[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I missed this:That's not true. Neil Turok (the pioneer who developed the theory of Inflation) has since proposed wha tis known as the Ekpyrotic universe - essentially the the Big Bang occured because of the collision of two "branes" within the M-brane multiverse.

Like the singularity Big Bang, the brane Big Bang also is just - a model. Concluding on either one of these theories is because they seem to promise to be able to explain a lot of things that have happened since then, and explain that in a more elegant and/or complete way than other cosmologic ideas about how it all started. But we do not know the truth about what really happened. An we do no know WHY it happened. Neither the Big Bang nor the Ekpyrotic model of explanation tells anything about WHY it happened. They only imagine ideas HOW it happened.

I believe I understand what you're trying to say - you're taking the postpositivist approach pioneered by your oft-cited philosopher Karl Popper and openly subscribed to by Hawking.

Do I? I honstely don't know. I never understood what this label "positivism" or "post-positivism" should mean. And for the sake of completeness, many ideas of Popper I do not subscribe to, too. some of them, are sounding almost naive and left to me. But he also said a lot of things that make a lot of sense. these are that I quote sometimes. Others I would never quote at all. He was important a thinker. But he was no Über-brain.

While I tend to agree to a moderate approach of positivism, I often disagree with the concept that absolute truths cannot be known for certain - I find this idea to be a play on words rather than the fundamental concept as it is presented. In other words, I believe we can know the ultimate origin of both the universe and the multiverse, which is where I believe we disagree.

I think we cannot. We cannot see beyond the distance of light as it has travelled from "there" to "here" since it was created by whatever form of event. We also cannot investigate or make conclusions on the state of things before that starting event that we assume to have been there (we already limit ourselves by assuming that there has been that starting event, right). Our thinking is not unconditional, and it necessarily cannot be. we are products of the factors that define us in our existence as human beings, and that includes our brains as well as the way our thought get thought by usunder the influence on the context of cultural and lingual conceptions. We all live in a limited universe - limited by the was the words we use make sense for us. we cannot think beyond the meaning of the words we know. We are what we are - last but not least because we are not anything different. Our thinking is limited in ways, patterns and reach. Something limited cannot embrace something that is maybe unlimited, but at least is incredibly many times bigger in size, dimension, scope, complexity.

The problem is the counter-intuitive nature of modern science. For example the classical and still widely-accepted model of the atom still has electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons - despite the fact that we know that electrons do not "orbit" at all ... they exist as waveform functions (probability). But it is far more intuitive to ascribe orbiting to atoms as a way to teach the basic concept - the problem is that its completely wrong.

And Newton physics versus quantum physics. I would not say the one is right and the other is wrong. Both are covering different parts of one and the same spectrum. Like a laser sensor is not more correct or wrong as is an infrared sensor, Newton physics work extremely well in the range or better: at the scale of matter that they match: the macro-universe, from billiard to astronomy. Quantum physics work better in the micro-universe: particle physics, subnuclear scales etc. That is not something I would call "counter-intuitive". If we understand our perception of existence as is as a spectrum, then it is wise to increase our set of filters and sensors to examine various wave-length ranges of it. Newton and Planck founded two such different tools. there may be more needed, the more we learn and find out about the universe. Theoretical maths also may be understood as such a tool, at least as a basis for creating such tools in the future - by telling us at what directions to look. that is why I think it is stupid if economists often claim that sciences only makes sense if they are focussing on creating new products and markets. we need to look beyond that, else we stay where we are. Grundlagenforschung we call it in german, I do not know the English term.

Expanding that idea, we accept the idea that this universe involves a very clear progression of cause and effect. In fact, thermodynamic laws require such a concept. We also accept the idea that we live in a stable vacuum while the concept of further stability is counter-intuitive. Yet, the idea of differing laws of physics (including those more stable than ours) are supported by modern science. In this universe, relativity shows space and time to be inseparable. Intuitively we would believe that would apply in any universe.

That is not by intuition, but because so far we have not observed or gained any solid information about other universes, nor have we been able to find opposing information on the models we currently use - we conclude on them in theoretical models resulting from abstract math. For example the laws of conservation of movement, energy and impulse are attributed to all our present one universe because so far we have not found them to be violated anywhere where we looked. They also enable us to make precise prediction on events "out there", to remote-control our space probes with remarkable precision, and to bring a lot of our observations into consistency with each other. "Intuition" has not so much t do with it, but basic scientific methodology - and this is that I subscribe to more than to anything else. It is the more profound, basic level on which I approach sciences. And that's why I am aware that both the singularity big Bang and the ekpyrotic universe model both are just models, no real knowledge. It also is the reason why I refuse to be put into a drawer with a label on it like "positivism". If you want to label me, then call me an ancient Greek. Not because of their physical models and theories which for the most have been proven wrong by now, but the methodology that they used before anyone else and that that finds it'S eqivalents in our modern science and the way we run it (ideally).

Why?

Intuitively we only percieve 4 dimensions - 3 spatial and one of time. Why does all variations of string theory and M theory then agree on 11 dimensions? Is it a most improbable coicidence or is the universe truly this counter intuitive?

We see the universe the way in which we approach it. We not only passively perceive it, we also actively define it by the way we ask questions about it. Those 11 dimensions thus may be the logical result of using a certain type of mathematics, and they are asmuch a surprise or wonder like it is a surorise that in the decimal system the mulitplation of 3 and 5 makes a result of 15. Mind you, you are talking not about observable sciences, but abstract or theoretical science, and they will remain to be that at least for the forseeable future.

Furthermore, why does it seem that the vast majority of people would agree that gravity is the strongest of the fundamental forces although it is the weakest by MANY orders of magnitude?

Is it? I am currently runnign through my chapter on gravitation force, and I think it is everything but "weak". It is omnipresent and thus: very basic. Do not mistake it's total value in a given local constellation with its general universal meaning.

Okay, fine - I'm rambling on and pretty must past my counter argument - science is just too exciting for me. Getting back, ultimately I think your argument's mistake lies it the fact that, although you've taken an even more reasonable approach to your concepts that anyone else, you've still taken A reasonable approach, period. God, science, and the universe are anything but.

What would be the alternative? Wild fantasizing? Again, I point out that what you may perceive as my reasonable approach, maybe is just a rational attitude grounding on classical scientific methodology. And that methodology is the basis even for abstract and theoretic science. 11-dimensional cosmological explanations need to undergo it as well as the usefulness of the ekpyrotic universe model will need to accept that it gets judged on the basis of this methodology. And this methodology will decide on whether we stay with these models and accept them for more time to come (Big Bang) or as new theories replacing former ones (ekpyrotic universe), or not.

That is not really a philosophical problem of reasonability, is it. what it is is the difference between science and just pseudo-science.