4 ms·
>If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not
by hnarn 9y ago
>If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not
This literally contradicts what the first paragraph of the article. It says that this paper "lays the theoretical groundwork for discovering a parallel universe". If you've discovered it, you've tested and proved that it exists.
Furthermore, the article states that it's a "mathematical paper which seeks proof of the 'multiverse' theory". Assume for a second that there is mathematical proof of the multiverse theory. In order to disprove this, you now need to disprove the math.
- ajuc 9y agoThere cannot be a mathematical proof of a physical fact. You can have infinite number of theories that are all mathematically correct, yet contradict each other. You need data from experiments to falsify the wrong ones. And I think that's why the article means - paper shows what experiment needs to be done to falsify some theories that assume multiverse.
- adrianN 9y agoTechnically you might be able to do a proof by exclusion if you can show that only one of all the possible theories is sound and consistent.
- wallace_f 9y agoI can personally assure you that String Theory is mathematically robust, and the only sound and consistent TOE; and as all other TOEs are excluded, therefore String Theory must be, and just has, been proven.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nahumfarchi 9y agoIsn't it the other way around? You start out with assumptions and a model (which usually involves some math), and then you show that you've made the correct assumptions by empirically testing it. You can't prove something in the mathematical sense about physical reality.
- akvadrako 9y agoOf course you can; if you prove, given the indirect evidence, it's the only possibility.
- davrosthedalek 9y agoYou have to prove that math actually maps to reality. I don't think you can do that. With the possibility that it's all a simulation, our universe doesn't even have to be consistent.
- akvadrako 9y agoWhy not just simplify your whole position to "you can never prove anything"?
- davrosthedalek 9y agoIn Physics, this might be true, at least for generalizations (I can prove to myself that I currently write this text, for suitable definitions of "I, write, text". I might not be able to prove it to you.). In Math, it's not.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoIn physics it's absolutely true. You can only disprove theories. You can never prove them. In math it's relatively true, because you can only prove theorems given a set of axioms and other assumptions you take as true.
- davrosthedalek 9y agoIn math, this is fine, as long as you can show that your assumptions are consistent. If you disprove something in physics, you at the same time prove the negative of the something. Of course the negative of a theory is not really a theory by itself.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]