The reason I write this is because in science I see I an increased race for complexity, driven by ear-marked funding by non-scientists. Today we bridge huge gaps in knowledge in many sciences by racing skills and methods to the molecular or nano-level. As a result the simplest things such a gross pathology of the most common animals has to be ignored. Still we develop highly specialized vaccines for the animals we know little about. Several colleagues of mine, and myself, has expressed concern that these branches of technology will eventually break or result in a relapse to building more solid foundations. Rather than jumping and become easy targets for the mechanisms of natural selection.

Regardless of hair-splitting, this entire topic should stand as disproof of the criticism that neo-primitives or those who embrace the HG path are in any way obscurantist or anti-scientific!

One could practically envision an editorial cartoon showing a bunch of people sitting around a campfire, in a setting that looks like an ancient Native American village or encampment, having a conversation about theoretical physics including plenty of math!:-)

More seriously, one could envision a largely HG culture that supports industrial technologies only to the extent that they are used for scientific research (for example, space telescopes, electron microscopes, particle accelerators, MRIs, etc. but no consumer-lifestyle garbage). One could also envision an HG culture that applies scienfitic methodology with as much or greater rigor than present socieities, but does not use high tech of any kind. Either of those would be a far different world, and would make an interesting piece of speculative fiction to work out the implications.

–

Re. “fringe” theories. The entire body of work on this site, as far as I can tell, would be considered fringe, but the very idea of “fringe” vs. “mainstream” is an arbitrary construct that is self-serving to the interests of power. Scientific truths have nothing to do with authority or majority, and everything to do with theoretical consistency and empirical validation. In cosmology one runs up against a fundamental problem for empiricism, as it appears to be impossible to obtain final empirical evidence one way or another about certain fundamental questions such as the existence of multiple universes or the issue of the beginning (if any) of time. At that point we do end up with purely theoretical statements that are more of the nature of philosophy, though not necessarily with religion (if one makes the distinction that religion is concerned primarily with deity, thanatology, and ethics derived therefrom). There’s nothing wrong with that as long as we explicate our assumptions & premises and the types of logical systems we are using.

Re. free will, which Jason says “-remains, at best, a hypothesis, and at worst, an idle daydream.” Cognitive science is moving toward understanding the physical basis of what we call free will. Check out the papers by Hameroff & Penrose on “Orchestrated objective reduction” (abbreviated “Orch-OR”) at Hameroff’s site at U.Ariz. consciousness studies dept. In summary they say, with good evidence from neuroanatomy to back them up, that the existence of borderline-quantum-scale structures in the neurons, plus the existence of “noisy neurons” whose output firing is random with respect to input (i.e. regardless of input), support the conclusion that nondeterministic processes play a role in cognition. One can argue whether quantum noise, whether in the brain or in nonliving systems, is truly evidence of a nondeterministic universe as a whole. But if we accept that it is, even in part, then Hameroff’s & Penrose’s theory provides the entry point for free will in the system.

I would also argue that a fine balance between deterministic and nondeterministic processes is as essential to the existence of our universe, and life within it, as the other cosmological constants. That is, even a slight variation in either direction, would have produced a radically different set of outcomes that, at very least, would not have been hospitable to life as we know it. (This is not by way of supporting the “anthropic principle” or its implication of purposive creation; it is causal rather than teleological.)

OK, another of my too-long postings:-) Is anyone still reading these comments?

When I’m not, I don’t.

When I’m contending with a self-righteous fool who doesn’t even read my responses, I stop putting forth the effort.

As Lincoln said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” No one who reads the foregoing will have any doubt.

I have felt the need to show that I am not stupid.

And yet, each additional word you write to that effect only makes you look worse.

“The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is, ’when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better.’ â€?

In the example in the article which complied with this statement ‘the exactly the same predictions’ which Einstein and Lorentz’s theories had in common were that they both predicted the accuracy of the same equations. I may have erred by using the word conclusions in this sense. A more accurate description of what must be identical is “the phenomenon to be explained by the theories�. Lorentz’s ether was not eliminated because it couldn’t be perceived, but because it wasn’t necessary with Einstein’s theory.

The “traditional� big bang theory predicts that this known universe expanded from a singularity. It says nothing about where that singularity came from or whether there ever were or will be others outside of our universe. Multiverse and cyclic theories incorporate the big bang but also predict other universes. Although Occam’s razor as defined above might apply to conflicting multiverse theories, it doesn’t for comparing the big bang to a theory with different predictions.

You quote from the article:

Ernst Mach: “Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.â€?

But you didn’t explain that according to the article this was a variation by Mach, which he called the Principle of Economy and used to state that molecules don’t exist. It is not the most useful statement of the principle for scientists.

As I understand it, Jason’s position is that according to Occam’s razor, as it is used in the scientific method, it is a scientifically supported statement to assert that the big bang was the beginning of all reality. My position is that since science has no evidence one way or the other, the question of whether or not there is a beginning to the total reality cannot be answered by science at this time and remains a philosophical question. Which position is correct is in no way dependent on multiverse or cyclic theories as we agree they are not testable at this time. The correct position can be determined only by our interpretation of Occam’s razor. Jason would be correct according to Mach’s Principle of Economy however, according to this article, this is not the most useful interpretation for scientists.
Having read more about Occam’s razor I now realize there are multiple variations that are used in many disciplines for different purposes. I’ve lost my interest in this subject and have only continued this far because, by the tone of yours and Jason’s replies, I have felt the need to show that I am not stupid.

Bob, you are conflating ‘predictions’ with conclusions.

The multi-verse theory offers NO predictions that have been substantiated, to separate it from the traditional big bang model. IF they complete the LISA probe and turn up new evidence to support the theory, then Occum’s razor will become irrelevant to the discussion.

Recall (from your link):

Ernst Mach: “Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.”

So, all of the theorizing about any action before the Big Bang falls soundly within ‘not percieved by the sense’ — because BY DEFINITION it cannot be measured or percieved. It can only be THEORIZED. Just like Lorentz’s ether (from the article)

This IS exactly what Jason has been saying, all along…

This is what I said, but NOT what you have been saying. I interpret the above passages to mean that if there were two theories that posited that our known universe is all of reality that the simpler one, with the least elements (if you insist) would more likely be correct. However it would not be a valid application of Occam’s Razor to compare one that posited a greater reality with one that did not.

YES IT WOULD. If the observable/testable predictions are identical. Which they are. End of story. IF this changes, then the issue will need to be readdressed.

You could have shown how my interpretation of this paper was wrong. You could have shown how the authors (Sugihara Hiroshi and Phil Gibbs) were wrong. But to be credible you would have to have a better reason than “Jason says so�. You chose instead to insinuate that I am a fool. I think that reflects more on you than myself.

The authors were not wrong, your interpretation IS. And it is wrong on its face. Your interpretation of the article leads you to believe that Jason has been misrepresenting the facts. But you are mistaken. Its no wonder that he got frustrated, as you have repeatedly done this same thing.

Janene