Experiments to contact "other universes" in the multiverse.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:53:28 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 17:54, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:58:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

String theory may be untestable, but it's the best theory
going.

It is mathematically elegant. But in the scientific sense, it's a
very weak theory, because as David pointed out, much of it lacks
any way of being tested.

String theory only exists because the math says it should. Though
they'll never actually see a string, admittedly. Maybe they'll
develop some kind of observation (like proving the Big Bang via
expansion observation) that'll help it out?

Any good theory needs to generate predictions that can be tested. So
yeah, a predicted observation would be great. Elegant math doesn't
cut it. Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe
works.


Although that is true it is often the adoption of new cutting edge
mathematics by younger physicists that breaks down the old established
paradigms and methods of solving problems. Strict Euclidean geometry
constructions was never going to be able to cope with gravity or general
relativity (even though they could be solved that way).

It took calculus and then later non-Euclidean goemetry to make gravity
and general relativity reasonably tractable at a level that could be
taught in universities. It would be nigh on impossible to teach it using
strict Greek ruler and compass construction methods.

Sometimes we get lucky and some new pure mathematics happens to fit or
is capable of being made to fit a description of the universe we are in.

Because we have a good understanding of how to use math to answer
questions about nature, that math is often the first step towards new
ideas. But in the long run, people still have to develop actual
physical tests for those ideas, or they're of little use.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 01:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:54:15 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Any good theory needs to generate predictions that can be tested. So
yeah, a predicted observation would be great. Elegant math doesn't cut
it. Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

It certainly is true that one can do all kinds of things in math, and in
isolation, mathematics can't tell you which parts of itself correspond to which
parts of the Universe.

So what you're trying to say certainly is right in one sense.

But how the Universe works *does* seem to be *very* well related to the _right_
mathematics. It's the tool par excellence for working out the consequences of
what we know about the Universe and making predictions - whether of planetary
motions or weather forecasts.

What I would say is that we have a pretty good idea of what axioms to
use when we want to model nature.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
If you could create a god, what would that make you?

Supergod?

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you could create a god, what would that make you?

Any gods which exist or which have existed were necessarily created.
Either by nature alone, or by some other god.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:01:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 04:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And one can choose axioms that allow us to prove anything
mathematically- including things that are contrary to nature.

Sure, but the REAL test is does nature approve of them.

What you call "REAL test" belongs to physics, not mathematics.

Physics IS nature, and YOU are the one that brought THAT up :-)

A few centuries ago, physics was called natural philosophy.

Mathematics is strictly logical philosophy which in principle has
nothing to do with Nature, i.e. physics. So you can choose your
axioms so your mathematics becomes very useful for physics. Or
you
can choose your axioms so your mathematics has no use at all for
physics. If done property, both will be equally valid as
mathematics.
Don't confuse the utility of math with its validity, they are
very
different things.

I'm of the stripe that USES mathematics to solve real-world
problems, not one who LOVES mathematics for its own sake.
I would never have been a Riemann, or any number of pure
mathematicians. I learned that when I got a "C" in Advanced
Calculus but an "A" in partial differential equations :-)

That's ok, but be grateful there were others who loved math enough to
create useful mathematics for you to use. Btw sometimes "useless"
math will unexpectedly turn out to be very useful. One example is
non-euclidan geometri and general relativty. Another example is
modular arithmetic and modern cryptllogy.

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 12:27:18 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you could create a god, what would that make you?

Any gods which exist or which have existed were necessarily
created. Either by nature alone, or by some other god.

That about covers it.

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 2:22:39 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:01:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I'm of the stripe that USES mathematics to solve real-world
problems, not one who LOVES mathematics for its own sake.
I would never have been a Riemann, or any number of pure
mathematicians. I learned that when I got a "C" in Advanced
Calculus but an "A" in partial differential equations :-)

That's ok, but be grateful there were others who loved math
enough to create useful mathematics for you to use.

"If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the
whole were hearing, where were the smelling?" -- I Corinthians
12:17

Btw sometimes "useless" math will unexpectedly turn out to be
very useful. One example is non-euclidan geometri and general
relativty. Another example is modular arithmetic and modern
cryptllogy.

Indeed.

On Friday, 24 August 2018 09:41:02 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:53:28 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 17:54, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:58:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

String theory may be untestable, but it's the best theory
going.

It is mathematically elegant. But in the scientific sense, it's a
very weak theory, because as David pointed out, much of it lacks
any way of being tested.

String theory only exists because the math says it should. Though
they'll never actually see a string, admittedly. Maybe they'll
develop some kind of observation (like proving the Big Bang via
expansion observation) that'll help it out?

Any good theory needs to generate predictions that can be tested. So
yeah, a predicted observation would be great. Elegant math doesn't
cut it. Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe
works.


Although that is true it is often the adoption of new cutting edge
mathematics by younger physicists that breaks down the old established
paradigms and methods of solving problems. Strict Euclidean geometry
constructions was never going to be able to cope with gravity or general
relativity (even though they could be solved that way).

It took calculus and then later non-Euclidean goemetry to make gravity
and general relativity reasonably tractable at a level that could be
taught in universities. It would be nigh on impossible to teach it using
strict Greek ruler and compass construction methods.

Sometimes we get lucky and some new pure mathematics happens to fit or
is capable of being made to fit a description of the universe we are in.

Because we have a good understanding of how to use math to answer
questions about nature, that math is often the first step towards new
ideas. But in the long run, people still have to develop actual
physical tests for those ideas, or they're of little use.

Intellectual exercises are better than the alternative, which isn't to think.
It may even prevent the onset of mental deterioration in some cases. So, even if you don't turn a mathematical idea into a tangible goal or product, it can still be valuable. Even if what you conceive (string theory's basis is 200 years old) will never come to fruition in your lifetime. Qualifier: Unless it's completely baseless nonsense or fantasy.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 23:13:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Although that is true it is often the adoption of new cutting edge
mathematics by younger physicists that breaks down the old established
paradigms and methods of solving problems. Strict Euclidean geometry
constructions was never going to be able to cope with gravity or general
relativity (even though they could be solved that way).

It took calculus and then later non-Euclidean goemetry to make gravity
and general relativity reasonably tractable at a level that could be
taught in universities. It would be nigh on impossible to teach it using
strict Greek ruler and compass construction methods.

Sometimes we get lucky and some new pure mathematics happens to fit or
is capable of being made to fit a description of the universe we are in.

Because we have a good understanding of how to use math to answer
questions about nature, that math is often the first step towards new
ideas. But in the long run, people still have to develop actual
physical tests for those ideas, or they're of little use.

Intellectual exercises are better than the alternative, which isn't to think.
It may even prevent the onset of mental deterioration in some cases. So, even if you don't turn a mathematical idea into a tangible goal or product, it can still be valuable. Even if what you conceive (string theory's basis is 200 years old) will never come to fruition in your lifetime. Qualifier: Unless it's completely baseless nonsense or fantasy.

I'm not arguing against investigating those purely mathematical
models. Just against taking them too seriously as representations of
natural law until they've been objectively tested against reality.

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 12:02:17 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

There are no illusory loops of Venus nor Mercury seen from Earth...

Once again, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you insist that your own 'intuition' is more correct than the cold, hard facts of the matter. Sure, it is very difficult to 'see' the loops of Venus and Mercury because those planets are mostly very near the Sun when viewed from Earth, but nevertheless, they *do* exist, whether you like it or not.

Did you even look at the graphics in the links I referenced? I'll bet you didn't!