Curious to see where in this thread anyone is posing something as fact without evidence.In post 24922, I wrote:"And of course, there's the age old question of where did the creator intelligence come from?"To which you replied:It is the same question for where did the rules of physics come from or where did the multiverse come from.The point being that in physics we try to devise ways of testing hypotheses. A common claim of a supernatural creator is that it is by definition untestable.And there are many scientists who serious question whether string theory, the multiverse, and the universe=math are testable hypotheses.If it is untestable then it will not be claimed as fact.And am not sure why the hypothesis that "intelligence preceded the physical universe" is less scientific or honest than the hypothesis that the physical universe occurred spontaneously, or less testable than string theory. Perhaps you can expound. An intelligence that preceded the universe is entirely speculation. We don't know that such an intelligence still exists and there's no evidence that it ever did. The most robust argument that I have seen is that things that occur now couldn't have occurred any other way. That's not true. Things that exist now may not have any other explainable causes that we know of but that doesn't mean that there isn't a natural cause.The hypothesis that the universe spontaneously occurred may never be proven but it doesn't contradict the laws of physics. Therefore, it is a valid hypothesis but not yet a theory.String theory should really be called string hypothesis because that too has not been disproven but is not yet well enough evidenced to call it a theory.The difference between scientific hypotheses and and the notion of a supernatural creator is that scientific hypotheses are (by definition) shrouded in doubt and uncertainty and proponents of those theories would (or at least should) abandon them if contradictory evidence emerges. In the meantime, they actively search for testable lines of evidence.These hypotheses are extensions of testable phenomena or predictions from the mathematics that describes testable phenomena.There have been many incredible advances in science in which "untestable" hypotheses have since been demonstrated: the two-slit experiment, atomic properties etc. That's not to say that such advances will happen again but that is the goal.With a creator, there are those who argue that it's irrefutable truth and questioning is discouraged (either directly or by defining the creator as unknowable). I don't know of anyone who is trying to find a scientifically acceptable test to prove the existence of a creator but if you have any links I'll take a look.It seems to me that hypotheses about a creator are of the "filling the gaps" kind whereas string theory and the multiverse are extrapolations of scientific theories.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat