition may also be something we are naturally prone to, yet that does not validate our superstitions.

 

[stevevw]

That would be the string theorists. They don't want to believe that, after 40 years, without a single falsifiable prediction, their idea has run its course. They are unlikely to get their way, because, if they did, at best physics would become a branch of pure mathematics, and at worst they would be giving every nutjob permission to come up with whatever wacko theory they liked, claiming that it was science.

Yes that is one of them and multiverses as well which is also connected with string theory. But string theory is the big daddy of them all as it is the possible answer to uniting quantum physics with relativity. So a lot is invested in it. But these ideas are becoming more popular but scientists are frustrated that they cant inevitably verify them. They can reason their explanations to fit the evidence but lack that final support to verify them.

Multiverses have become popular as it is a good explanation to how our universe has finely tuned physical constants for life. The anthropic principle is a hard one for scientists to address. String theory can also address this because it predicts that our universe is just one among a multitude of universes, each with its own fundamental constants. So it makes our universe not so special as one of these many millions of universes. But proving this would impossible. But some scientists are saying why should we just throw this perfectly ideal theory out just because it fails the falsifiable test when it satisfies so may of the things they are finding.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes that is one of them and multiverses as well which is also connected with string theory. But string theory is the big daddy of them all as it is the possible answer to uniting quantum physics with relativity. So a lot is invested in it. But these ideas are becoming more popular but scientists are frustrated that they cant inevitably verify them. They can reason their explanations to fit the evidence but lack that final support to verify them.

String theory is gradually losing support; not gaining it.

Multiverses have become popular as it is a good explanation to how our universe has finely tuned physical constants for life.

That is doubtless one of the motives for it amongst atheist scientists, but another is the embarrassment of string theorists, whose theory allows a myriad of different possible universes, and they can't decide which one is this one. So they postulate an almost infinite number of universes; one for each possible version of string theory; not that they thereby solve their original problem.

 

[stevevw]

String theory is gradually losing support; not gaining it.

So I wonder what will be the nest big thing. But aren't they just modifying string theory anyway so that it fits better. I cant see there being any other idea that would fit all the requirements. The theory of everything as Mr Hawkins said would be to know the mind of God (metaphorically that is)..

That is doubtless one of the motives for it amongst atheist scientists, but another is the embarrassment of string theorists, whose theory allows a myriad of different possible universes, and they can't decide which one is this one. So they postulate an almost infinite number of universes; one for each possible version of string theory; not that they thereby solve their original problem.

Thats the trouble is that it has to fit many things that they are finding. It has to explain all of those things in one theory. It has to unite quantum physics with relativity. It has to explain our ever faster expanding universe and fit in with the beginning of our universe and everything in between as well. But I think they will find it hard to let go of the current ideas such as string theory as they dont have much else.

I am sure they will find something but I dont think it will be the answer as well. No matter what they use it will have elements of far fetched ideas that cannot be verified because thats what the evidence demands. So maybe thats why they want to lower the criteria for verification because they are seeing that they cant find anything that will fit. Maybe Mr Krauss will come up with something.

 

[lesliedellow]

So I wonder what will be the nest big thing. But aren't they just modifying string theory anyway so that it fits better. I cant see there being any other idea that would fit all the requirements. The theory of everything as Mr Hawkins said would be to know the mind of God (metaphorically that is).

There are alternatives to string theory, such as loop quantum gravity.

Thats the trouble is that it has to fit many things that they are finding. It has to explain all of those things in one theory. It has to unite quantum physics with relativity. It has to explain our ever faster expanding universe and fit in with the beginning of our universe and everything in between as well. But I think they will find it hard to let go of the current ideas such as string theory as they dont have much else.

If you had spent forty years on a wild goose chase, you too would probably be reluctant to accept that it was a wild goose chase. That is humanly understandable, but it does not make it part of some wicked atheist conspiracy.

I am sure they will find something but I dont think it will be the answer as well. No matter what they use it will have elements of far fetched ideas that cannot be verified because thats what the evidence demands. So maybe thats why they want to lower the criteria for verification because they are seeing that they cant find anything that will fit. Maybe Mr Krauss will come up with something.

The more some theory can explain, the better scientists will like it. Having a simple theory explain a lot makes it more aesthetically pleasing than a complicated theory which explains little. But if it takes a number of different theories to explain a number of different things, scientists will live with that.

 

[stevevw]

The more some theory can explain, the better scientists will like it. Having a simple theory explain a lot makes it more aesthetically pleasing than a complicated theory which explains little. But if it takes a number of different theories to explain a number of different things, scientists will live with that.

Somehow I get the feeling that any new ideas are not going to be simple.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So my point has been all along that scientists are looking towards these ideas because as you say the evidence indirectly points in that direction through calculations based on trying to unite the quantum world with our reality.

No, I don't say that. The evidence points to quantum field theory being a correct description of how the universe behaves, within certain bounds. Interpretations such as Many Worlds are ways of visualising how these rules are reified or 'implemented' in the fabric of reality.

Though they cant directly prove things like multiverses they still consider it a viable preposition. So my position is if they are willing to consider this then why not a spiritual realm or life after death or that our conscience moves on after death to other dimensions.

Because the same physics that makes multiverses a possibility tells us that those things are not a possibility. If you want them, you have to show that quantum field theory is wrong, and that everything that follows from it, including modern electronics, is the result of some lucky fluke; IOW magic. It's a nice fantasy, hence the popularity of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Discworld, but it's not real.

This is still loosely based in how the quantum world works but its just a step further from what they are saying about multiverses ect. ...

Show your working - how did you massage the maths to take that step? You didn't did you? it's just fantasy.

But its the scientists who are postulating some of these ideas. they aren't basing them purely on imagination or fantasy. Their calculations allow for these things. The evidence they find in what they see with things like the quantum effect force them to come up with these ideas because it is only something like these far fetched ideas that will fit with what they are finding.

That's the difference between these ideas and fantasy - they have some mathematical justification linking them to real physics.

In fact I read an article about some scientists asking to lower the criteria for scientific verification with some of these ideas because they know they will never be able to completely prove them. So they wanted to change what evidence is needed to make it a proven hypothesis.

I don't think you've relayed that accurately; it doesn't make sense - please post a reference, link, or quote.

But dont they allow for many different states of physical existences. So there could be worlds closely aligned with ours where another you and me may exist living a slightly different life. To totally alien worlds where the physics allow for all sorts of crazy stuff to happen which would be hostile to us. That includes possible worlds where maybe quantum physics rules and things may pop in and out of existence or be able to move through solid walls as they claim in quantum physics.

You seem to be confusing the Everettian 'Many Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics with cosmological multiverses and misunderstanding both. Quantum physics rules this universe; what you see around you is the result of quantum physics. Virtual particles and quantum tunnelling are underlying behaviours of our universe.

Thinking of Many Worlds as some kind of multiple parallel 'dimensions' where clones of you have a variety of interesting experiences, is a fun idea, but probably not very realistic. Pretty much all particle-level interactions are quantum interactions with probabilistic outcomes. Every particle-level quantum interaction results in outcomes that decohere out into the environment; each interaction with the environment potentially has multiple probabilistic outcomes itself, which, in turn, propagate out themselves, and so-on. The result is more akin to an exponentially growing infinite quantum froth of realities than copies of you in the Twilight Zone.

Bear in mind I'm not an expert in this stuff, I'm basing it on what I've read by people who are experts, and already I'm repeating myself. You can probably find someone who will claim to be able to explain why magic might be possible in another universe, but I'm not that person.

ETA: foam->froth. Quantum foam is used for something else; might cause confusion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes that is one of them and multiverses as well which is also connected with string theory.

There are a number of multiverse hypotheses; not all are connected with String Theory.

 

[stevevw]

No, I don't say that. The evidence points to quantum field theory being a correct description of how the universe behaves, within certain bounds. Interpretations such as Many Worlds are ways of visualising how these rules are reified or 'implemented' in the fabric of reality.

So if what scientists see causes them to come up with these ideas to fit them into the fabric of reality then this must be where the answer will lie. Just about all their ideas are along these lines. There is no other way for them to explain things so that would mean they really believe that the explanation has to be outside the parameters of our reality to be able to fit what they see.

Because the same physics that makes multiverses a possibility tells us that those things are not a possibility.

Then why do they come up with them in the first place. If the evidence tells them that those sort of ideas best fit what they see then what else could they use an the explanation. Maybe they are basing everything on the wrong premise to begin with.

If you want them, you have to show that quantum field theory is wrong, and that everything that follows from it, including modern electronics, is the result of some lucky fluke; IOW magic. It's a nice fantasy, hence the popularity of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Discworld, but it's not real.
Show your working - how did you massage the maths to take that step? You didn't did you? it's just fantasy.

Well to begin with its not me that is coming up with these ideas its the scientists who do the work. They base it on the results of the quantum world also and have come to these conclusions. Besides I thought that no scientists has come up with anything that fits quantum field theory as yet. So anything that seems a little out of the ordinary may be just as possible as anything. Afterall as you said the main stream scientists havnt been able to come up with anything based on their own calculations. Maybe we need a little thinking outside the box to find the answers.

I would say thats why some are using these ideas about the mind and other dimensions. The dimensions that make up multiverses may be the dimensions where our conscious can occupy, who knows. The quantum world indicates that there maybe an observer effect so maybe our conscience does play a role. Like I say there is a lot of work going on with this field and there is some unusual findings. There is some evidence for this with studies in NDE, past lives and other things to do with the mind. The point is that the scientists that come up these ideas also base it on the same evidence. They are just speculating the same as hat those d with things like multiverses.

That's the difference between these ideas and fantasy - they have some mathematical justification linking them to real physics.

So do these ideas. they are scientists who do the work and they do use some calculations to come up with this. Some are very prominent scientists who are respected in all other fields of their work. I dont think they just suddenly have a brain snap and science out the window.

I don't think you've relayed that accurately; it doesn't make sense - please post a reference, link, or quote.

I did earlier.
Now, some physicists and philosophers think it is time to reconsider the notion of falsifiability. Could a theory that provides an elegant and accurate account of the world around us—even if its predictions can’t be tested by today’s experiments, or tomorrow’s—still “count” as science?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

You seem to be confusing the Everettian 'Many Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics with cosmological multiverses and misunderstanding both. Quantum physics rules this universe; what you see around you is the result of quantum physics. Virtual particles and quantum tunnelling are underlying behaviours of our universe.

I thought quantum physics also predicts many possible outcomes. This is then used for creating parallel dimensions where the alternative outcome happens in a parallel world from choices made which is based on the Schrodinger cat model. This can then be repeated over and over because each new dimension also can have its own many possible outcomes. The existence of many other worlds helps remove the randomness from quantum physics and also all physics.

But the many world idea is also a product of string theory. There is the “multiverse” of inflationary cosmology, the “many worlds” or “branches of the wave function” of quantum mechanics, and “parallel branes” of string theory. Increasingly, however, people are wondering whether the first two concepts might actually represent the same underlying idea.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...nd-the-multiverse-the-same-idea/#.Vm6HTl6LW18
Its so confusing.
Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

Thinking of Many Worlds as some kind of multiple parallel 'dimensions' where clones of you have a variety of interesting experiences, is a fun idea, but probably not very realistic. Pretty much all particle-level interactions are quantum interactions with probabilistic outcomes. Every particle-level quantum interaction results in outcomes that decohere out into the environment; each interaction with the environment potentially has multiple probabilistic outcomes itself, which, in turn, propagate out themselves, and so-on. The result is more akin to an exponentially growing infinite quantum froth of realities than copies of you in the Twilight Zone.

Yet some mainstream scientists like to say it could be true. No wonder people get confused about all this. It seems to be the scientists themselves who are causing the confusion. I dont think they know themselves.
Why the Many-Worlds Formulation of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably Correct
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...ion-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/

Bear in mind I'm not an expert in this stuff, I'm basing it on what I've read by people who are experts, and already I'm repeating myself. You can probably find someone who will claim to be able to explain why magic might be possible in another universe, but I'm not that person.

See thats the thing. Some may call it magic because it acts outside the science which can explain it in logical terms. But I see quantum physics similar to this in some ways. maybe what we are calling magic or healing, miracles, spirit worlds is something that can be explained in scientific terms. We just havnt got the language or means to explain or measure it at the moment.

Look at the LHC which had to be built to measure what happens in the micro world. They are saying there are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. Spooky action at a distance seems to acts in contradiction to physics. We still dont know how this works or what causes it. there may be a connection to the mind or soul whatever that is which completes the picture of how everything works. If we are to find a theory of everything I believe it will have to include the physical, mental, spiritual dimensions of things to have all the possibilities.

ETA: foam->froth. Quantum foam is used for something else; might cause confusion.

What about quantum suicide. It really does my head in this stuff.
I believe there are some things that science will never be able to explain. I think this is the point we are arriving at with the quantum world. The close we get to nothing the weirder and harder it gets for science to explain this world that has no logical explanation.
Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ain-why-theres-something-rather-than-nothing/

 

[lesliedellow]

I thought quantum physics also predicts many possible outcomes. This is then used for creating parallel dimensions where the alternative outcome happens in a parallel world from choices made which is based on the Schrodinger cat model. This can then be repeated over and over because each new dimension also can have its own many possible outcomes. The existence of many other worlds helps remove the randomness from quantum physics and also all physics.

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just that - an interpretation, and it is not the one held by the majority of physicists. It is no secret that quantum theory is poorly understood, but it is used because it yields correct results.