The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[otseng]

Other dimensions and universes are interpretations from mathematical models rather than being inferred from direct observations, so are indeed speculative and we may have no way of every determining whether they are legitimate ideas. But if by some means we did obtain the ability to identify such things, they would also be natural (ie. they are not postulated to be non-natural things if they actually do exist).

Then I think this distinction between natural and supernatural is meaningless, primarily because the definition of natural cannot be objective. What you are implying is the definition of natural is that which actually exists, irregardless of whether it can be empirically detectable or measureable.

For other dimensions, yes, I agree it is an interpretation of string theory models. However, for the postulation of other universes, from what I gather, it is simply proposed as an explanation for fine-tuning, not as an interpretation of a mathematical model.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #821]

What you are implying is the definition of natural is that which actually exists, irregardless of whether it can be empirically detectable or measureable.

I'd reword that to say that the definition of natural is that which actually exists, regardless of whether it has been empirically detected or measured to date. The ability to detect or measure something today is proof that it exists, but the inability to detect or measure something today does not rule it out as being natural. It could simply be that we don't have the technology available yet as has been the case many times in the past.

For other dimensions, yes, I agree it is an interpretation of string theory models. However, for the postulation of other universes, from what I gather, it is simply proposed as an explanation for fine-tuning, not as an interpretation of a mathematical model.

I think many people have explored multiverse models of various types, like these examples describe:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-09466-7

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

The second one (this guy is on a lot of Science channel documentaries) he titled "crazy", so not sure how seriously people take this stuff. But they arise from interpretations of various models. Still science fiction it seems to me, but all attempts to improve physics understanding of how nature works. Cosmologists who propose various ideas to explain observations are not generally proposing non-natural solutions in my view ... but purely natural solutions yet to be confirmed (or discarded if shown to be wrong).

[otseng]

I'd reword that to say that the definition of natural is that which actually exists, regardless of whether it has been empirically detected or measured to date.

Adding "to date" is superfluous. Everything we know is based on what we know to date.

The heart of the issue still remains ... how would you know if something actually exists if it's not empirically detectable?

Distilling the argument so far seems to be:
- A scientist proposed an explanation
- Science only has natural explanations
- Therefore the scientist's explanation is natural

many people have explored multiverse models of various types, like these examples describe:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-09466-7

They assume reality is "purely a mathematical structure", so that enables them to easily say additional universes are just as viable.

This will be one of the claims of our paper, that our reality is purely a mathematical structure. To that extent, at least, we are in agreement with Tegmark (2008). We shall see at the end of Sect. 5 that such a philosophy, which is, in essence, one of ontic structural realism (Berghofer 2018), makes it easier to accept the idea of parallel universes, because a pattern (a universe) may be duplicated without controversy.

They realize this is a controversial assumption...

In spite of the above, many people harbour the suspicion that, no matter how sophisticated a mathematical structure we may conjecture, that structure can never be more than a mere description of reality, rather than reality itself. For these people, we have not breathed fire into the equations. They find it hard to accept that their own self-awareness can be just a mathematical structure. So goes their argument, along lines reminiscent of Dr Johnson’s refutation of Bishop Berkeley’s immaterialist philosophy by kicking a stone and feeling the reverberation in his body.

It is easy to see why many physicists reject such a statement. While they may accept that our universe can be described by mathematics, it is seemingly a step too far to think that it can be mathematics.

This goes back to our debate if a model (eg, spacetime fabric) can be construed as actually existing. Again, I argue just because you can create a mathematical model, it does not mean it actually exists.

They use Conway’s Game of Life as an example of something that is "aware". Not sure what they mean by "aware" here, but it is not an example of self-consciousness.

Nevertheless, a case can be argued to make that idea more palatable by considering a version of a two-dimensional cellular automaton, Conway’s Game of Life (Gardner 1970), in which, as we shall see, there can be a structure that is “aware” of its environment.

Then they claim a Universal Turing Machine is "self-aware".

When this environment includes itself, then, in a rudimentary sense, we might say that the UTM is self-aware.

Their proposal of additional universes is each universe is the result of every probabilistic quantum outcome. This would mean the number of other universes would be "unimaginable".

Hence, for example, in the case of a Stern-Gerlach experiment with two possible outcomes, one with a 75% chance of occurring and the other with a 25% chance of occurring, there are three times as many universes in the multiverse containing the high-probability result than there are universes that contain the low-probability result. If the same experiment is repeated a million times, this will mean that, in the multiverse, most of the universes which feature the sequence of a million experiments will contain approximately 750,000 of the high-probability results and 250,000 of the low-probability results.

While such a hypothesis may be regarded by some as preposterous in its plethora of universes, others who accept that our universe is ultimately purely a pattern see no fundamental reason why the pattern may not be repeated, albeit on an unimaginable (but always finite) scale.

By the way, even their paper agrees universes cannot interact with each other. Further, they assume they will never interact. If this is true, then it will never be possible to empirically measure other universes.

Since each universe is independent of the others, each reality is confined to its own universe.

Since they are claiming other universes are "block universes", there is no concept of outcome branching.

However, as stated earlier, the topology of a block universe rules out such branching in our model: the mathematical structures of a multiverse of block universes never overlap, and are therefore independent of each other, and this includes groups of those that are indistinguishable from each other.

Though the universes have no causal relationship with each other, it still needs to have some mechanism to relate events to each other, so they invent a superstructure (super-reality) that is even more fundamental to the multiverse.

This theory is another example of the multiplicity of ad hocs explanations required to hold up a theory that have false assumptions.

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

The second one (this guy is on a lot of Science channel documentaries) he titled "crazy", so not sure how seriously people take this stuff.

Interestingly, he states "To me, the key question is not whether parallel universes exist (Level I is the uncontroversial cosmological concordance model), but how many levels there are." Other universes are accepted to exist, the only question is what is the nature of the other universes.

He bases other universes to exist on cosmological inflation. But, as I've argued before, it can't be shown cosmological inflation is even true.

Cosmologists who propose various ideas to explain observations are not generally proposing non-natural solutions in my view ... but purely natural solutions yet to be confirmed (or discarded if shown to be wrong).

How would one even falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes?

[brunumb]

The heart of the issue still remains ... how would you know if something actually exists if it's not empirically detectable?

If it's not empirically detectable then it is no different from the imaginary. That's where I place the so-called supernatural.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #823]

Adding "to date" is superfluous. Everything we know is based on what we know to date.

Yes, but a hypothesis relating to the possible existence of something that has yet to be understood or detected directly in no way means that the hypothesis is wrong or that the thing does not exist as part of nature. The "to date" part is not superfluous but crucial to the counter argument. Dark matter and dark energy are postulated to exist to explain observations, but to date we cannot describe what either of these are exactly, or even if they are the correct explanations. But we may very well have those answers in the future and significant efforts are being made towards that goal via purpose built instruments and satellites. You seem to be ruling out any possibility that these could be natural (eg. new particles or forces, etc.) simply because we cannot yet (today) describe what they are or make direct detections of them.

The heart of the issue still remains ... how would you know if something actually exists if it's not empirically detectable?

You build instrumentation and do experiments to try and determine if the something does in fact exist. This is exactly what is happening now with dark matter and dark energy. We cannot make direct detection and measurements of these today, but may accomplish this in the future through the efforts being made to do this. If the end result is that some completely different explanations arise for how galaxies are held together, and why expansion of the universe is accelerating, then dark matter and dark energy will be failed hypotheses and dropped. But if we are able to make direct detections using new instrumentation and measurements then we have a more complete description of nature that would include these (natural) things.

Distilling the argument so far seems to be:
- A scientist proposed an explanation
- Science only has natural explanations
- Therefore the scientist's explanation is natural

It is the third of these that has to await confirmation that the scientist's hypothesis is correct. Until then, it is just a hypothesis that may be right or wrong. In the examples of dark matter and dark energy, we are at step 1 of the above list ... step 2 is by definition, and step 3 is a premature conclusion and so cannot be made.

They assume reality is "purely a mathematical structure", so that enables them to easily say additional universes are just as viable.

I was not supporting any of the multiverse ideas with my links, but responding to this comment in post #821 (underline mine):

However, for the postulation of other universes, from what I gather, it is simply proposed as an explanation for fine-tuning, not as an interpretation of a mathematical model.

I was only pointing out that some of the multiverse ideas do come from mathematical models ... some being "out there."

[otseng]

If it's not empirically detectable then it is no different from the imaginary. That's where I place the so-called supernatural.

I totally agree. That's why I place other dimensions and other universes as supernatural.

[otseng]

You build instrumentation and do experiments to try and determine if the something does in fact exist. This is exactly what is happening now with dark matter and dark energy. We cannot make direct detection and measurements of these today, but may accomplish this in the future through the efforts being made to do this. If the end result is that some completely different explanations arise for how galaxies are held together, and why expansion of the universe is accelerating, then dark matter and dark energy will be failed hypotheses and dropped. But if we are able to make direct detections using new instrumentation and measurements then we have a more complete description of nature that would include these (natural) things.

I'm not debating about dark matter or dark energy, but other universes and other dimensions. Pretty much by definition, other universes and other dimensions are independent from our universe and our dimensions, so even theoretically they would not be detectable.

Distilling the argument so far seems to be:
- A scientist proposed an explanation
- Science only has natural explanations
- Therefore the scientist's explanation is natural

It is the third of these that has to await confirmation that the scientist's hypothesis is correct.

The third is the conclusion of the first two premises, not an assumption to be verified.

In the examples of dark matter and dark energy, we are at step 1 of the above list ... step 2 is by definition, and step 3 is a premature conclusion and so cannot be made.

Again, I'm not talking about dark matter or dark energy, but other dimensions and other universes.

I was only pointing out that some of the multiverse ideas do come from mathematical models ... some being "out there."

I'd even disagree with this. But, we'll have to agree to disagree on this as well.

And I want to ask again -- How would one even falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #827]

Distilling the argument so far seems to be:
- A scientist proposed an explanation
- Science only has natural explanations
- Therefore the scientist's explanation is natural

The third is the conclusion of the first two premises, not an assumption to be verified.

The third is premature until the proposed explanation (ie. the hypothesis) is confirmed. A scientist can propose a non-natural explanation. For example, well known creationist Russell Humphreys, who has a science Ph.D and calls himself a "creation scientist", has proposed many non-natural explanations such as all the planets in our solar system having started as balls of H2O that his favorite god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins to create an initial magnetic field.

Many argue (eg. ESG here on the forum) that this is bona-fide science even though the explanation involves a non-natural component (a god in this case). My point is that if a scientist does offer an explanation for some observation or measurement, and that explanation is ultimately confirmed to be correct, then the explanation would be natural. If a god being were detected somehow (eg. made itself known in some concrete way that could be verified), then it would by definition be part of nature (as a being, a force, energy, etc.). It would cease to be a proposed solution but would have been detected or observed and shown to actually exist.

I'd even disagree with this. But, we'll have to agree to disagree on this as well.

Fair enough.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #827]

Distilling the argument so far seems to be:
- A scientist proposed an explanation
- Science only has natural explanations
- Therefore the scientist's explanation is natural

The third is the conclusion of the first two premises, not an assumption to be verified.

The third is premature until the proposed explanation (ie. the hypothesis) is confirmed.

If you grant the first two are true, then the third is true automatically, regardless if the hypothesis is confirmed.

And I want to ask again -- How would one even falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes?

Since nobody is able to answer this, I'll answer it.

There is no way to falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes. If it's not possible to falsify them, how can they even be considered scientific explanations?

[Clownboat]

And I want to ask again -- How would one even falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes?

I'm going to go out on limb here and make the claim that no human on earth knows the answer to your question at this time or more succinctly, I/we don't know.
That is your answer.
Be well.

There is no way to falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes. If it's not possible to falsify them, how can they even be considered scientific explanations?

The bold is just another claim you can make because you're using faith and another reason why we should all abhore faith. Faith can lead to false beliefs and faith affirms beliefs like 'there is no way to falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes' when in fact we may just not know how yet.

I could apply faith and say that one day we will have this technology. We may never have it though and faith would have been the vehicle that allowed me to believe in this false idea.

One of the most powerful statements a human can make is, "I don't know".