• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

A new twist on the Multiverse Theory

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
NJ
As physicists analysed the idea it emerged that it carried with it the implication that the Big Bang would create not just one universe - but an endless supply.

...

The new Hawking-Hertog assessment indicates that there can only be universes that have the same laws of physics as our own.

That conjecture means that our Universe is typical and so observations we make from our viewpoint will be meaningful in developing our ideas of how other universes emerged.
So instead of universes that have random laws of physics and random histories, it sounds like Stephen Hawking's last research tends to see that all universes have to have the same laws of physics.

Again, I'm not a cosmologist, but it boggles my mind where they get the interpretation of "infinite universes" from, especially since "infinity" is an interesting number to "calculate".
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
RaphaCam said:
Being the man who said philosophy was dead, I wonder how Stephen Hawking based his own definition of infinity.
Well, tbf, even philosophers admit that there are points (such as transfinite numbers) where mathematics seems to bleed into their field. I'm guessing Hawking would say that all things that seem philosophical are really aspects of math and science that we don't understand yet.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
NJ
I remember multiple times it’s been explained that there are “different types of infinity” from a mathematical perspective, which I get, sorta.  But what I don’t get is how theoretical physicists and their math translate to the interpretation of “infinite universes”.  Maybe the calculation should be interpreted, “it’s impossible to interpret because of an undefineable number.”
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
148
Points
63
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Volnutt said:
Well, tbf, even philosophers admit that there are points (such as transfinite numbers) where mathematics seems to bleed into their field. I'm guessing Hawking would say that all things that seem philosophical are really aspects of math and science that we don't understand yet.
This would be a terrible statement of his, philosophy is exactly what legitimates math (which is the science of abstract relation) and epistemological knowledge (which is what is nowadays called "science").

minasoliman said:
I remember multiple times it’s been explained that there are “different types of infinity” from a mathematical perspective, which I get, sorta.  But what I don’t get is how theoretical physicists and their math translate to the interpretation of “infinite universes”.  Maybe the calculation should be interpreted, “it’s impossible to interpret because of an undefineable number.”
The classical definition of infinity would be the number that transcends any cardinal number. It gets weirder because some mathematicians have applied cardinality to infinity, but this is controversial.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
minasoliman said:
I remember multiple times it’s been explained that there are “different types of infinity” from a mathematical perspective, which I get, sorta.  But what I don’t get is how theoretical physicists and their math translate to the interpretation of “infinite universes”.  Maybe the calculation should be interpreted, “it’s impossible to interpret because of an undefineable number.”
As far as I understand it, the multiple worlds conjecture is based on the idea that every particle in existence follows every possible trajectory, just in terms of different energy states. So, it's not actually infinite, since each particle has only so many ways that it can travel. It is unfathomably large, though. Like, orders of Googolplexes large.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
RaphaCam said:
Volnutt said:
Well, tbf, even philosophers admit that there are points (such as transfinite numbers) where mathematics seems to bleed into their field. I'm guessing Hawking would say that all things that seem philosophical are really aspects of math and science that we don't understand yet.
This would be a terrible statement of his, philosophy is exactly what legitimates math (which is the science of abstract relation) and epistemological knowledge (which is what is nowadays called "science").
Given that what is now called science was once called "natural philosophy," if pressed I'm guessing he would say that what he means by "philosophy" is more like "metaphysics." Most scientists seem to have a very "crude" empiricism that they would likely say is more or less self-evident.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
148
Points
63
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Volnutt said:
Given that what is now called science was once called "natural philosophy," if pressed I'm guessing he would say that what he means by "philosophy" is more like "metaphysics." Most scientists seem to have a very "crude" empiricism that they would likely say is more or less self-evident.
Yeah, that's the issue. I'll have to blame Ockham for our terrible failures (third or fourth time in this forum).
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
RaphaCam said:
Being the man who said philosophy was dead, I wonder how Stephen Hawking based his own definition of infinity.
He said so and was unable to realize that he was making a philosophical statement.  So bright in physics, yet an ignoramus in other fields.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
148
Points
63
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Sharbel said:
RaphaCam said:
Being the man who said philosophy was dead, I wonder how Stephen Hawking based his own definition of infinity.
He said so and was unable to realize that he was making a philosophical statement.  So bright in physics, yet an ignoramus in other fields.
+1
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
minasoliman said:
So instead of universes that have random laws of physics and random histories, it sounds like Stephen Hawking's last research tends to see that all universes have to have the same laws of physics.
Conveniently, it is impossible to empirically prove this theory, since what happens in one universe, stays in one universe.  Therefore, since this theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.  Regrettably, many cosmologists fell into the trap of unscientific elucubrations, usually after successful careers, a fate that apparently not even Hawking escaped.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
148
Points
63
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Sharbel said:
Therefore, since this theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.
Falsifiability is not an absolute criterion, but since we're not talking about predicates that obviously prescind falsifiability such as "all men die", yeah, it's not scientific. It's a poor shot at metaphysics.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
RaphaCam said:
Sharbel said:
Therefore, since this theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.
Falsifiability is not an absolute criterion, but since we're not talking about predicates that obviously prescind falsifiability such as "all men die", yeah, it's not scientific. It's a poor shot at metaphysics.
Falsifiabily is indeed an absolute criterion in science.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,585
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Sharbel said:
RaphaCam said:
Sharbel said:
Therefore, since this theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.
Falsifiability is not an absolute criterion, but since we're not talking about predicates that obviously prescind falsifiability such as "all men die", yeah, it's not scientific. It's a poor shot at metaphysics.
Falsifiabily is indeed an absolute criterion in science.
There are many philosophies of science; falsifiability is important in some, not others. If you have only been exposed to sources which treat it like an infallible or necessary criterion then all the worse for you, but it doesn't cover the entirety of philosophies and systems which fall under the label 'science.'
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Asteriktos said:
There are many philosophies of science; falsifiability is important in some, not others. If you have only been exposed to sources which treat it like an infallible or necessary criterion then all the worse for you, but it doesn't cover the entirety of philosophies and systems which fall under the label 'science.'
You may not like it, but it's been the case in the last century in natural sciences.  Just saying, no need to shoot the messenger.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
NicholasMyra said:
Sharbel said:
Therefore, since this theory is not [empirically] falsifiable, it is not [empirically] scientific.
Fixed
Cosmology, as a branch of Physics, is an empirical science.

If some are bothered by such a statement because it seemingly denies the existence of other sciences, or fields of human knowledge, that's not what I mean.  My intention is to point out the contradiction of such a theory being posited by scientists as scientific, in the strict sense of the term.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
148
Points
63
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Some empirically scientific theories of impossibility aren't falsifiable, because the demonstration of their possibility is itself absurd. "It is impossible that a man lives forever" is an example (that's why I pointed out "all men are mortal").

Obviously that's not the case for a whole new and positive theory in physics, which is the experimental science par excellence.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Yeah all of these cosmologists who assume force causation, quantum indeterminism, fundamental primacy of things vs. stuff, indirect realism, etc. are quite strictly empirical.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
NJ
I’m reading elsewhere that Hawkins actually made calculations for a finite multiverse.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
NJ
Sure:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/02/stephen-hawkings-final-theory-sheds-light-on-the-multiverse

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/3/17314878/stephen-hawking-final-paper-journal-high-energy-physics-hologram-multiverse-big-bang-thomas-hertog

And here’s the source paper:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FJHEP04%282018%29147
 
Top