Re: Today's blogs 2

Glenn,
Current demonstrable scientific predictions begin 10^-43 s after the Big
Bang. This does not mean that anything presumable earlier is not
scientific, only that the science has not yet been confirmed. The same
holds for the Higgs boson. It has not been detected where some
theoretical considerations place it. But this does not mean that there is
no such particle or that the theory has to be dumped in favor of
something new. It may be that the theory needs to be tweaked to predict a
heavier particle, or that a new parameter needs to be considered. I note
that the search goes on. What a GUT requires has not yet been determined.
If I adopted your claim, string theory and M-theory would be outside the
bounds of science, as would probably be events falling under
deterministic chaos. But what is not yet testable does not have to be
metaphysical rather than scientific. I think you occupy an extreme
position.

There is a different problem exemplified in your insistence on absolute
biblical accuracy and passing over my note on coneys (hyrax) and hares.
Please put the pieces together.
Dave

On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:03:23 -0400 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:

The multiverse is NOT science, it is extrascientific. It postulates an
infinitude of unobserved entities. There is no way we can actually take a
peek at one of these other universes to know if it really exists. This
is why the ASA is so impotent. They can't even see metaphysics when it
strikes them in the face.

If I am wrong, please tell me one test which can be run to tell if there
are other universes? ONe observational experimentum crucis? The
situation is this. The most widely accepted theory of particle physics
predicts that there is a multiverse. But, that theory has yet to see the
Higgs boson, it has yet to confirm the existence of the Higgs field,
which is essential if the present theories of the multiverse is to have
any chance of working because inflation requires the Higgs field.

Why is it, when we Christians postulate one unobserved entity, God, it is
called religion, but when others postulate an infinitude of unobserved
entities, it is called science? In order to avoid making waves with
naturalism, you would allow them the freedom to postulate as many
unobserved and in principle unobservable entities as they want, but you
then turn around and say that postulating one God is outside of science.
What inconsistency.

The present theory of the multiverse requires that there be
extradimensions to the universe. This is a necessary but not a
sufficient cause for the multiverse to actually exist. ARe you aware
that every experiment aimed at confirming the NECESSARY condition has
failed? There is zero, nada, leeng (chinese), zippo, and no evidence of
extradimensionality coming out of any experiments so far.
Received on Wed May 25 15:27:14 2005