Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MagmaMcFry]

Actually, the current scientific consensus is one of a many-worlds theory, because it is the model where quantum interference is most easily explained, namely as interaction between similar universes. The equations match up, too. And the reasons that scientists assume true many-worlds theory instead of simulated many-worlds theory (where the universe simulates some parallel worlds, makes them interact, then picks one randomly) is because true many-worlds theory is simpler in terms of Kolmogorov complexity (the industrial-grade measure for scientific applications of Occam's Razor).

[Cthulhu]

Holy shit, this is the most epic straw man I've ever seen.

He actually has a way worse one in another discussion I'm having with him.  I dropped the anthropic principle one, it's not something I'm experienced enough to be arguing, this one I know better and I think I've put together a pretty strong post, which he has yet to address.

Anyway, he rebuts the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit with two main points.  The first, possibly the most brazen strawman I've ever seen, he slips a Point 7 (Therefore God does not exist) into the argument and then argues that the conclusion he fabricated is a non sequitur and thus the argument is invalid.  That takes some serious balls.

The other main argument is that God is functionally complex without being structurally complex.  Why functional complexity doesn't count as complexity when evaluating God's ability to explain apparent design I don't know and asked him to elaborate.

[alway]

Why would we expect there to be any other plane of existence than our own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Depends on the type. The 'many worlds' version, aka 'everything is the same, but people wear different hats' version interprets quantum randomness as a divergence of universe-states; essentially stating that all possible paths are taken.
Then there's the M-theory variation, where our 'universe' consists of only a small aspect of a larger metaverse; sort of like a 'side' being a 2 dimensional part of a 3 dimensional cube, or an 'edge' being a 1 dimensional part of a 3 dimensional cube; though in this case, it's a 4 dimensional part of an 11 dimensional membrane.

[Eagle_eye]

Multidimensional stuff is just painful to think about... I really wish there was some other mathematical model that could be used to describe the universe. I don't like the idea of living in a place that I literally cannot comprehend.

[G-Flex]

Multidimensional stuff is just painful to think about...

You can feel free to stick to lines, I guess. Nothing wrong with that.

I really wish there was some other mathematical model that could be used to describe the universe. I don't like the idea of living in a place that I literally cannot comprehend.

Nothing "multiversal" is, well, actually used to mathematically describe the universe. There's the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but that's just an interpretation, and doesn't particularly affect a thing. String theory still seems pretty up in the air itself.

[Eagle_eye]

I had thought M theory had actual 12 dimensional geometry?

[G-Flex]

It does, but I'm not sure what you mean to be saying here. Yeah, it has 12 dimensions, but it's pretty far from an accepted thing. Like I said, even string theory itself seems a little iffy so far.

[Eagle_eye]

Ah. I had gotten the impression that M theory was widely accepted as likely correct.

[Karlito]

While theories in that vein may be neat and elegant mathematical explanations, there currently isn't any way to design an experiment to test them. So it's impossible to make the determination of whether they are or are not correct in any empirical way.

[Hanslanda]

While theories in that vein may be neat and elegant mathematical explanations, there currently isn't any way to design an experiment to test them. So it's impossible to make the determination of whether they are or are not correct in any empirical way.

It is somewhat similar to saying, "We live in a computer game." If we do, we can't prove it because being a fabricated part of the computer, we couldn't test outside the computer. If we don't, then we can't prove it because it isn't true.

[G-Flex]

While theories in that vein may be neat and elegant mathematical explanations, there currently isn't any way to design an experiment to test them. So it's impossible to make the determination of whether they are or are not correct in any empirical way.

If something isn't empirically verifiable or useful, then it's not really a theory in the first place.

[kaijyuu]

Sure it is. It's just not a theory that can be proven one way or another. So, it's unfalsifiable.

If the many worlds theory is indeed unfalsifiable, then its general acceptance is not a reason to believe it. And as a fun bonus, I have another unfalsifiable claim that science generally accepts (even if in a half-hearted, "this makes sense and we haven't any better ideas" sort of way).

Good enough for me. That's what I was fishing for.

[G-Flex]

Sure it is. It's just not a theory that can be proven one way or another. So, it's unfalsifiable.

... Do you  know what "theory" means in the world of science? If you do, then you know that something unfalsifiable is not a theory. Not even remotely.

And as a fun bonus, I have another unfalsifiable claim that science generally accepts (even if in a half-hearted, "this makes sense and we haven't any better ideas" sort of way).

I don't know of any unfalsifiable claims that science "generally accepts". Please enlighten me.

[Osmosis Jones]

Actually, the current scientific consensus is one of a many-worlds theory, because it is the model where quantum interference is most easily explained, namely as interaction between similar universes. The equations match up, too. And the reasons that scientists assume true many-worlds theory instead of simulated many-worlds theory (where the universe simulates some parallel worlds, makes them interact, then picks one randomly) is because true many-worlds theory is simpler in terms of Kolmogorov complexity (the industrial-grade measure for scientific applications of Occam's Razor).

Refs? By wiki, most polls on it's acceptance place it's maybe second or third most popular, some quite a ways lower still. Most widely accepted I've seen is Copenhagen.

[Siquo]

I don't know of any unfalsifiable claims that science "generally accepts". Please enlighten me.

I've got three for you, right here off of wikipedia: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.