ET Speculation

[CraigS]

Another aspect which was clear, was that in spite of the multiple universes resulting from taking on the idea of an Infinite Universe, all these universes are all necessarily, still constrained within the known laws of Physics. (Like constant c).

In spite of this, he mentioned, that the fine tuning parameters can vary between distinct universes. If this is the case, then it is likely that we would never be able to detect those universes (even if they were right under our noses), because we are attuned to only our permutation of the fine tuning parameters.

This would suggest that even if they existed, they might as well not be real to us .. as they could never interact with us ... nor us, with them.

Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

That's Ok Rob .. I appreciate your viewpoint and that's fine … beyond this point in the discussion, I think we really are at a science/metaphysical boundary, (or an observable horizon).

If there is no arbiter or 'describer' of this 'reality' (believed to extend beyond our 'best-fit' descriptions), and our best-fit descriptions do not describe it, then why believe there is one at all .?. other than perhaps, to motivate oneself to improve and extend our existing descriptions of this boundary ?

For me, it really doesn't matter whether a reality exists beyond our best-fit descriptions or not ... the only thing which matters, is that which enables us to visualise the boundaries and perhaps use predictions as clues as to where to go next. (The clues aren't reality until there's evidence).

This 'reality' (assumed to exist beyond our best-fit theories), may not be able to be described in an understandable way by our brains anyway. If it can't be described by scientific terminology and process (resulting in verifiable evidence), then one might as well believe a science fiction book portrays reality! How can you tell the difference?

Verifiable observational evidence .. if this doesn't exist, its not yet reality.

For me, the only thing which matters, in our physical world .. are our 'best-fit' theories, which build on past verifiable data, and making these then align with present-day verifiable observations.

Craig,

Before I say anything else, let me again post my view that the universe has a discoverable reality and this will be reflected in the data we obtain and the observations we make. Our perception of the universe is through our senses but it is the mind which analyses the structure and behaviour of the universe.

The way science has progressed through the ages does lend support to your best fit theory notion. New data forces re-evaluation of theory which is then modified or expanded to push the boundary of knowledge further. If each new best fit theory did not better explain reality (observation and data) then the scientific process has failed. An analysis of these best fit theories would lead us to believe that theory is convergent to an assumed reality.
Now consider this ...

Suppose we find a theory of everything, in that all forces, particles and their interactions are modelled within the one theory. This theory explains all observed physical phenomena for particles and gravitational phenomena and leaves no unanswered questions in this field. More accurate observations in the future continually confirm the theory. It is, however, not the end of discovery but new revelations would fall under the umbrella of this theory. Would you say that this theory is a best fit or is it the theory that explains the reality or character of this universe i.e. the theory that we have converged to?

Regards, Rob

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Another aspect which was clear, was that in spite of the multiple universes resulting from taking on the idea of an Infinite Universe, all these universes are all necessarily, still constrained within the known laws of Physics. (Like constant c).

In spite of this, he mentioned, that the fine tuning parameters can vary between distinct universes. If this is the case, then it is likely that we would never be able to detect those universes (even if they were right under our noses), because we are attuned to only our permutation of the fine tuning parameters.

This would suggest that even if they existed, they might as well not be real to us .. as they could never interact with us ... nor us, with them.

Cheers

Craig,

I think in the video, Brian does an analogy of multiple universes as the slices of bread in a loaf. Somewhere in that, he mentions that if two particle were slammed together and we couldn't account for some lost energy, that perhaps this lost energy could have ended up in another universe, an adjacent slice of bread. It may be possible that these universes could interact but how you would verify or measure this is another puzzle.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Robh

Would you say that this theory is a best fit or is it the theory that explains the reality or character of this universe i.e. the theory that we have converged to?

I would say it is our best fit theory for understanding the universe. I would have no idea as to whether it explains something more beyond our models, (from the mind), or our observations, (from the senses). If it works for us, then that's all that matters.

'Converged' to me, just means we got a handle on how to look at it.

In my perspective, the universe doesn't care whether it converged for us or not ... it just keeps doin' its thing ... just because we saw a theory converge, doesn't say anything beyond that view ... should it ..?.. why ..?.. how would you know that ..?..

What would you say if such a theory doesn't come together? Does this then mean that science has failed, and we should abandon it just because we expected it to converge .. and it didn't?

Or does it mean that's just the way we are constrained to look at the universe ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Robh

Craig,

I think in the video, Brian does an analogy of multiple universes as the slices of bread in a loaf. Somewhere in that, he mentions that if two particle were slammed together and we couldn't account for some lost energy, that perhaps this lost energy could have ended up in another universe, an adjacent slice of bread. It may be possible that these universes could interact but how you would verify or measure this is another puzzle.

Regards, Rob

Aha !
I suppose leakage of energy from our universe to another one would require the 'recipient' universe to be of a similar 'blood type' as ours.

Ie: I guess, in an infinite universe there would exist another universe whose fine tuning parameters could still be within these fine tolerances, I suppose … perhaps sufficiently enough for us to recognise, and maybe communicate with them … but until violation of conservation of energy is observed in this universe, none of this is reality.

I've been thinking since last night. I really appreciate this dialogue with you Rob .. I'm starting to see where the reactions from in others might becoming from. Its easy to assume that we're all off the same playing field .. but clearly, we aren't.

For me, if something is unknown .. that's exactly what it means .. ie: 'unknown'. I get the distinct feeling that others cannot accept the implications of 'unknown'. Filling in the 'unknown' with supposition is fine .. but that doesn't alter the reality that what we don't know, is still not known, in spite of the supposition.

If it is unknown whether the universe has a reality able to to be discovered by us, then all the supposition in the world ('trajectories' etc), still doesn't alter this. What does alter this, is observational evidence and our perspective afforded by the tools we've developed for observing it and … the means we've developed by using those tools, to manipulate it.

Much appreciate the conversation.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

So very interesting.
You guys sum so much up I wish I could say.

Craig it is hard to hold facts in your hand and not want to build something with them.. I think of them as blocks that can be rearranged to build various outcomes and not to become too focused on one outcome as the only possibility.

Those who present their ideas on a matter have an audience because they are leaders in their field and their arguements will be supportive of their take on the world er universe ... ideas often have support that makes them difficult to roll but they still may not have assembled their facts to resemble nature.

AND so I wish to introduce the concept of gut feel... what do you do if your gut tells you.."this is just plain wrong" (on occassion where all knowledge accepts your rejected premise) ... there will be those who need to gaurd the current paridim but there must be those that question it. AND each side must respect the need for the other.

Our sophistication can prove our enemy if speculation with facts is eliminated.

AND is there common sence

I am for strict review it breeds a stronger beast.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Aha !
I suppose leakage of energy from our universe to another one would require the 'recipient' universe to be of a similar 'blood type' as ours.

Cheers

I would hope so. If not, it'd "congeal" and then we'd be up the proverbial creek, for sure