Re: Being falsifiable not required to be valid theory

"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> >The Anthropic Principle may not be falsifiable either because we may
>> >never be able to sample other universes, or at least all possible
>> >universes that contribute to "probility space". We can never know if
>> >there are yet other dimensions/realms that we have yet to
>> >explore/discover. However, it is still a valid theory most would agree.

>> The anthropic principle is a philosophic thesis. It is not a
>> scientific theory.

>Okay, I worded that poorly. Let's refer to the "multiple universe
>theory" (MUT), based on AP, rather than AP itself. MUT is one possible
>explanation for the "fine tuning" of the constants.

OK. But MUT isn't a scientific theory either. At best it is
a speculative hypothesis.

>> >Explaining the precisely-tuned cosmic constants is tough without
>> >Anthropic Principle.

>> Some of us don't seem to have problems with this. The fine tuning
>> argument is based on dubious assumptions.

>Please clarify. I am interested to hear your view on this. From what I
>read, the consensus is that tweaking the constants would lead to
>nothingness, only black holes, hot radioactive plasma, planetless
>stars, and/or generally places not likely stable enough for complex
>life (as we know it).

There seems to be an assumption that there is a fixed (maybe innate)
set of concepts, and that scientific laws are discovered by induction
from observations involving these concepts. But that really is not
how science works. The concepts and laws come together as a package
deal. They are constructed by scientists. Newton had to split the
Aristotlean concept of weight into to quite distinct concepts (weight
and mass). The Newtonian concept of force is not the same as the
Aristotlean concept of force. The Einstein (relativistic) concepts
of space and time are different from the Newtonian concepts of the
same name. Our concepts and laws fit well, because they were
constructed to fit well. If you look at the history of relativity,
you will see where scientists were debating ways to modify them, once
they found that Newtonian concepts didn't fit as closely as they had
assumed.

If there is a universe that is a little different from ours, it won't
be a matter of the same concepts and laws, but different constants.
Rather that alternative universe would require its own set of concept
and laws (again aas a package deal), and with constants finely tuned
for that universe.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... If the scientists in question have arguments based on ... No one has given any reason to think that the laws of physics were ... of the origin of the Universe back _to_ Planck time. ... a hot "big bang". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... So you have no argument other than that you believe certain scientists ... No one has given any reason to think that the laws of physics were ... of the origin of the Universe back _to_ Planck time. ... a hot "big bang". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Vista beta vs. OSX
    ... >> The universe has no conscious vendetta against us. ... > verifiable "LAWS" which control the operation of the Universe, ... Human laws are made by people (and sometimes attributed to God). ... >>> Scientists may uncover the gifts of God which He has placed ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Vista beta vs. OSX
    ... >>> scientists feel that there are so many fine tunings required for our ... > If the universe were not set up for life, we wouldn't be here to ask the ... >> words, the Laws themselves were ALREADY THERE, and men like Galileo and Sir ... Good God, man: ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... So you have no argument other than that you believe certain scientists ... No one has given any reason to think that the laws of physics were ... of the origin of the Universe back _to_ Planck time. ... If a superintelligence was responsible, ...
    (talk.origins)