Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

If multiverses are "beyond observation and testing", do they qualify to be called scientific theories.  I have no problem if they are called hypothesis, but if they do make predictions that are untestable, then the door opens for pseudoscience to also make such claims. Of course, direct observations are not a requirement as long as the inference from indirect observational evidence is strong.  Black holes, for instance, are not directly observable.  Do any of these "theories" offer indirect observational evidence?  If so, then perhaps my view is too strong against them.  Coope ----- Original Message ---- From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> To: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> Cc: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>; asa@calvin.edu Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2008 1:33:25 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All The fact is that multiverses is a logical outcome and prediction of the various cosmological models involved. (Level I: (Open multiverse) A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.) This by itself does not guarantee the existence of multiverses, however it provides at least a theoretical foundation. The problem is that presently multiverses remain beyond 'observation' and 'testing'. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:41 AM, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> >> Rich >> >> >> >> As you have pointed out in their conclusion, they do not address the >> possibility that these stars, which they take to be in an equilibrium state, >> might not ever form.    Even if stars could form they would have to survive >> their instability phase, too.  Supernova would be also required in order to >> form the necessary metals for terrestrial planets capable of hosting life, >> whatever metals that might be.    It would have been interesting if they >> could have shown that nucleosynthesis of carbon was possible within the >> range they found to suitable for fusion.  [Carbon was not deemed possible >> until Hoyle determined otherwise, which helped BBT, ironically.] >> >> >> >> Keep in mind that there is no hint of a test procedure to determine the >> existence of another universe.  Multi universes and parallel universes are >> not "science" but metaphysics.  To take quantum events and conclude other >> universes can exist is a stretch of unimaginable proportions and beyond >> anything that mankind has ever done, right?  [Admittedly, other universes >> might exist as I have no science to suggest they don't, but the proponents >> and authors of other universes should at least not use the "theory" tag, >> especially when they know what a theory is not.] >> >> >> >> Coope > > I didn't want to overstate the case and like you I would say if the > anthropic principle is considered not "science" then multi-verse cosmologies > also are not "science" for the same reason. Nevertheless, this was a first > stab at trying to deal with the fine tuning objection to the multi-verse > hypothesis. You piqued my curiosity. Where did you hear it called a theory > instead of a hypothesis? > > Rich Blinne > Member ASA >

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 3 16:38:24 2008