<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>It is worth noticing that Popper was (and is) big in philosophy
of science, but is hardly the last word of what makes a good
scientific theory or practice. Falsifiability comes in various
shades, actual science is pretty far from a
hypothesis-experiment-confirmation/falsification loop, and things
like simulations require other ways of thinking about the issue.<br>
</p>
<p>The age of the universe is AFAIK *not* a prediction of the big
bang theory: the theory just predicts a finite age. The age is
something you calculate by fitting observation data to a model of
the expansion, typically a FRW metric with a model of the
mass/energy state - quite a lot of extra data and theory. Big bang
theory essentially just states that the universe was smaller and
hotter in the past, and that this can be extrapolated to an
initial bang state. The rest requires a spacetime theory and a
theory for the matter content. <br>
</p>
<p>It is worth noticing that the Ehlers–Geren–Sachs theorem <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehlers%E2%80%93Geren%E2%80%93Sachs_theorem">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehlers%E2%80%93Geren%E2%80%93Sachs_theorem</a><br>
makes an isotropic and homogeneous FRW spacetime pretty
unavoidable given observations, and would indeed falsify the
spacetime if we found large deviations in the background
radiation. <br>
</p>
<p>If you have a FRW spacetime Occam's razor supports that the
manifold is open or complete: while one can imagine a finite patch
unraveling at its edges, it is a theory that contains extra data
(where are those edges?) that does not explain anything we can see
(since the edges have to be beyond our horizon). Popper would also
argue it is unfalsifiable. In fact, it is somewhat hard to see
even where the edge would come from unless the original
singularity had a *really* peculiar topology. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-06-09 21:08, John Clark wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv3N7vFUeMxk-C4+AOxvKSzmYLnUPCnR4FsKOAwBZAzsRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
size="4">The philosopher Karl </font></div>
<font size="4">Popper
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">said</div>
a theory is unscientific if it makes a prediction that can't
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">be
</div>
falsified
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">regardless
of how good experimenters become,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>
but what
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">if</div>
a theory that makes lots of predictions that could have been
proven false but
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">weren't
and </div>
instead were
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">
confirmed</div>
,
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">but</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the
same theory </div>
also makes some predictions that can't be falsified?
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Should
we just pretend those predictions don't exist? </div>
The Big Bang Theory makes a lot of predictions that have been
confirmed and one of them is that the universe is 13.8 billion
years old
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">, </div>
and so regardless of where we point out telescopes
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">it
predicts </div>
we
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">can</div>
never see anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. And
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">indeed</div>
our telescopes
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">have
never </div>
see
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">n
anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. T</div>
here are only 2 conclusion
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">s</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> that
can be</div>
draw
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">n</div>
from
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">that
</div>
observation:</font>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font size="4">1) There
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">are</div>
lots of stars more distant than 13.8 billion
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">light
</div>
years but we'll never be able to see
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">them</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">because
light hasn't had enough time to reach us and due to the
accelerating universe there will never be enough time to
reach us.</div>
</font></div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>
<font size="4">2)
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Nothing
exists that is more distant than 13.8 billion light years
and t</div>
he Earth is at the center of the Universe.<br>
</font><br>
<font size="4">Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the
more scientific conclusion. In a similar way Everett's Many
Worlds Theory does such a good job explaining how the 2 slit
experiment
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">works</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>
I don't think it's unscientific to conclude other worlds
might exist.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font
size="4"> John K Clark</font></div>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University</pre>
</body>
</html>