Hi,

Well then you disagree with a huge number of scientists around the world working on these problems. Just so you know.
You are taking it upon yourself to decide for everyone what is real and what is not real, and that's quite a chore. That's always your choice though and we see these debates about other things too.
The imagination is not very expensive so there should be no problem using it

Example:
Imagine that you are wrong. Wasn't too hard to do was it?

Just to be fair, I can imagine that I am wrong instead. I don't seem to be suffering over it

So you don't believe in the multiverse. That's fine, but other people do and have actually conducted experiments. In science it's not about believing it's about proving, but you have to believe in the possibilities first.

I don't see the problem with not believing theories that are 'Not Even Wrong'. The multiverse and that class of solutions are IMO just alternatives to saying the solution is supernatural, will never have scientific proof and requires faith instead. I'm not one of the faithful.

 

I don't see the problem with not believing theories that are 'Not Even Wrong'. The multiverse and that class of solutions are IMO just alternatives to saying the solution is supernatural, will never have scientific proof and requires faith instead. I'm not one of the faithful.

You, Sabine, and I.

@MrAl: Can you point us to the experiments that have proven the existence of the multiverse you refer to in post #59?

 

I don't see the problem with not believing theories that are 'Not Even Wrong'. The multiverse and that class of solutions are IMO just alternatives to saying the solution is supernatural, will never have scientific proof and requires faith instead. I'm not one of the faithful.

Science does not require belief.

It does require disbelief.

 

I'm religious. But I also believe that science is the best tool we've got for understanding reality. I reserve my religious beliefs to the period before the initiation of existence itself. If there's such a thing as before the beginning of Time.

Anyway, I also don't believe in the multiverse. And if there were such a thing, it would most probably be a waste of time since by definition the Universe is a completely contained entity in itself and what happens in other universes would have no effect in ours.

It's fascinating for me to consider that this is the realm in which science and philosophy overlap.

 

I didn't know I had such influence. Thanks for letting me know.

Hi again,

Yes, you didn't understand that post either I see.

The way I see it is if you can't see it yet other people are experimenting with it, then the other people must believe, for some reason, that it either is there or might be there, so let's construct a truth table.

There are two cases for you, either you believe, or you don't believe in something beyond the horizon.
There are two cases for me, either I believe, or I don't believe.
This gives us a total of 4 unique states.
If you are A and I am B, then when A=0 you don't believe, and when A=1 you do believe.
For me, when B=0 I don't, when B=1 I do.
The following short table is ordered from left to right, columns A to B:

AB
00
01
10
11

These are the possible states.
Now to look at the possible outcomes of each state.
00: since neither of us believe, the only way we can both be right is if it is PROVEN that there is nothing out there.
01: since you don't and I do, the only way you can be right is if it is PROVEN that there is nothing out there, and the only way I can be right is if it is PROVEN that there is something more out there.
10: since you believe and I don't, you'll be right if it is PROVEN that there is something more out there, and I will only be right if it is PROVEN that there is nothing more out there.
11: since we both believe in this case, we can only both be right if it is PROVEN that there is more out there.

I constructed this to show all the possible cases, but the most significant part is that you seem to believe in something that has not yet been proven, same as me. That's certainly not a problem really, but it's not any more true than believing the opposite.

 

You, Sabine, and I.

@MrAl: Can you point us to the experiments that have proven the existence of the multiverse you refer to in post #59?

I never said anything was proven, but then again nobody else did either.

Can you point us to experiments that have proven that there is nothing else out there?

We may find experiments for both arguments however, but it doesn't matter that much.
For example, one experiment was to examine a distant part of the universe for some unusual perturbance. What was found was said to possibly be another universe interacting with ours, and that would mean that gravity is universal.

Physics and other areas of study are time related studies. What is true today may not be true tomorrow, and it may be drastically different. This is what history has shown us in enormous detail and accuracy.

 

I'm religious. But I also believe that science is the best tool we've got for understanding reality. I reserve my religious beliefs to the period before the initiation of existence itself. If there's such a thing as before the beginning of Time.

Anyway, I also don't believe in the multiverse. And if there were such a thing, it would most probably be a waste of time since by definition the Universe is a completely contained entity in itself and what happens in other universes would have no effect in ours.

It's fascinating for me to consider that this is the realm in which science and philosophy overlap.

Hi,

Yes, it may seem like a waste of time, but time isn't over yet. There are always new things to discover.
Do you know for sure that what happens in other universes has no effect in ours, when is the least time you went to the distance part of our universe to examine it closely?
There has been at least one experiment that I know of that indicates that another universe may be interacting with ours out in the distant part. It would account for some anomalies. I didn't do the experiment, so you'd have to look it up on the web to find out more information.

 

Hi,

Yes, it may seem like a waste of time, but time isn't over yet. There are always new things to discover.
Do you know for sure that what happens in other universes has no effect in ours, when is the least time you went to the distance part of our universe to examine it closely?
There has been at least one experiment that I know of that indicates that another universe may be interacting with ours out in the distant part. It would account for some anomalies. I didn't do the experiment, so you'd have to look it up on the web to find out more information.

Yes, I'm aware that there are some respectable scientists out there who support the idea of the multiverse. One of them, I remember, even called the two-slit experiment of a photon interfering with itself as proof of the multiverse existance.

I have my doubts, and seriously consider it a waste of time to devote one's work around that subject. But of course, if someone ever comes up with tangible proof and repeatable experiments proving me wrong I'm gonna have to reconsider my stance. That's the way science works.

 

Hi again,

Yes, you didn't understand that post either I see.

The way I see it is if you can't see it yet other people are experimenting with it, then the other people must believe, for some reason, that it either is there or might be there, so let's construct a truth table.

There are two cases for you, either you believe, or you don't believe in something beyond the horizon.
There are two cases for me, either I believe, or I don't believe.
This gives us a total of 4 unique states.
If you are A and I am B, then when A=0 you don't believe, and when A=1 you do believe.
For me, when B=0 I don't, when B=1 I do.
The following short table is ordered from left to right, columns A to B:

AB
00
01
10
11

These are the possible states.
Now to look at the possible outcomes of each state.
00: since neither of us believe, the only way we can both be right is if it is PROVEN that there is nothing out there.
01: since you don't and I do, the only way you can be right is if it is PROVEN that there is nothing out there, and the only way I can be right is if it is PROVEN that there is something more out there.
10: since you believe and I don't, you'll be right if it is PROVEN that there is something more out there, and I will only be right if it is PROVEN that there is nothing more out there.
11: since we both believe in this case, we can only both be right if it is PROVEN that there is more out there.

I constructed this to show all the possible cases, but the most significant part is that you seem to believe in something that has not yet been proven, same as me. That's certainly not a problem really, but it's not any more true than believing the opposite.

I don't know why you are pushing so hard on the word "belief". This is not a requirement.

You can postulate a theory and attempt to support it with evidence.

I can run my own experiments -- if I so desire -- to disprove your theory. I only need one "negative" reproducible result to trash your entire theory, i.e. a result that contradicts your theory.

You, OTHO, need a continuous stream of "positive" results just to support -- but not prove -- your theory. This includes reproduction of your results by independent scientists.

This is the big problem with AGW, for example: it constantly and consistently fails to predict reality. But the believers have turned it into a religion, so there is very little science remaining about the topic.

I choose skepticism over belief. It keeps what remains as science honest.

 

In favor of @MrAl, if the multi-verse really is a thing, then there really are dragons out there. An infinite number of them, in fact.

So, there is that.

 

So you don't believe in the multiverse. That's fine, but other people do and have actually conducted experiments

So the experiments you refer to were all unsuccessful. I would still like to see them described.

 

Both "Belief", and "Disbelief", are foolish, and quite often detrimental.

"Fear of the unknown" is ALWAYS detrimental.

In contemplating questionable subjects,
I will only apply a "Scale of Probability",
and then further apply an additional "Scale of Value"
based on my estimation of it's usefulness to my personal interests.

One of my personal interests is doing whatever I can to improve Life for everyone else,
( in their own estimation ),
because this results in a more pleasant environment for me to live in.

Subjects that are impractical, and/or, of questionable value,
are merely temporary distractions which are entertained when
having to wait on events, or things, that I deem more important.

I suppose somebody's got to have an interest in figuring-out the "Age of the Universe",
but it's my estimation that the majority of those doing so live in a very tiny bubble,
and have a very limited concept of what might be "the bigger picture".

When You refuse to consider certain subjects as possibilities, your bubble shrinks.
.
.
.

 

When You refuse to consider certain subjects as possibilities, your bubble shrinks.

That's what I thought about girls in college.

 

In favor of @MrAl, if the multi-verse really is a thing, then there really are dragons out there. An infinite number of them, in fact.

So, there is that.

Hi,

Well, it doesn't help to just make jokes about it, but that is funny ha ha. Thanks for the humor to lighten up the mood.
I don't think they found any dragons though, just the eggs

 

Both "Belief", and "Disbelief", are foolish, and quite often detrimental.

"Fear of the unknown" is ALWAYS detrimental.

In contemplating questionable subjects,
I will only apply a "Scale of Probability",
and then further apply an additional "Scale of Value"
based on my estimation of it's usefulness to my personal interests.

One of my personal interests is doing whatever I can to improve Life for everyone else,
( in their own estimation ),
because this results in a more pleasant environment for me to live in.

Subjects that are impractical, and/or, of questionable value,
are merely temporary distractions which are entertained when
having to wait on events, or things, that I deem more important.

I suppose somebody's got to have an interest in figuring-out the "Age of the Universe",
but it's my estimation that the majority of those doing so live in a very tiny bubble,
and have a very limited concept of what might be "the bigger picture".

When You refuse to consider certain subjects as possibilities, your bubble shrinks.
.
.
.

Hi,

I agree that total belief or disbelief regarding the unknown universe and/or it's extension are not particularly sane stances to take. Usually when i say "belief" it's just a belief in the possibility, not an absolute belief.
The road to truth usually starts with a belief though ... a belief in the possible.

I guess to most of us here it doesn't matter that much one way or another if some things are really true or real or whatever.

 

So the experiments you refer to were all unsuccessful. I would still like to see them described.

As far as I know the experiments on the distant 'edge' of the universe indicated that there was another universe influencing our own universe but only in that area of the universe. I am not sure how they determined that either.

Also, I'm not sure what to look up but you should be able to find something about this one on the web. I'll take a look when I get a chance myself. I thought it was interesting, but even without that i still hold that the possibilities are endless when we have no concrete yes or no, and with science ever advancing, the possibilities are endless but still unknown, of course. We can't know everything all at once, at least for now. We have to progress, and then we may end up with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Until then, we surely can't say 'yes', but we also cannot surely say 'no' either.

Again, history may play a role here. If we look back, we find that EVERY SINGLE TIME mankind has tried to limit the area or space that we live in, it was later found that the area or space was larger than what we originally thought. Originally the earth was the only thing we had, then we had the solar system, then we had the galaxy, then we had other galaxies and hence the universe. But this was not all at once, it came little by little as technology advanced and other theories came out. So over the course of maybe 2000 years (or a bit more) we went from Earth to the universe, little by little. The obvious question is, what is next. Do we play dumb like our forefathers and believe that this is all that there is, or do we think outside the box like our smarter forefathers did when they eventually realized there was such a thing as a universe. It doesn't make any sense to me to stop there, even if we don't believe the math.

I'll say that once thing again. EVERY SINGLE TIME mankind thought that we had a limited living space, time and technology and advanced thinking had shown us that the living space was larger than what was thought before that, and this has all been proved. It's been a progression in knowledge and so far there is no reason to believe that we finally found "IT ALL".

 

I don't know why you are pushing so hard on the word "belief". This is not a requirement.

You can postulate a theory and attempt to support it with evidence.

I can run my own experiments -- if I so desire -- to disprove your theory. I only need one "negative" reproducible result to trash your entire theory, i.e. a result that contradicts your theory.

You, OTHO, need a continuous stream of "positive" results just to support -- but not prove -- your theory. This includes reproduction of your results by independent scientists.

This is the big problem with AGW, for example: it constantly and consistently fails to predict reality. But the believers have turned it into a religion, so there is very little science remaining about the topic.

I choose skepticism over belief. It keeps what remains as science honest.

Hi,

I understand what you are saying and understand why you are saying it, and it does make sense. However, for myself, I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe (and I mean actually believe) that we have found the end of all ends of everything that can possibly exist. Just doesn't follow from history.
You hold on to the current knowledge like it can never be changed, that's the only thing I don't understand, and I know you are not alone in this area and you are not stupid at all. I have to wonder if it is more phycological than scientific. You may feel that science is so rock hard that it gives you something to hold onto. I can only guess here though you might be able to describe it better than I can.
Don't get me wrong though on any of this, we all have our own way of thinking and I think that is good too.

 

I don't think they found any dragons though...

They don't have to. A confirmation of the multiverse is prima facie evidence of the existence of dragons. And everything else you can imagine.

 

I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe (and I mean actually believe) that we have found the end of all ends of everything that can possibly exist.

And what have I said that makes you think I believe this?

I have simply argued that anything outside our light cone is unknowable and unobservable, now and forever.

Aside from that, there are at least infinitely many things that we do not yet know that are fully discoverable -- a minutely small portion of which will be discovered in our lifetimes. These things I look forward to excitedly.

 

However, for myself, I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe (and I mean actually believe) that we have found the end of all ends of everything that can possibly exist.

Who said that?

I have been hoping to see a new discovery in fundamental physics ever since I graduated with my physics degree in 1973. None has come. I still consider it a possibility. That does not mean I believe it will happen in my lifetime.

String theory, dark matter, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, and other things that were speculative then still are now. I actually find that depressing.