Quote:
Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman
at least in their computer simulations, but "universe in a computer" does not have to correspond with the real universe.
...
For the moment, however, "these are the truths that we must cling to".......the most logical inference, for now,
...
but for the moment we must believe at the 70% level of certainty that dark matter really exists. While dark matter is not exactly a fact, we must concede that it is probably there!
(cosmologists are great ones for assigning 100% certainty to their theories....but certainty is the domain of theology, not science.)
|
Greetings Robert;
Good to have you contributing to this forum .. its always great to 'see' some more posters appearing here. Thank you also, for your clearly described and considered words on this topic.
I would like to add to some comments about the more philosophical points you raise.
Its interesting for me as I deliberate on the points you raise about the relationships between models/theories, not necessarily having to correspond to the real universe. The models and theories we create are typically based on tested evidence (with a smattering of inference) and provide us with a basis for devising further tests and experiments, which then progresses our understanding. Empirical data is also used to constrain them further.
As such, the progression of these models and theories, in effect, become reality for us within science. (I think you have captured the essence of this in your words about certainty and theology, however certainty also has meaning in science).
The gist of where I'm coming from, is that scientific reality
is what is contained in these models. Any reality perceived outside of them which isn't objective, independently verifiable, self-consistant or 'disprovable', would seem to be purely philosophical postulates, and would not be a viable basis for assessing the applicability of models developed by the scientific process.
If this is so, then there is no other 'reality' for comparative purposes.
Cheers