Impossibility of falsifying myths

PSI Blog 20211025 Impossibility of falsifying myths

 

Abhishek Chakravartty asks:

 

“You wrote that creation is not subject to falsification because it is a myth that belongs to a religious belief system. Can you explain why creation cannot be falsified although it is a myth?”

 

[GB: Abhi: Please reread the Galston link. In summary, myths are present in the heads of people. We have no way of testing them. Falsification is possible only for evaluating things and motions that exist or occur outside people’s heads. Anyone can claim the universe was created by gods, dogs, turtles, dark energy, or what have you. On the other hand, specific claims about actually existing things (i.e., xyz portions of the universe) can be tested. For instance, there are claims that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. If we found anything older than that, the claim would be falsified (i.e., shown to be false). I have done that myself hundreds of times through isotope dating and pedochronology. While that claim has been put to bed, there could be an endless number of creation claims. We could never test all of them in the same way we could never prove “there are causes for all effects.” In essence, infinity prevents us from falsifying fundamental assumptions, whether they be scientific or religious.

 

The Big Bang Theory is just another creation theory, which like more overtly religious versions of the creation myth, cannot be falsified. Only specific claims for it can be falsified. For instance, the discovery of elderly galaxies at the limits of observation falsifies the hypothesized 13.8-billion-year age of the universe. Unbelievers have discovered much more evidence for falsification. George Coyne alone lists 66 flaws in the theory.[1] Will any one of these bring down the Big Bang Theory? That is doubtful as long as the religious assumption of creation (Matter and motion can be created out of nothing) holds sway over its opposite, the scientific assumption of conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).[2]]

 

      

---

[1] Coyne, George, 2021, Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion (2nd ed.), JCNPS, 408 p.

 [2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

 

 

Cosmic acceleration and dark energy do not exist

PSI Blog 20211018 Cosmic acceleration and dark energy do not exist

 

Thanks to George Coyne for this heads-up:

 

 “Hi Glenn,

 

As you and I do not believe that the Universe is expanding, there was never the acceptance that the misconceived expansion was accelerating. Now there is a 2019 study debunking the acceleration.

 

Here is the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.04597.pdf

 

It is also described in this Big Think article: 

 

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/new-study-cosmic-acceleration-dark-energy-dont-exist/?fbclid=IwAR3hL03-oDnUNYEMB31vlD9_3nNURyMFCkkmAauJZtC8O57hTioBwYcfxvk

 

[GB: Note that the Nobel Prize was given to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess “for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae”.[1] That was an ad hoc proposed as a solution to observed red shifts indicating galactic recession at velocities greater than c. The choice at that time was: 1) throw out Einstein’s light-speed limit for the universe or 2) find some data indicating the “early universe” expanded faster than the usual misuse of the Hubble constant allowed:

 

 

Astute readers know all this speculation is based on these erroneous assumptions:

1.  Light consists of massless particles.

2.  Light travels through perfectly empty space.

3.  Light displays perpetual motion.

4.  The cosmological redshift is a result of the Doppler Effect or of expanding empty space.

5.  Universal expansion is propelled by matterless motion otherwise known as dark energy.]

---

[1] While I don’t agree with the theory, I believe Guth actually was among the first to propose it:

Guth, A.H., 1997, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Basic Books

Guth, A.H., 1998, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Basic Books, 384 p.

Guth, A.H., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1984, The inflationary universe: Scientific American, v. 250, no. 5, p. 116-128, 154.

 

 

Are Extra-Euclidean dimensions falsifiable?

PSI Blog 20211011 Are Extra-Euclidean dimensions falsifiable?

 

This week's book prize goes to Steve Puetz for his question on Extra-Euclidean dimensions:

 

“Hi Glenn,

 

Regarding a "Dimensionality" assumption - All matter and space within the universe has three dimensions (3D), generally referred to as length, width, and height. (It's opposite is non-3D, multidimensional.)

 

{This might be close, but I don't see where religions propose non-Euclidean dimensions. I think those are ad hocs, which I don't see as appropriate for fundamental assumptions.}

 

The problems that I foresee are twofold:

 

1) In fact, many theoretical physicists propose that the universe has 4, 6, 8, or 11 dimensions, etc. Just perform a Google web-search on "dimensions of the universe" and you will find 141 million items.

 

2) More importantly, none of the original 10 assumptions prohibit these non-3D theories, as far as I can tell. We need some way (either from the 10 assumptions, or a new assumption) to prohibit these theories, when embracing the neomechanical worldview.

 

Regards,

Steve”

 

[GB: The fundamental assumption that forbids extra-Euclidean dimensions is the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). Its opposite is the First Assumption of Religion, immaterialism (Material things have no objective existence, strictly being products of consciousness). This dichotomy is so stark that most philosophers find ways to soften the blow. Another way of stating this irrevocable opposition is through the concepts of reality vs. ideality.

 

Reality vs. Ideality

 

Reality concerns the external world and ideality concerns the inner world. As Einstein characteristically said “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”[1] Realists assume only the external world exists, containing material things (i.e., XYZ portions of the universe), while idealists assume their dreams and imaginings exist. Thus, while materialists and realists are constrained by the three dimensions supported by observing or experimenting with everyday objects, immaterialists and idealists are not. They can have as many “dimensions” as their math or thoughts can manage. As long as these imaginings remain microcosmic, that is, present only in brains, they are not amenable to falsification. However, whenever these are communicated to the macrocosm (outside world) they are subject to falsification just like any other claim made about the external world. That is why scientific tests of prayers always result in falsification.[2] On the other hand, scientific idealizations can escape that fate because they may give some semblance to things that actually exist in the universe. For instance, ideally the Moon is spherical, while in reality it is an oblate spheroid just like Earth. The match between scientific idealization and reality is never perfect because the universe is infinite. Scientists expect slight variations like that, while the non-scientist imbued with the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics) might not.

 

Falsifiability and Myth

 

Here is an interesting blog entry by David Galston on falsifiability and religion:

 

http://www.questcentre.ca/blogs/view/falsifiability-and-religion

 

“Does falsifiability apply to religion? Philosophers of religion have loved this question, and have loved to answer this question with both a "yes" and a "no." On the yes side are those who will say that evolution does indeed prove creation is false. Or, in another way, the theory of creation is falsifiable and has been demonstrated to be false. We can verify that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and this verification falsifies the claim that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago.”

 

“There is, however, a problem with claiming that creation like evolution is falsifiable. The problem is that on this level creation and evolution are both accepted as science. So, philosophers of religion will also answer our question with a “no.” Creation is not subject to falsification because it is a myth that belongs to a religious belief system. Creation-language is a separate language-game from scientific evolution. It’s not possible to apply the rules of science to a myth.”

 

Extra-Euclidean Dimensions as Symptoms of the Coming Demise of Regressive Physics

 

Similarly, extra-Euclidean dimensions, being purely imaginary, cannot be falsified because they are not properties of real objects. There have been attempts to bring those imaginings into the external world through “reification” or “objectification,” that is, by considering motion as matter. That was Einstein’s most important mistake.[3] Time is motion. Time is not an object; it is what objects do. It does not exist, it occurs. The "4th dimension" in GRT stems directly from Einstein's sleight of hand substituting "l" (length) for "t" (time) in SRT. That has nonetheless been acceptable to idealists not concerned with illegal category switching--as long as it confirms their long-standing imaginings. "String Theory," which involves up to 26 so-called "dimensions" has not been, nor will it ever be, supported by observation and experiment. Even regressive physicists such as Lee Smolin have doubts that it will ever result in objective predictions.[4]

The upshot: Extra-Euclidean dimensions are imaginary. Like gods, heaven, and hell, they are not testable parts of the external world. They are not falsifiable because they do not exist.]

---

[1] Viereck, G.S., 1929, What life means to Einstein: The Saturday Evening Post, October 26, p. 17, 110-117.

 

 

[2] Masters, K.S., Spielmans, G.I., and Goodson, J.T., 2006, Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review: Annals of Behavioral Medicine, v. 32, no. 1, p. 21-26. [10.1207/s15324796abm3201_3]. See also: Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].

 

[4] Smolin, Lee, 2007, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Mariner Books; Reprint edition, 420 p.