Questions about Origin

[Qualia]

I've been reading the last couple of chapters of Ferris' Coming of Age where he is dealing with scientific theories about the origin of the universe. It's quite a fascinating read and like all good reads, got me thinking a little.

What part do you think unobservable theories should play in the story of cosmology? Should ideas like other universes, or cosmic evolution stemming from branches of the wave function, be a part of science if they can never be observed?

If we should preserve and look to such theories as offering insights into our origins, how do we evaluate such models? Given that most cosmological theories  will contain unobservable components and so cannot appeal to evidence, nor can they simply appeal to authority without taking into account the aged old fallacy, on what grounds are such theories preserved or discarded?

Finally, and perhaps the most interesting question does anyone have a favourite origin story of the universe that gives some meaning and understanding to the unknown? It can come from any source, discipline or thought.

[JB80]

That is the kind of pondering at 3am I like.

Well, not having read the book I can't be entirely certain of the context contained in it but your questions I think are very interesting and I'm not really able to do justice in answering them but I'll give it a simple crack..

What part do you think unobservable theories should play in the story of cosmology?

That is either hard to answer or not, personally I think the potential is there for them to play the biggest part of all. Dismiss them at peril.

More so considering the alternatives seem to be laid out on equally sketchy assumptions and is known to not be complete. Some theories have made a startling comeback over the years after being banished by the Copenhagen elite, quite possibly with good reason.

Should ideas like other universes, or cosmic evolution stemming from branches of the wave function, be a part of science if they can never be observed?

Yes, why not?

What are the alternatives based on?

Can any branch of theory ever really be truly observed?

If we should preserve and look to such theories as offering insights into our origins, how do we evaluate such models? Given that most cosmological theories  will contain unobservable components and so cannot appeal to evidence, nor can they simply appeal to authority without taking into account the aged old fallacy, on what grounds are such theories preserved or discarded?

I think it depends on interpretation and who is doing the discarding. As mentioned before many theories have been discarded in the past only to have had renewed interest in them much later on.

Why you have to ask?

Because something is fundamentally wrong with our current best guesses. Surely then instead of beating down the same well trodden path we should encourage the mavericks and the alternatives because whilst they can be dismissed on the one hand they can't entirely be dismissed by the other and that is good enough reason to me. Maybe it is a case of we may never know, maybe some young upstart will piece together a handful of theories and come up with a really good breakthrough. Even if they do would that ever be entirely complete though?

Finally, and perhaps the most interesting question does anyone have a favourite origin story of the universe that gives some meaning and understanding to the unknown? It can come from any source, discipline or thought.

The reason I have taken to this question is because of the subject I am currently reading. I am by no means any more than a curious bystander of the entirely ordinary variety and will no doubt be lost by the calibre of posters we have on SGL but I am still highly interested in this subject. 

Unfortunately I can't read all I want and fast enough.

Anyway, to the question. Currently my favourite area, postulate, theorist to read is Hugh Everett III. I have just finished his very informative biography by Peter Byrne and am about to move on to the more detailed book by Saunders, Barrett, Kent and Wallace which explains Everetts theory. 

Briefly, Everetts theory postulates that the wave function itself is a real entity,  takes Schrodingers wave equation literally, does not require it to collapse and the observer is not a separate mechanism but instead is entangled with the quantum system they are measuring.

It actually invokes a good sense of Occams Razor, that is until you come to the infinite branches of infinite universes that many seem to have an issue with.

I think it is a shame he never continued his QM work but it's good to see he is now getting the credit he deserved for it.

From here I want to explore this theory a bit further and read some Dewitt, Deutsch and while I'm at it maybe take a side step and read more about Bohm.

[ghostdance]

Turtles...all the way down

[Dave In Vermont]

Turtles...all the way down

I'd have to go along with this. The so-called Americas were/are known as Turtle Island for over 10,000 years before the Europeans arrived. The time span since the Vikings landed on Vinland was an eyeblink ago. Ditto for Columbus.

 " Some rise. Some fall. Some climb. To get to Terrapin."

Dave

[Qualia]

Nice reply, Jarrod and thank you

I'm aware of Everett but only in third person, not having read anything by him. Fascinating ideas and for good or bad, quite a character himself I've read through your post and find myself nodding in agreement to what you have written. Indeed, it's quite an open minded and generous approach to the liberty of thought and discussion.

I agree that one of the most important underlying goals of science is not simply to make predictions, but rather to develop an understanding of the mechanisms underlying the operation of the natural world. At the end of the day, the speculations about multiverses or extra dimensions originate in the attempt to understand phenomena that we observe right here in the world.

In a sense, theories of what happened before the Big Bang are not about creating scenarios because we think they sound cool, but because scientists are trying to understand features of the world we actually do observe, and that attempt drives them to these hypotheses.

Of course, asking the question why was the early universe like that?, might be considered an a priori, quite unscientific question, and we should just accept the universe as it is; reduce understanding to some ad infinitum catch phrase. It's an intellectually consistent position but thankfully, there are those who do try to make bold speculations, and are willing to push the program of science forward for a while to see what happens.

Thanks for a great reply