From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >> D  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> I'm referring to all that exists outside of space/time as nonsense   
   >>> which we can disregard, and where we cannot assign any truth value by   
   >>> the very nature of us, living inside the world. God, unicorns,   
   >>> parallell universes, all can be safely disregarded as fiction.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> What you will have to do then is come up with a theory which:   
   >>   
   >> 1. Explains all the things inflation theory explains   
   >> 2. Does not predict parallel universes   
   >> 3. Explains the so called 'fine tuning' problem.   
   >>   
   >> The fine tuning problem would be explained by natural selection among   
   >> multiple universes with different universal constants.   
   >   
   > I don't! =D Accepting that we do not know is a perfectly valid   
   > option. As long as there is no empirical proof, we are perfectly   
   > entitled to making no pronouncements or come up with no explanations   
   > at all.   
   >   
   > Maybe I misunderstand you?   
   >   
   > When no empirical feedback loops exist, I reject epistemic closure as   
   > well as the principle of bivalence.   
      
   It is acceptable to say we don't know. It's a good idea even. And we did   
   agree that earlier, but then above you go back to saying 'nonsense', and   
   still further, 'fiction'. Then you ask for 'empirical proof'. The way   
   science works is not on empirical proof, but on theory tested against   
   empirical evidence. And as long as it is still a theory no one knows for   
   sure and it is not proven. Even Newton's laws turned out to be wrong.   
      
   So in the case of parallel universes we are dealing with a consequence   
   of a theory, and although this consequence itself cannot be tested or   
   verified against evidence, other aspects of the theory can and have been   
   tested against observation, and it is the best anyone has come up with   
   so far. So even if it doesn't prove anything about parallel universes,   
   it does affect the probability.   
      
   So it is a dilemma, does one accept a theory if some consequence of it   
   is untestable, but other consequences are tested and better than the   
   previous theory which was found to be flawed?   
      
   There is plenty of this kind of thing going on in science, for example   
   the size of the/this universe is said to be 90 billion light years   
   across, but we can't check that from observation, because anything that   
   far away can no longer be observed. We can only observe 13 billion light   
   years, any light from before that won't have had time to get here in the   
   entire age of the universe. Also by looking at cosmic microwave   
   background radiation we can have theories about what happened before the   
   big bang, but no one can actually check what happened before the big   
   bang.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)