Hi lliMonster, appreciate your imput.
This don't seem quite right. For instance, the "Many-Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is just that...an interpretation of quantum mechanical results. Not a prediction of what results we should expect from quantum mechanics. The results we have and some of them are problematic and weren't predicted. Specifically problems of measurement. The interpretation is an attempt to resolve the problems.
Quantum mechanics didn't predict the multiverse. The multiverse is an attempt (an interpretation) at resolving the results quantum mechanics seem to give us.
I didn't speak about that. The example I gave was inflation theory.
As for the many-worlds interpretation,... I'ld call that an indirect prediction.
It's still not a hypothesis that exists on its own. Instead, it's quantum mechanics itself that "suggests" a multi-verse as plausible, since that resolves certain problems it has.
And it's not patchwork either, since quantum mechanics is very real.
String theory is another story in that respect. String theory is no more or less then a math model that attempts to marry models that seem rather incompatible.
As Lawrence Krauss once put it: "
At present this is untestable. And until it is, I'ld say it's no more or less then intellectual masturbation".
Actually in this case it is.
It's not. It's an idea physicist have been
driven to.
Some of them, kicking and screaming.
Many don't like the multi-verse model because they would prefer something simpler and more elegant. They don't like the fact that assuming it, resolves those issues in quantum mechanics.
But it is what it is.
String theory as well and inflationary cosmology. It may be argued that all three of these popular theories involving a multiverse are interpretations of observations not inevitable outcomes of mathematical certainty.
No theory is a "mathematical certainty".
As a matter of fact, the proposition of including multiverses or worlds only increases the probabilistic complexities of the theory with undetectable, untestable, assumptions.
No. It rather is a case of "
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... maybe you should consider the idea that it actually is a duck..."
You cannot make a meaningful prediction about something that is untestable and or unverifiable...
I just explained to you with an overly simplified analogy how that isn't true.
If you have a theory that makes 20 predictions, 19 of which are testable and 1 isn't, and all the 19 predictions check out when tested, then it's not unreasonable to assume that untestable prediction nr 20 is at least extremely plausible.
You might make a claim like, my theory claims that because A may be true then B is inevitably the case since A requires B to be true.
The problem is none of the theories prove A to be true by proving all other cases to be false
It rather is a case of having theory A that makes predictions X, Y and Z while only Z is untestable.
If A is actually correct, then X, Y and Z are also the case.
Since in science a theory can not be "proven", only supported... one would have to support it by succesfully testing the predictions. In this case, that would be X and Y.
If they check out, we call the theory confirmed / likely / plausible. Which makes Z confirmed / likely / plausible by extension.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be an insult or not?
Not at all.
We are dealing with extremely spooky, unintuitive and complex issues.
To get to the crux of the point, it is always a good idea to oversimplify it with an analogy to get the point accross.
Not an insult at all. Just an attempt at making the point very clear.
I think there's a flaw in your logic.
As I see it, If A is bigger than B then A and B have to be falsifiable in their relationship. In other words A has to be demonstrably bigger than B and B smaller than A. In the same manner to demonstrate that C is smaller than B and B larger than C the proposition would have to be falsifiable. And in order to connect A to C as a logical outcome of larger to smaller the aforementioned relationship between B and C would have to be established since the relationship of C to A cannot be established directly.
The problem is that C's relationship to B and therefore to A as well is unfalsifiable. We cant measure C to see how big it is or test C to see if it is even predictably relatable to either A or B....to put it in simplistic terms. lol
Sorry, I'm not going to start debating an analogy to the point where it loses all meaning.
Clearly my overly simplistic analogy failed to miss the mark.
Nevermind. I think I made it clear above anyway what I mean.
."Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrass Tyson
As I see it...The tools and methods of science only reveal what we perceive reality to be. Not what reality is.
You are wrong about that.
We don't perceive radioactivity.
We don't perceive infra red.
We don't perceive relativity of time.
We don't perceive quantum mechanics.
We don't perceive particle physics.
We don't perceive magnetic fields.
Etc.
None of these things would be known to us if it wasn't for the tools and methods of science.
