4 ms·

Science doesn't prove anything so it's not really relevant to the question of the demarcation line. A theory involving a multiverse can make observable predict

Science doesn't prove anything so it's not really relevant to the question of the demarcation line. A theory involving a multiverse can make observable predictions even if the other regions are not accessible.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Science doesn't prove anything I should have said evidence rather than proof, my mistake. >theory involving a multiverse can make observable predictions even if the other regions are not accessible All those predictions would serve as evidence for the same theory without involving a multiverse.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  The multiverse is not some addon that can be removed easily; it's just another prediction of the theory.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Without an experiment that can show a multiverse, it is just a way to explain the unexplainable. It can be completely discarded and replaced with "for some reason" and any experimental evidence would support the same conclusion.
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      It's not unexplainable if there is an explanation, obviously. "For some reason" is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        > if there is an explanation, obviously One with the same evidence as "god did it." > is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions. This is true of the multiverse too. It is an attempt to explain why things are like they are rather than a testable theory.
        akvadrako 6y ago
        > This is true of the multiverse too. Okay, this is just going in circles. Up above you accepted that multiverse theories did make testable predictions. And they do, which is what makes them science.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        No, I did not. A theory may have includes the idea that the multiverse caused whatever it predicted, but that is not based on anything except the authors fantasy. It is exactly the same as arbitrarily saying god caused something in a theory, an unobserved event we can say has whatever impact on this universe we want without any proof. edit let's use a concrete example. This thread is about the cosmological constant. I could easily say that concept is causes by multiverse influence on this universe, just as rightly I could say it's god's finger on the scales. Neither now have experimental data because I can say that. further edit sorry, this is a bit stuck in my head. Look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Notice that it is labeled a hypothesis, and the theories that involve evidence predict a multiverse may be possible with these conditions.
- lmm 6y ago
  > All those predictions would serve as evidence for the same theory without involving a multiverse. The prediction that objects continue to exist when we're not looking at them is not testable in the same sense (you could even say it's unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific); nevertheless most of us tend to believe in it.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Believing something and it being science are unrelated, my first post mentions I find a multiverse idea likely philosophically.
    - lmm 6y ago
      Well, would you say that the proposition that e.g. Jupiter exists science, or not? I can't reach out and touch it, so I'm only ever going to have indirect evidence for its existence.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Those kind of prepositions are not science. We have experimental evidence showing that a planet we call Jupiter behaves in a certain way, but whether anything exists is a philosophical question. Further, reaching out and touching it would not provide better evidence than we currently have.
        lmm 6y ago
        > We have experimental evidence showing that a planet we call Jupiter behaves in a certain way We have experimental evidence that certain light patterns have been observed. For any theory that has Jupiter in it, you could make the same theory without involving Jupiter. I don't see any fundamental difference between the evidence for Jupiter and the evidence for the multiverse.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>Science doesn't prove anything I should have said evidence rather than proof, my mistake. >theory involving a multiverse can make observable predictions even if the other regions are not accessible All those predictions would serve as evidence for the same theory without involving a multiverse.

akvadrako 6y ago
The multiverse is not some addon that can be removed easily; it's just another prediction of the theory.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Without an experiment that can show a multiverse, it is just a way to explain the unexplainable. It can be completely discarded and replaced with "for some reason" and any experimental evidence would support the same conclusion.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    It's not unexplainable if there is an explanation, obviously. "For some reason" is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      > if there is an explanation, obviously One with the same evidence as "god did it." > is not a theory and it makes no testable predictions. This is true of the multiverse too. It is an attempt to explain why things are like they are rather than a testable theory.
      - akvadrako 6y ago
        > This is true of the multiverse too. Okay, this is just going in circles. Up above you accepted that multiverse theories did make testable predictions. And they do, which is what makes them science.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        No, I did not. A theory may have includes the idea that the multiverse caused whatever it predicted, but that is not based on anything except the authors fantasy. It is exactly the same as arbitrarily saying god caused something in a theory, an unobserved event we can say has whatever impact on this universe we want without any proof. edit let's use a concrete example. This thread is about the cosmological constant. I could easily say that concept is causes by multiverse influence on this universe, just as rightly I could say it's god's finger on the scales. Neither now have experimental data because I can say that. further edit sorry, this is a bit stuck in my head. Look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Notice that it is labeled a hypothesis, and the theories that involve evidence predict a multiverse may be possible with these conditions.
lmm 6y ago
> All those predictions would serve as evidence for the same theory without involving a multiverse. The prediction that objects continue to exist when we're not looking at them is not testable in the same sense (you could even say it's unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific); nevertheless most of us tend to believe in it.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Believing something and it being science are unrelated, my first post mentions I find a multiverse idea likely philosophically.
  - lmm 6y ago
    Well, would you say that the proposition that e.g. Jupiter exists science, or not? I can't reach out and touch it, so I'm only ever going to have indirect evidence for its existence.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Those kind of prepositions are not science. We have experimental evidence showing that a planet we call Jupiter behaves in a certain way, but whether anything exists is a philosophical question. Further, reaching out and touching it would not provide better evidence than we currently have.
      - lmm 6y ago
        > We have experimental evidence showing that a planet we call Jupiter behaves in a certain way We have experimental evidence that certain light patterns have been observed. For any theory that has Jupiter in it, you could make the same theory without involving Jupiter. I don't see any fundamental difference between the evidence for Jupiter and the evidence for the multiverse.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago