Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[gnostic]

You don’t have to test them directly (nor indirectly) all you have to do is find a phenomena that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than any of their competing explanations.

(that would be enough to put the multiverse in “probable” territory)



As an analogy, you don’t have to test that life can come from none life in order to conclude that abiogenesis took place at some point tin the past.

It is a fact that life exist

And postulating abiogenesis is demonstrably a better alternative that say “life in this planet is eternal and has always existed” (implying that there was not a fisrt life)

In other words you don’t have to test and show that abiogenesis is possible, all you have to do is show that abiogenesis (natural or not) is a better explanation than “life has always existed”

So if you find something that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than with any other alternative, then you would have a good solid and scientific case for a multiverse.

I do understand what you are saying about having a good model that explain a particular phenomena, whether the phenomena be that of Abiogenesis or that of the Multiverse...that the explanations be “consistent” and “logical”.

However, to re-quote the last paragraph above, and highlighting the portion I want you focus on - the larger font size portion...

So if you find something that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than with any other alternative, then you would have a good solid AND SCIENTIFIC CASE for a multiverse.

...there is no “scientific” case, because you need to understand what term “scientific” mean.

The term “scientific”, is closely related to 3 other terms: “falsifiable”, “falsifiability”, “falsification”.

What FALSIFIABILITY means, is “the ability to test and to refute” any idea, any concept, any model, any explanation, any prediction, any “potential solution”, etc. Let’s just shorten those “any ...” to just “any model”.

So if you have “no ability to test” model or “no ability to refute” a model, then the model is “unfalsifiable”, and therefore “UNSCIENTIFIC”.

How you would have “the ability to test and to refute” any model: the model of hypothesis or the model within a theory, must contain or include ways (eg instructions) a scientist or team of scientists to test a model, is through “observations”, and the only observations we are talking about in regarding to science, are:

1. EVIDENCE, of which there are two basic ways of obtaining evidence. Examples:
   1. how, where or when to find the evidence in the field,
   2. how to test the model in the laboratory, so the observations would be the experiments, or the test results of experiments.)
2. DATA, are information that you have obtained from the evidence, information like quantities, measurements, the physical properties of the observed phenomena.

So EVIDENCE & DATA are the “testable observations” needed to satisfy the requirements of any model of being “Falsifiable” and the Scientific Method, and therefore “SCIENTIFIC”.

If you have truly read the different models or different versions of Abiogenesis, you would know that “some parts” of Abiogenesis are already falsifiable, because there have already been some evidence and some experiments.

Yes, we already know that “life already exist on Earth”, but that’s not good enough for any Abiogenesis models.

If you actually read these different models to Abiogenesis, they all have 3 or 4 things in common in these different models: every cells contained the following biological macromolecules (which means “large molecules”):

1. PROTEINS, as there 23 different types of amino acids, there are thousands of different combinations of how amino acids can be chain together into some forms of proteins, proteins, to form either tissues or to form enzymes.
2. NUCLEIC ACIDS (eg RNA, DNA), are made of numbers of different types of organic molecules, eg there are 2 types of sugars - ribose sugars to form a single strand or helix of nucleotide, deoxyribose sugar that form double helixes of nucleotide, both RNA & DNA have each 4 different base molecules (or 4 nucleobases) in their respective nucleotides.
3. CARBOHYDRATES, of which there are many types of carbohydrates, and therefore, there are many functions of carbohydrates, which I have already mentioned two of them in nucleic acid examples (ribose & deoxyribose sugars), but the other common purposes or properties of carbohydrates, such as glucose for animals and starch in plants, are the energy sources for sustaining life, or cellulose that form the cell walls of every plants, etc..
4. LIPIDS, have many functions, but molecularly, lipids are made from fatty acids. Lipids often form the membranes, like around the cells, or another common function for lipids are to store energy (carbohydrates).

Abiogenesis isn’t just about the origin of life, but also the origins of any of the biological molecules or compounds (eg amino acids, adenine (one of 5 nucleobase molecules, fatty acids, etc) that make up these 4 essential macromolecules that exist in every cells.

The organic matters that were found in meteorites, or the experiments of Miller and Urey, or that of Jan Oro, demonstrate that Abiogenesis models are falsifiable, but there are actual observations of the evidence.

So, parts of Abiogenesis are already “scientific”. The same cannot be said about any of the models of Multiverse.

Multiverse was actually developed from the earlier models of the Big Bang theory.

Some theoretical physicists (Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Alexei Starobinsky & Paul Steinhardt) try to solve the problems in the early 1980s that exist in the 1948 model of the BB, eg the Flatness problem, the Horizon problem, the problem with there being no magnetic monopole. They each independently developed that own models of the Inflationary model.

Basically, the Inflationary model explain that earlier, within a fraction of second after the Big Bang, the universe underwent exponential expansion, and these models would explain not only the size of the universe, but also how large structures in the universe would form later.

The Multiverse model was developed from this model on cosmic inflation, by Guth and Linde in the early 1990s, but Steinhardt had rejected.

Multiverse only worked theoretically, as in the solutions only exist in the maths, but it cannot be observed.

Abiogenesis fits the bill of being “scientific”, because some parts have already been falsifiable and more importantly tested, but not the Multiverse.

You need to understand what they mean by scientific.

It is more than explanations being solid; scientific is about the explanations being testable and falsifiable.

 

[Wandering Monk]

One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.

Is Multiverse “possible”?

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Science only accept what is “probable”, because there are evidence available to show concept agree with natural reality.

And yet, Multiverse is very popular, especially among sci-fi novelists, comic book authors and sci-fi filmmakers or tv series producers.

AND THERE LIES MY REAL PROBLEM with the Multiverse.

The problem is where people can confuse the actual Multiverse models with sci-fi stories.

And among the confusions Sci-Fi authors and film or tv makers cause, is that they mixed Multiverse with fictional alternate reality or parallel universe.

The Multiverse plus alternate reality, will have people believing that it is possible to reach the other universe through some sorts of portals like mirrors or the even more popular, wormholes.

Like Multiverse, wormhole is still only hypothetical and theoretical concepts; there are still no evidence for the existence of wormhole. But in comics and sci-fi, wormholes do exist, but these are fictions, not reality.

By mixing parallel universe with Multiverse, comic book and sci-fi creators will have people believing in the entertaining but unrealistic stories that there are infinite numbers of the “other” you in the other -verses. This is pure fiction.

The problem with these fictions, fascinating as they are, it would make naive people believing in the fiction, and not understanding what the Multiverse models actually say.

Democritus, and ancient Greek philosopher first suggested the possibility of atoms 2500 years ago. It took that long to actually see one. Sometimes we just have to wait for the tools. Development of the Atmoic Theory

 

[Wandering Monk]

Professor Brian Cox, physicist at the University of Manchester has suggested the possibility that there may be older universes than ours, but their distance from us is such that their light has not reached us yet.

 

[gnostic]

Democritus, and ancient Greek philosopher first suggested the possibility of atoms 2500 years ago. It took that long to actually see one. Sometimes we just have to wait for the tools. Development of the Atmoic Theory

I haven't dismiss Multiverse, yet...and I am willing to wait as long as it need be, because I know that discoveries can take time.

But here's the thing, there are no possible ways to test something like the Multiverse.

As the universe is already immeasurably large, it is already difficult enough to explore the universe, as there are still many mysteries that we don't know.

So unless science is able to seek out the way to traverse between one universe to another or even to detect some other universes, Multiverse would most likely stuck as theoretical models, or just be downgraded purely speculative philosophy.

The only people reaping the benefits of Mulltiverse are sci-fi authors and producers of sci-fi tv or films. And that's why I started the thread in the first place. I want people to understand to not confuse the Multiverse models with that of fictions in novels, comics and movies/tv series, as they tends to distort the theoretical Multiverse models.

 

[metis]

Professor Brian Cox, physicist at the University of Manchester has suggested the possibility that there may be older universes than ours, but their distance from us is such that their light has not reached us yet.

And it may never reach us if the multiverse were to be expanding.

 

[leroy]

I do understand what you are saying about having a good model that explain a particular phenomena, whether the phenomena be that of Abiogenesis or that of the Multiverse...that the explanations be “consistent” and “logical”.

However, to re-quote the last paragraph above, and highlighting the portion I want you focus on - the larger font size portion...



...there is no “scientific” case, because you need to understand what term “scientific” mean.

The term “scientific”, is closely related to 3 other terms: “falsifiable”, “falsifiability”, “falsification”.

What FALSIFIABILITY means, is “the ability to test and to refute” any idea, any concept, any model, any explanation, any prediction, any “potential solution”, etc. Let’s just shorten those “any ...” to just “any model”.

So if you have “no ability to test” model or “no ability to refute” a model, then the model is “unfalsifiable”, and therefore “UNSCIENTIFIC”.

How you would have “the ability to test and to refute” any model: the model of hypothesis or the model within a theory, must contain or include ways (eg instructions) a scientist or team of scientists to test a model, is through “observations”, and the only observations we are talking about in regarding to science, are:

1. EVIDENCE, of which there are two basic ways of obtaining evidence. Examples:
   1. how, where or when to find the evidence in the field,
   2. how to test the model in the laboratory, so the observations would be the experiments, or the test results of experiments.)
2. DATA, are information that you have obtained from the evidence, information like quantities, measurements, the physical properties of the observed phenomena.

So EVIDENCE & DATA are the “testable observations” needed to satisfy the requirements of any model of being “Falsifiable” and the Scientific Method, and therefore “SCIENTIFIC”.

If you have truly read the different models or different versions of Abiogenesis, you would know that “some parts” of Abiogenesis are already falsifiable, because there have already been some evidence and some experiments.

Yes, we already know that “life already exist on Earth”, but that’s not good enough for any Abiogenesis models.

If you actually read these different models to Abiogenesis, they all have 3 or 4 things in common in these different models: every cells contained the following biological macromolecules (which means “large molecules”):

1. PROTEINS, as there 23 different types of amino acids, there are thousands of different combinations of how amino acids can be chain together into some forms of proteins, proteins, to form either tissues or to form enzymes.
2. NUCLEIC ACIDS (eg RNA, DNA), are made of numbers of different types of organic molecules, eg there are 2 types of sugars - ribose sugars to form a single strand or helix of nucleotide, deoxyribose sugar that form double helixes of nucleotide, both RNA & DNA have each 4 different base molecules (or 4 nucleobases) in their respective nucleotides.
3. CARBOHYDRATES, of which there are many types of carbohydrates, and therefore, there are many functions of carbohydrates, which I have already mentioned two of them in nucleic acid examples (ribose & deoxyribose sugars), but the other common purposes or properties of carbohydrates, such as glucose for animals and starch in plants, are the energy sources for sustaining life, or cellulose that form the cell walls of every plants, etc..
4. LIPIDS, have many functions, but molecularly, lipids are made from fatty acids. Lipids often form the membranes, like around the cells, or another common function for lipids are to store energy (carbohydrates).

Abiogenesis isn’t just about the origin of life, but also the origins of any of the biological molecules or compounds (eg amino acids, adenine (one of 5 nucleobase molecules, fatty acids, etc) that make up these 4 essential macromolecules that exist in every cells.

The organic matters that were found in meteorites, or the experiments of Miller and Urey, or that of Jan Oro, demonstrate that Abiogenesis models are falsifiable, but there are actual observations of the evidence.

So, parts of Abiogenesis are already “scientific”. The same cannot be said about any of the models of Multiverse.

Multiverse was actually developed from the earlier models of the Big Bang theory.

Some theoretical physicists (Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Alexei Starobinsky & Paul Steinhardt) try to solve the problems in the early 1980s that exist in the 1948 model of the BB, eg the Flatness problem, the Horizon problem, the problem with there being no magnetic monopole. They each independently developed that own models of the Inflationary model.

Basically, the Inflationary model explain that earlier, within a fraction of second after the Big Bang, the universe underwent exponential expansion, and these models would explain not only the size of the universe, but also how large structures in the universe would form later.

The Multiverse model was developed from this model on cosmic inflation, by Guth and Linde in the early 1990s, but Steinhardt had rejected.

Multiverse only worked theoretically, as in the solutions only exist in the maths, but it cannot be observed.

Abiogenesis fits the bill of being “scientific”, because some parts have already been falsifiable and more importantly tested, but not the Multiverse.

You need to understand what they mean by scientific.

It is more than explanations being solid; scientific is about the explanations being testable and falsifiable.

It's hard to understand why did you wrote all that stuff as if you where correcting me, I don't disagree with any of your words about what "scientific means"


All I said is that in principle you could have a scientific case in favor of a multiverse, even if you can test them directly

All you have to do is find a phenomena that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than with any other competing explanation.


My point that the multiverse is not as unreachable as the op made it seem. ..... there many possible discoveries that would make a multiverse more or less likely to be true. It doesn't seem to me an unsolvable problem.

I do understand what you are saying about having a good model that explain a particular phenomena, whether the phenomena be that of Abiogenesis or that of the Multiverse...that the explanations be “consistent” and “logical”.

However, to re-quote the last paragraph above, and highlighting the portion I want you focus on - the larger font size portion...



...there is no “scientific” case, because you need to understand what term “scientific” mean.

The term “scientific”, is closely related to 3 other terms: “falsifiable”, “falsifiability”, “falsification”.

What FALSIFIABILITY means, is “the ability to test and to refute” any idea, any concept, any model, any explanation, any prediction, any “potential solution”, etc. Let’s just shorten those “any ...” to just “any model”.

So if you have “no ability to test” model or “no ability to refute” a model, then the model is “unfalsifiable”, and therefore “UNSCIENTIFIC”.

How you would have “the ability to test and to refute” any model: the model of hypothesis or the model within a theory, must contain or include ways (eg instructions) a scientist or team of scientists to test a model, is through “observations”, and the only observations we are talking about in regarding to science, are:

1. EVIDENCE, of which there are two basic ways of obtaining evidence. Examples:
   1. how, where or when to find the evidence in the field,
   2. how to test the model in the laboratory, so the observations would be the experiments, or the test results of experiments.)
2. DATA, are information that you have obtained from the evidence, information like quantities, measurements, the physical properties of the observed phenomena.

So EVIDENCE & DATA are the “testable observations” needed to satisfy the requirements of any model of being “Falsifiable” and the Scientific Method, and therefore “SCIENTIFIC”.

If you have truly read the different models or different versions of Abiogenesis, you would know that “some parts” of Abiogenesis are already falsifiable, because there have already been some evidence and some experiments.

Yes, we already know that “life already exist on Earth”, but that’s not good enough for any Abiogenesis models.

If you actually read these different models to Abiogenesis, they all have 3 or 4 things in common in these different models: every cells contained the following biological macromolecules (which means “large molecules”):

1. PROTEINS, as there 23 different types of amino acids, there are thousands of different combinations of how amino acids can be chain together into some forms of proteins, proteins, to form either tissues or to form enzymes.
2. NUCLEIC ACIDS (eg RNA, DNA), are made of numbers of different types of organic molecules, eg there are 2 types of sugars - ribose sugars to form a single strand or helix of nucleotide, deoxyribose sugar that form double helixes of nucleotide, both RNA & DNA have each 4 different base molecules (or 4 nucleobases) in their respective nucleotides.
3. CARBOHYDRATES, of which there are many types of carbohydrates, and therefore, there are many functions of carbohydrates, which I have already mentioned two of them in nucleic acid examples (ribose & deoxyribose sugars), but the other common purposes or properties of carbohydrates, such as glucose for animals and starch in plants, are the energy sources for sustaining life, or cellulose that form the cell walls of every plants, etc..
4. LIPIDS, have many functions, but molecularly, lipids are made from fatty acids. Lipids often form the membranes, like around the cells, or another common function for lipids are to store energy (carbohydrates).

Abiogenesis isn’t just about the origin of life, but also the origins of any of the biological molecules or compounds (eg amino acids, adenine (one of 5 nucleobase molecules, fatty acids, etc) that make up these 4 essential macromolecules that exist in every cells.

The organic matters that were found in meteorites, or the experiments of Miller and Urey, or that of Jan Oro, demonstrate that Abiogenesis models are falsifiable, but there are actual observations of the evidence.

So, parts of Abiogenesis are already “scientific”. The same cannot be said about any of the models of Multiverse.

Multiverse was actually developed from the earlier models of the Big Bang theory.

Some theoretical physicists (Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Alexei Starobinsky & Paul Steinhardt) try to solve the problems in the early 1980s that exist in the 1948 model of the BB, eg the Flatness problem, the Horizon problem, the problem with there being no magnetic monopole. They each independently developed that own models of the Inflationary model.

Basically, the Inflationary model explain that earlier, within a fraction of second after the Big Bang, the universe underwent exponential expansion, and these models would explain not only the size of the universe, but also how large structures in the universe would form later.

The Multiverse model was developed from this model on cosmic inflation, by Guth and Linde in the early 1990s, but Steinhardt had rejected.

 

[gnostic]

It's hard to understand why did you wrote all that stuff as if you where correcting me, I don't disagree with any of your words about what "scientific means"


All I said is that in principle you could have a scientific case in favor of a multiverse, even if you can test them directly

All you have to do is find a phenomena that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than with any other competing explanation.

The point, I am trying to convey to you, is that the Multiverse is more "theoretical" than "scientific".

The "theoretical" means the explanation of potential solution, rely a lot on mathematics, hence equations.

OTH, "scientific" rely on explanations & predictions that are falsifiable & testable, and therefore ultimately being to test the explanations & predictions in compliance with the Scientific Method.

The point is that what you claimed "then you would have a good solid and scientific case for a multiverse", is not true...yet.

A good solid scientific case would only be truly "solid" if there were actual observable evidence for Multiverse, which don't exist yet.

 

[leroy]

The point is that what you claimed "then you would have a good solid and scientific case for a multiverse", is not true...yet.

Agree

A good solid scientific case would only be truly "solid" if there were actual observable evidence for Multiverse, which don't exist yet.

Disagree, observable evidence would be nice, but not necessary.


100 years ago one could make a solid scienfic case for aboogebesis.

All you have to do is stablish the only 2 possibilities

1 life had an origin (therefore abiogenesis)

2 life is eternal (has always existed)

Scientific evidence shows that 2 is highly unlikely..... therefore 1 most be true.

In principle you could do something similar with a multiverse youbfont need observations

 

[gnostic]

Disagree, observable evidence would be nice, but not necessary.

There it is...a typical science-illiterate “creationist” response.

If evidence are not necessary, then no models would be “science”.

The explanations of any hypothesis or existing theory could be weak or wrong, and the only ways to determine that, are with evidence.

Maths alone, don’t make the explanations of any hypothesis or any theory, “science”. The maths could be wrong, and the only way to determine if the equations are correct or incorrect, are with evidence.

A new hypothesis must succeed in the TESTING part of Scientific Method (eg evidence or experiments, and the data, are observations needed to test the hypothesis), before you know whether evidence support the hypothesis or refute the hypothesis,

Do you know what is worse than the evidence refuting a falsifiable hypothesis?

The worse thing that can happen, if there are no way to test the hypothesis, as in there are zero evidence. That would mean the concept or model is unfalsifiable, which essentially means the model is untestable.

Unfalsifiable models don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”.

Without evidence, any idea, concept or claim would fail the testing process of the Scientific Method, therefore it can be dismissed.

The only advice I would give you if you presented unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated model, is throw it in the trash can...or better, yet flush it down the toilet.

And do you what unfalsifiable? Anything to do with supernatural. And supernatural would include believing in magic or magical beings (eg spirits, deities, demons, fairies, etc).

Intelligent Design would be an example of unfalsifiable concept, because there are no way to test the so-called Designer.

You cannot observe or detect a Designer any more than could with the leprechaun. You cannot quantify or measure the Designer.

Sorry, Leroy, but you have just exposed how very little you understand as to what constituted as “science”.

Only a creationist would say evidence are not necessary in science.

 

[leroy]

There it is...a typical science-illiterate “creationist” response.

If evidence are not necessary, then no models would be “science”.

The explanations of any hypothesis or existing theory could be weak or wrong, and the only ways to determine that, are with evidence.

Maths alone, don’t make the explanations of any hypothesis or any theory, “science”. The maths could be wrong, and the only way to determine if the equations are correct or incorrect, are with evidence.

A new hypothesis must succeed in the TESTING part of Scientific Method (eg evidence or experiments, and the data, are observations needed to test the hypothesis), before you know whether evidence support the hypothesis or refute the hypothesis,

Do you know what is worse than the evidence refuting a falsifiable hypothesis?

The worse thing that can happen, if there are no way to test the hypothesis, as in there are zero evidence. That would mean the concept or model is unfalsifiable, which essentially means the model is untestable.

Unfalsifiable models don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”.

Without evidence, any idea, concept or claim would fail the testing process of the Scientific Method, therefore it can be dismissed.

The only advice I would give you if you presented unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated model, is throw it in the trash can...or better, yet flush it down the toilet.

And do you what unfalsifiable? Anything to do with supernatural. And supernatural would include believing in magic or magical beings (eg spirits, deities, demons, fairies, etc).

Intelligent Design would be an example of unfalsifiable concept, because there are no way to test the so-called Designer.

You cannot observe or detect a Designer any more than could with the leprechaun. You cannot quantify or measure the Designer.

Sorry, Leroy, but you have just exposed how very little you understand as to what constituted as “science”.

Only a creationist would say evidence are not necessary in science.

..

There it is...a typical science-illiterate “creationist” response.

And here is a typical Atheist response,

“a whole bunch of straw man and irrelevant stuff that have nothing to do instead of actually refuting (or granting) my actual argument. “

I never said that you can/should accept something without evidnce. I said "that you dont need observable evidence" implying that you dont need direct testing

I said that you can accept something without direct testing. All you have to do is refute all the alternative hypothesis,

If there is conclusive evidence against all the other hypothesis, (or good reasons to reject them) you can accept your proposed hypothesis.,



I even gave an example.

Hypotheiss:

1 Life came in to existence at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

These are the only 2 possible alternatives

So if you conclusively refute the alternative hypothesis, you can grant your hypotheis and assume is true, even if you don’t have any direct observations or tests that validate your hypothesis. … in other words refuting the alternative hypothesis would count as conclusive evidence for your hypothesis.

Given that based on the current scientific evidence, the alternative hypothesis is obviously wrong , your hypothesis must be true. (you don’t need direct testing)

You may or may not agree, but please address my actual argument, not your dishonest strwaman version of what I actually said.

If you claim that I am wrong, or if you disagree, please quote my actual words and examplain why y you think I am wrong. quote my actual words.

 

[gnostic]

..


And here is a typical Atheist response,

“a whole bunch of straw man and irrelevant stuff that have nothing to do instead of actually refuting (or granting) my actual argument. “

I never said that you can/should accept something without evidnce.

I said that you can accept something without direct testing. All you have to do is refute all the alternative hypothesis,

If there is conclusive evidence against all the other hypothesis, (or good reasons to reject them) you can accept your proposed hypothesis.,



I even gave an example.

Hypotheiss:

1 Life came in to existence at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

These are the only 2 possible alternatives

So if you conclusively refute the alternative hypothesis, you can grant your hypotheis and assume is true, even if you don’t have any direct observations or tests that validate your hypothesis. … in other words refuting the alternative hypothesis would count as conclusive evidence for your hypothesis.

Given that based on the current scientific evidence, the alternative hypothesis is obviously wrong , your hypothesis must be true. (you don’t need direct testing)

You may or may not agree, but please address my actual argument, not your dishonest strwaman version of what I actually said.

If you claim that I am wrong, or if you disagree, please quote my actual words and examplain why y you think I am wrong. quote my actual words.

Actually, each hypothesis would have their own explanations and predictions, therefore they must be each tested alone, and not against all other (alternative) hypotheses.

That’s what you not understanding.

Let’s say there are 4 different hypotheses, A, B, C & D. Then scientist in C hypothesis discovered evidence, then that evidence would be used to test against hypothesis C alone, and not for hypotheses A, B & D.

To give you more illustrative examples. Let say, you are a biologist who specialized in brown bears, and discovered possibly new species of brown bears that have different bone structures of jaw and how the legs joined to pelvis that are different from the pelvis of all other known brown bears.

Then you wouldn’t be comparing human jaw or human pelvis against those of either of the 2 species of brown bears, because humans and brown bears are unrelated mammals.

Do you understand that?


Each hypotheses should be tested on their own merits.

And more importantly, refuting one hypothesis, doesn't verify & validate the other hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

Actually, each hypothesis would have their own explanations and predictions, therefore they must be each tested alone, and not against all other (alternative) hypotheses.

That’s what you not understanding.

Let’s say there are 4 different hypotheses, A, B, C & D. Then scientist in C hypothesis discovered evidence, then that evidence would be used to test against hypothesis C alone, and not for hypotheses A, B & D.

One wonders, why do you keep ignoring my argument?


What I am suggesting is:
1 you have hypothesis A B C D

2 these are the only 4 alternatives that are possible.

3 you present good conclusive evidence against A B C

4 therefore you have good reasons to afirm D even if D cant be tested. Directly.


So pleas deal with my actual argument, please ether agree or refute my argument.

To give you more illustrative examples. Let say, you are a biologist who specialized in brown bears, and discovered possibly new species of brown bears that have different bone structures of jaw and how the legs joined to pelvis that are different from the pelvis of all other known brown bears.

Then you wouldn’t be comparing human jaw or human pelvis against those of either of the 2 species of brown bears, because humans and brown bears are unrelated mammals.

Do you understand that?

"Do you understand that?"

No, I do not understand your point

Each hypotheses should be tested on their own merits.

And more importantly, refuting one hypothesis, doesn't verify & validate the other hypothesis.

Yes refuting one hypothesis, makes all other alternatives more likelly to be true.

If the doctor tests and shows conclusivley that your symptoms are not being caused by virus , then the bacteria hypothesis becomes more likely to be true, than before the tests


If virus and bacteria are the only 2 realistic possibilities for your symptoms, then the test that refutes the "virus hypothesis" automatically proves with high degree of certainty that the bacteria hypothesis is true.

You obviously agree, but you dont have the intelectual honesty to admit it.

 

[gnostic]

Yes refuting one hypothesis, makes all other alternatives more likelly to be true.

No. You are still making same as every other creationists, and that why every creationists are ignorant and incompetent in natural sciences.

As I keep telling you refuting one hypothesis don’t automatically verify the other hypotheses.

Each hypothesis has its own explanatory model, it’s own predictive model and it’s own mathematical model…therefore it must be TESTED SEPARATELY!

Each individual hypothesis must be tested separately and independently from other alternatives. A failure of one hypothesis don’t automatically verify & validate all others.

You are not thinking logically, Leroy?

What would happen should all alternative hypotheses failed too? Have you thought of that?

 

[shunyadragon]

No. You are still making same as every other creationists, and that why every creationists are ignorant and incompetent in natural sciences.

As I keep telling you refuting one hypothesis don’t automatically verify the other hypotheses.

Each hypothesis has its own explanatory model, it’s own predictive model and it’s own mathematical model…therefore it must be TESTED SEPARATELY!

Each individual hypothesis must be tested separately and independently from other alternatives. A failure of one hypothesis don’t automatically verify & validate all others.

You are not thinking logically, Leroy?

What would happen should all alternative hypotheses failed too? Have you thought of that?

I will present an alternative to support of both the hypothesis for Abiogenesis and the Multiverse. Yes there is no direct evidence for the existence of the Multiverse, and there is a great deal of evidence for abiogenesis, but both hypothesis have their problems. Both hypothesis have only one observed occurrence. The only abiogenesis we have evidence for is the origins of life on our earth. For the Multiverse we have only one universe to observe objective evidence to falsify the hypothesis. Yes all we have at present for the possible existence of other universes based on a sound math model. Yes both hypothesis have the weakness of the lack of any objective evidence for another planet with life or another universe,

I support both hypothesis as supported by an objective working model to support the hypothesis, and like all scientific theories and hypothesis the predictability and consistence of the nature of our universe. and the abiogenesis of life supports both. Yes they are tested separately by the same Methodological Naturalism.

By the way considering the evidence we have for both Abiogenesis and the Multiverse we presently lack any alternative viable hypothesis that fits the evidence.

It is true the dishonest outrageous selective objections to one theory or hypothesis based on an ancient religious agenda has no place in science today.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. You are still making same as every other creationists, and that why every creationists are ignorant and incompetent in natural sciences.

As I keep telling you refuting one hypothesis don’t automatically verify the other hypotheses.

Each hypothesis has its own explanatory model, it’s own predictive model and it’s own mathematical model…therefore it must be TESTED SEPARATELY!

Each individual hypothesis must be tested separately and independently from other alternatives. A failure of one hypothesis don’t automatically verify & validate all others.

You are not thinking logically, Leroy?

What would happen should all alternative hypotheses failed too? Have you thought of that?

Just wondering what you think is a creationist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just wondering what you think is a creationist.

There are. of course , different definitions. The broader definition is one who believes in a Theistic God that Created everything, Some Creationists accept the scientific evolution and nature of our physical existence, as how Gg Created our physical existence, life and humanity ae Ca;;ed Theistic Evolutionists or TE. Many Creationists, like you. reject science and choose to believe in a variation of a literal Biblical written record Some believe in a strict literal Biblical Creation of maybe 6,000 to maybe 19,000 years known as YEC Others stretch the Biblical record for a Creation millions if not billions of years..

Threads like these most often deal with Creationists that in some way reject science in favor of a Biblical version in one way or another.

 

[shunyadragon]

..


And here is a typical Atheist response,

First it is best to understand that atheism is philosophical/Theological belief. It has nothing to do with the scientific knowledge of evolution and the history of our physical existence, Science cannot support either the beliefs of atheists or Theists.

“a whole bunch of straw man and irrelevant stuff that have nothing to do instead of actually refuting (or granting) my actual argument. “

I never said that you can/should accept something without evidnce. I said "that you dont need observable evidence" implying that you dont need direct testing

I said that you can accept something without direct testing. All you have to do is refute all the alternative hypothesis,

If there is conclusive evidence against all the other hypothesis, (or good reasons to reject them) you can accept your proposed hypothesis.,

Though some sort of hypothesis, predictions, math models, and objective verifiable evidence is needed. Though hypothesis nay only be falsified, maybe rejected, replaced or modified over time

I even gave an example.

Hypotheiss:

1 Life came in to existence at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

These are the only 2 possible alternatives.

Poor example, because the second example cannot be falsified as the first can. We actually know scientifically a time on earth when no life existed, and can date the beginning of life on earth.

There are at present no alternative hypothesis that can be tested by scientific methods.

 

[leroy]

Poor example, because the second example cannot be falsified as the first can. We actually know scientifically a time on earth when no life existed, and can date the beginning of life on earth.

There are at present no alternative hypothesis that can be tested by scientific methods.

--
I woudl say it is the opposite


Hypotheiss:

1 Life came in to existence at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

These are the only 2 possible alternatives.

the hypotheis is impossible to test or falsify

but given that the alternative hypothesis is wrong and can be proven to be wrong, one can and shoulld accept the hypotheis.

 

[ratiocinator]

I even gave an example.

Hypotheiss:

1 Life came in to existence at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

Scientifically, this is a bit of a no-brainer. Every single bit of evidence suggests that life requires certain conditions to survive, that there was no life on Earth before a specific point, and we know of no other life elsewhere.

Now, it's not against the evidence that life before that point did exist elsewhere, or even that it got to Earth from elsewhere, but the idea that it existed before the necessary elements were even present in the universe (before the first stellar nucleosynthesis) is, according to all the evidence we have about life, impossible. Therefore your 'hypothesis' 2, can be dismissed. It would rely totally on blind faith in some completely different form of life, for which we have no evidence at all, and would also, incidentally, require time to be infinite in the past direction too - something that is far from certain.

ETA: I should perhaps add, that you might posit that, if time is finite in the past, then it's still logically possible for life to have 'always existed' (there was no point in time at which it didn't exist) but that doesn't make it eternal, and also requires blind faith in a form of life for which we have zero evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Poor example, because the second example cannot be falsified as the first can. We actually know scientifically a time on earth when no life existed, and can date the beginning of life on earth.

There are at present no alternative hypothesis that can be tested by scientific methods.

--
I woudl say it is the opposite


Hypotheiss:

1 Life came in to existence at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

These are the only 2 possible alternatives.

the hypotheis is impossible to test or falsify

but given that the alternative hypothesis is wrong and can be proven to be wrong, one can and shoulld accept the hypotheis.

We know of know vertebrates that have crawl on dry land until species of the lobe-finned fishes (the taxon class Sarcopterygii), eg the tiktaaliks. The earliest tetrapod amphibians evolved from one of these earlier lobe-finned fishes. This divergence of amphibians from fishes occurred sometimes during the Devonian period.

Prior to the earliest known bony fishes, marine and aquatic invertebrates animals exist as early as the Ediacaran period. Prior to the Ediacaran, the most dominant organisms for billions of years, were bacteria and archaea.

The oldest fossil evidence of life were discovered among the earliest fossilized stromatolites, in Western Australia. Some of these microfossils were as old 3.7 billion years old.

These earlier bacteria are not like those today. Today, bacteria can exist in both abiotic and biotic environments, but prior to 2.6 billion years ago, all bacteria could only lived in abiotic environments, atmosphere with no free oxygen; the air prior to the Great Oxygenated Event, were mainly carbon dioxide and methane.
My points are that bacterial fossils found among these ancient stromatolites are the oldest evidence (so far) of microorganisms, predating the oldest marine (invertebrate) animals (Ediacaran period), by 3 billion years.

Prior to the earliest bacteria, there were no evidence that life existed before them.

So that make your 2nd “alternative” hypothesis, not true, not that I would even qualify as a hypothesis, as hypothesis required more detailed explanations and at least some sorts of preliminary observations of evidence.

This:

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

...isn’t falsifiable, therefore it cannot even be called a hypothesis.