On Theoretical Mathematical Models

[pywakit]

Please try not to take offense by the things I am about to say. It is not meant to be condescending.

 

I am not a mathematician. I am not a physicist.

 

I am an OBSERVER with sufficient wattage between my ears to make rational, logical ( in most cases ) sense of my observations.

 

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

 

So many here speak in 'absolutes'. NEVER. EVER. WILL ALWAYS.

 

You just can't seem to learn from the mistakes of those who came before you.

 

These issues ... the structure, form, and functions of our universe are FAR from 'settled'.

 

One hundred years ago, we had theoretical mathematical models of the universe.

 

The Universe didn't cooperate. Observations just didn't agree with the models.

 

So we ( eventually ) came up with NEW mathematical models. And for a few decades everything was 'cool'.

 

But then our observations, using better tools, began to contradict those models, too.

 

So we grudgingly created NEW mathematical models to try to agree with the observations.

 

Naturally, at each point in this cosmological history there were those who 'held fast' to the old thinking. History is littered with nameless ... and not so nameless scientists who ended up on the wrong side of the fence.

 

50 years ago ... it was the 'steady-state' universe. Famous scientists ... mainstream scientists went down in history as 'losers'.

 

At each point, 'mainstream' scoffed at, and/or ignored evidence that contradicted their beliefs, or the theoretical mathematical models.

 

And at each point, they said ... "Ok. Well we may have been wrong in the past, but we are RIGHT this time. And anyone who disagrees is a crank. Or a fool. They just don't know what they are talking about!"

 

Well, I hate to say this, but the 'ever-expanding, heat-death' universe may very well soon go down in history as another "Oooops!" There are more and more scientists who are finding reasons to question this 'final truth'.

 

The observations just in the last 5 years are casting serious doubt on the theoretical mathematical models once again. As I mentioned to someone else today ... If there is corroborating observational evidence to contradict current mathematical models, it's time to reassess the math. Not your eyes.

 

Some facts about our universe ARE immutable. But there are a whole lot of 'assumptions' made here that have little backing from observational evidence.

 

If you want to repeat the mistakes of the 'losers' of the past, that's your business.

 

I prefer to keep an open mind, rather than assume these issues are 'settled'.

 

I hope I have made my point clearly enough.

[mooeypoo]

Keeping an open mind is great as long as you don't let your brain fall out.

 

There's a reason physicists and mathematicians study the basics thoroughly (including where things came from historically *and* practically, by mathematical derivations). Knowing your history indeed helps you change the future, but you need to *know* the history, and be willing to find out that your belief systems are wrong when empirical evidence show them as such.

 

If a model is strictly philosophical and does not follow, or has problems explaining current observations, or has problems fitting the current working mathematical models, or is shown to contradict principles that are evident, then it's not a good model.

 

While it's true that scientists must keep an open mind, the people/person behind a certain model must follow his own advice and keep and open mind allowing for the possibility that his model has mistakes.

 

Specially when the model is not based on mathematical information and came up without actual studying of our current knowledge which has *WORKING* theories.

 

~moo

[pywakit]

Keeping an open mind is great as long as you don't let your brain fall out.

 

There's a reason physicists and mathematicians study the basics thoroughly (including where things came from historically *and* practically, by mathematical derivations). Knowing your history indeed helps you change the future, but you need to *know* the history, and be willing to find out that your belief systems are wrong when empirical evidence show them as such.

 

If a model is strictly philosophical and does not follow, or has problems explaining current observations, or has problems fitting the current working mathematical models, or is shown to contradict principles that are evident, then it's not a good model.

 

While it's true that scientists must keep an open mind, the people/person behind a certain model must follow his own advice and keep and open mind allowing for the possibility that his model has mistakes.

 

Specially when the model is not based on mathematical information and came up without actual studying of our current knowledge which has *WORKING* theories.

 

~moo

 

Moo, that is a gross ( as usual ) mischaracterization of my model. It is based on my 'miniscule' knowledge of math, physics, and a whole bunch of new observational evidence that supports it. And no doubt ... a lot of really lucky guesses. There is nothing 'philosophical' about it.

 

And I DO accept the possibility that my model has mistakes. But thanks for ignoring the serious point made here. Go ahead and make it about me.

 

You will never ( apparently ) grasp that I rely on OTHER scientists' math. Like Einstein. Newton. And many others.

 

My model doesn't contradict ANY principles, although you continue to insist it does .... without actually NAMING the offending principles.

 

I have provided referenced, researched material over and over ( which you choose to ignore ) that supports my model. YOU didn't. You have just repeatedly claimed the same things. Without ANY referenced, current material to back your claims. That's the fact.

 

I don't HAVE belief systems. You can insist I do, but you are absolutely wrong. There is NO empirical evidence to falsify my model. The fact that the recession is accelerating is NOT proof that the model is incorrect.

 

It IS proof that we don't yet understand the mechanisms involved, nor do we KNOW that it is irreversable.

 

And you continue to deny the reality that there are many scientists ... not cranks, or fools ... who would disagree STRENUOUSLY with you.

 

Edison didn't need to be a theoretical mathematician to build a light bulb.

 

He built upon the knowledge of many 'scientists' before him. HE NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE. He didn't HAVE to know everything about EM. He didn't HAVE to know the 'history' of chemicals.

 

So say whatever you want.

Edited February 5, 2010 by pywakit

[mooeypoo]

We aren't going to talk about your model, pywakit, because that would be reopening a closed thread. In the thread where your model was discussed there are enough things to read and think through.

 

I wasn't referring to strictly your model, but it does seem to fit in as well. You just have a lot of trouble accepting it. Despite all that, we are *NOT* going to reopen a closed thread, as it is against the rules of the forum.

 

And please (again) drop the attitude. We are suposed to have a discussion, not an emotional bashtime. Please don't make this personal. It isn't.

 

~moo

[pywakit]

Moo wrote :

 

There's a reason physicists and mathematicians study the basics thoroughly (including where things came from historically *and* practically, by mathematical derivations). Knowing your history indeed helps you change the future, but you need to *know* the history, and be willing to find out that your belief systems are wrong when empirical evidence show them as such.

 

If a model is strictly philosophical and does not follow, or has problems explaining current observations, or has problems fitting the current working mathematical models, or is shown to contradict principles that are evident, then it's not a good model.

 

While it's true that scientists must keep an open mind, the people/person behind a certain model must follow his own advice and keep and open mind allowing for the possibility that his model has mistakes.

 

Specially when the model is not based on mathematical information and came up without actual studying of our current knowledge which has *WORKING* theories.

 

Looks like YOU are the one who brought it up, Moo. Not me. You are the one who just attacked both me, and my model.

 

And I don't recall expressing a desire in the OP to 're-open' the locked thread.

 

Your 'attitude' clearly has a few issues. As do your emotions.

 

Get a grip on reality. Now please leave me alone. I mean it.

[Bignose]

At each point, 'mainstream' scoffed at, and/or ignored evidence that contradicted their beliefs, or the theoretical mathematical models.

 

The whole rant is rather misguided, but this line is particular is way off.

 

If there really was evidence, then the "mainstream" had no choice but to accept it. And refine their models and maybe even rethink.

 

Almost every single working scientist would absolutely relish at that idea. That is the goal of almost every single scientist -- to be able to come up with something completely and totally new. Every working scientist is doing this right now -- there is no point in doing something old because it has already been done.

 

What was "scoffed" at, was lack of evidence. Or poor evidence. But, if there was sound evidence, it was incorporated. And it will always be incorporated. The evidence has to be sound, and all evidence has to survive a trial by fire of inquiry, and possible counter-evidence and show to be statistically significant, etc. etc. But once there is actual evidence, then it will be accepted. Just saying it was scoffed at doesn't make it true.

 

On the subject of evidence -- can you actually cite any examples where actual good evidence was "scoffed" at or deliberately ignored?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Looks like YOU are the one who brought it up, Moo. Not me. You are the one who just attacked both me, and my model.

 

No -- re-read this thread. The first mention of your model is post number 3 where you say "my model". Moo's response in post #2 is completely written about generalities. Neither post has the edited tag on them, so they haven't been changed. pywakit you are the first one to mention your model in this thread.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Bignose
Consecutive posts merged.

[pywakit]

Bignose wrote :

 

No -- re-read this thread. The first mention of your model is post number 3 where you say "my model". Moo's response in post #2 is completely written about generalities. Neither post has the edited tag on them, so they haven't been changed. pywakit you are the first one to mention your model in this thread.

You really think that, don't you? Too funny.

 

As to your other point, didn't EINSTEIN scoff at an 'expanding universe'?

 

Doyle? Didn't they publicly ridicule HUBBLE?

 

Are you bereft of your senses? Check your history Bignose.

[Bignose]

Bignose wrote :

As to your other point, didn't EINSTEIN scoff at an 'expanding universe'?

 

Doyle? Didn't they publicly ridicule HUBBLE?

 

Are you bereft of your senses? Check your history Bignose.

 

How conclusive was the evidence in Einstein's time of the expanding universe? How conclusive was the evidence for Hubble's idea over Doyle's in his day? If the evidence wasn't conclusive (as it is today with the better measuring methods), then it is perfectly reasonable to judge one idea wrong if the available evidence fits multiple theories. However, once the evidence was solidified, no actual scientist "scoffs" at it any more.

 

There are plenty of open questions today where the evidence to date isn't decisive one way or the other. That doesn't mean that the people who support the side that will end up being wrong aren't scientists, or that they will end up being worthless. The argument stimulates the need to find the better, more conclusive, more objective, more significant evidence.

 

So, maybe I didn't make my request clear. Can you cite any specific examples when there was clear, conclusive, significant evidence that once side was right, and that evidence was ignored or "scoffed" at by other scientists?

 

Also, please don't insult me. I didn't insult you.

[pywakit]

How conclusive was the evidence in Einstein's time of the expanding universe? How conclusive was the evidence for Hubble's idea over Doyle's in his day? If the evidence wasn't conclusive (as it is today with the better measuring methods), then it is perfectly reasonable to judge one idea wrong if the available evidence fits multiple theories. However, once the evidence was solidified, no actual scientist "scoffs" at it any more.

 

There are plenty of open questions today where the evidence to date isn't decisive one way or the other. That doesn't mean that the people who support the side that will end up being wrong aren't scientists, or that they will end up being worthless. The argument stimulates the need to find the better, more conclusive, more objective, more significant evidence.

 

So, maybe I didn't make my request clear. Can you cite any specific examples when there was clear, conclusive, significant evidence that once side was right, and that evidence was ignored or "scoffed" at by other scientists?

 

Also, please don't insult me. I didn't insult you.

 

My observations in the OP were factual. Rational. Verifiable. History is full of 'scientists' who went to their graves refusing to accept overwhelming evidence.

 

Yes ... you did insult me. Nobody ( except you and perhaps a few others in the clique ) was fooled by Moo's comments. Now ... Good bye. I'm done talking to you, or any other disingenuous, and/or irrational poster.

[mooeypoo]

Get a grip on reality. Now please leave me alone. I mean it.

You came to us, pywakit, not the other way around. If you want us to leave tyou alone, you can simply leave. Don't expect us to absorb your model and not raise problems (yeah, there are problems, deal with it) just because you get personal about it.

 

You want out? leave. Otherwise, follow the rules and stop being personal about things that aren't meant to be personal.

 

My observations in the OP were factual. Rational. Verifiable. History is full of 'scientists' who went to their graves refusing to accept overwhelming evidence.

They were not, but since you're also neither of the above, it's impossible to argue with you logically.

Edited February 5, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[pywakit]

You came to us, pywakit, not the other way around. If you want us to leave tyou alone, you can simply leave. Don't expect us to absorb your model and not raise problems (yeah, there are problems, deal with it) just because you get personal about it.

 

You want out? leave. Otherwise, follow the rules and stop being personal about things that aren't meant to be personal.

 

 

They were not, but since you're also neither of the above, it's impossible to argue with you logically.

 

Ok Moo. You keep insisting it has 'problems'.

 

Cite the actual problems. You never have cited a specific problem yet.

 

Show me where it conflicts with the law(s) of physics.

 

Show me where it conflicts with GR. ( Not where GR 'breaks down'.)

 

Show me where it conflicts with accepted QM.

 

Show me where it conflicts with current particle research.

 

Show me where it conflicts with any known, and verified experiment.

 

Show me where it conflicts with any verified, and accepted observation.

 

Prove to me that all the other respected scientists agree that the 'expansion' is irreversable.

 

Prove to me that gravity is not infinite.

 

Prove to me that space itself can not exceed c.

 

Prove to me that black holes are infinitely small/dense.

 

Prove to me that black hole spin can not exceed c. ( Not that it matters )

 

Prove to me that centrifugal force can not overcome gravity.

 

Prove to me that the gravitational waves of early black holes have not preceded the 'expansion'.

 

Prove to me that ancient black holes are no longer in 'communication'.

 

Prove to me that black holes have a ( naturally occurring ) mass limit.

 

Prove to me that space is expanding.

 

Prove to me that matter is continually being added to our universe.

 

Prove to me that DE exists.

 

Prove to me that the visible/local universe ( what came out of the BB ) does not have a finite amount of mass/energy.

 

And back all of your proofs/claims with referenced, 3rd party, peer-reviewed support. If you can't do that, then your claims are worthless.

 

Anything irrational, or illogical here? Doesn't look like it.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am not a mathematician. I am not a physicist.

 

I am an OBSERVER with sufficient wattage between my ears to make rational, logical ( in most cases ) sense of my observations.

 

Lots of watts creates lots of heat... does that make you a hothead?

 

And at each point, they said ... "Ok. Well we may have been wrong in the past, but we are RIGHT this time. And anyone who disagrees is a crank. Or a fool. They just don't know what they are talking about!"

 

The history of science is largely summed up thus: we were mostly right before, and we're even more right now. We tested theories under new circumstances, and if they failed we replaced them with theories that work under both new and old.

 

Well, I hate to say this, but the 'ever-expanding, heat-death' universe may very well soon go down in history as another "Oooops!" There are more and more scientists who are finding reasons to question this 'final truth'.

 

Of course. Much of that is highly speculative, as it deals with untested conditions and there are large error margins.

 

The observations just in the last 5 years are casting serious doubt on the theoretical mathematical models once again. As I mentioned to someone else today ... If there is corroborating observational evidence to contradict current mathematical models, it's time to reassess the math. Not your eyes.

 

Sometimes your eyes play tricks on you too.

 

Making a new theory means addressing the math.

 

Some facts about our universe ARE immutable. But there are a whole lot of 'assumptions' made here that have little backing from observational evidence.

 

I prefer to keep an open mind, rather than assume these issues are 'settled'.

 

Indeed, assumptions should always be tentative.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My model doesn't contradict ANY principles,

...

I don't HAVE belief systems. You can insist I do, but you are absolutely wrong. There is NO empirical evidence to falsify my model. The fact that the recession is accelerating is NOT proof that the model is incorrect.

 

What happened to that open mind?

 

Edison didn't need to be a theoretical mathematician to build a light bulb.

 

Well, you got one model. Where's the other 999 models you made?

[pywakit]

Mr. Skeptic writes :

 

Lots of watts creates lots of heat... does that make you a hothead?

 

Lol. Yes. Sometimes.

 

Well, you got one model. Where's the other 999 models you made?

 

I will look for them.

 

(edit)

 

Actually, I did have quite a few others over the years. None of them worked. Lol.

 

Serious answer is ... until about a year and a half ago, I felt there was insufficient data to make a reasonable determination.

 

I may be wrong. I understand this. But I also understand ( contrary to the opinions of several ) that the theory has merit, and should be explored, both mathematically, and observationally.

 

And ( again ) I also understand that it needs math. But the description given is sufficient for any good mathematician.

 

I would not be surprised at all if there are a few scientists around the world quietly exploring this theory right now.

 

We will see ...

Edited February 5, 2010 by pywakit

[Mr Skeptic]

What was "scoffed" at, was lack of evidence. Or poor evidence. But, if there was sound evidence, it was incorporated. And it will always be incorporated. The evidence has to be sound, and all evidence has to survive a trial by fire of inquiry, and possible counter-evidence and show to be statistically significant, etc. etc. But once there is actual evidence, then it will be accepted. Just saying it was scoffed at doesn't make it true.

 

Indeed, many people do not understand how science works. Trial by fire is harsh, but that is exactly science's strong point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, you got one model. Where's the other 999 models you made?

 

I will look for them.

 

Well, keep in mind that a model of the universe is significantly more complicated than a lightbulb. Maybe you'll need more tries than Edison had for making the lightbulb.

[pywakit]

Indeed, many people do not understand how science works. Trial by fire is harsh, but that is exactly science's strong point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Well, keep in mind that a model of the universe is significantly more complicated than a lightbulb. Maybe you'll need more tries than Edison had for making the lightbulb.

 

Maybe you are correct.

 

But maybe I am just extremely lucky.

 

Or just maybe I am very good at observing and correlating evidence.

 

That possible?

 

Indeed, many people do not understand how science works. Trial by fire is harsh, but that is exactly science's strong point.

 

Many do. And it could be much worse. My last name could have been Bruno .....

[swansont]

Bignose wrote :

 

 

You really think that, don't you? Too funny.

 

As to your other point, didn't EINSTEIN scoff at an 'expanding universe'?

 

Doyle? Didn't they publicly ridicule HUBBLE?

 

Are you bereft of your senses? Check your history Bignose.

 

They laughed at Bozo the clown, too.

 

To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right. (Bob Park)

 

A model needs to make specific, testable predictions. It must be falsifiable, i.e. there must be a quantifiable way to show that it is wrong. A mathematical framework makes this possible. Without it, the model is generally of little value. It is because of such specifics that previous models in science (not just Cosmology) have been shown to be wrong or incomplete.

[Klaynos]

I've so far only done a quick scan of the OP... But one question pops into my mind every time I see a thread like this...

 

Why does the universe have to be logical to a human?

 

If people thought about that a bit more they'd realise it doesn't.

[ajb]

Every working scientist is doing this right now -- there is no point in doing something old because it has already been done.

 

Unless you can do it in a new and novel way. There can be lot to learn in the "doing" even if the "results" are not surprising.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Bignose wrote :

 

 

You really think that, don't you? Too funny.

 

As to your other point, didn't EINSTEIN scoff at an 'expanding universe'?

 

Doyle? Didn't they publicly ridicule HUBBLE?

 

Are you bereft of your senses? Check your history Bignose.

 

Be very careful about comparing yourself to Einstein or Hubble. It is usually unrelated to any argument about the validity of any theory. It is generally seen a inadvisable unless there is a real connection, for example you went to the same school as Hubble.

 

 

The biggest problem when someone (not thinking of you specifically) proposes a "new theory" that is not formulated well and is rather generic is that it can be very difficult to point to specific issues. Sometimes things are based on very obvious misunderstandings and sometimes things are not formulated in a way as to make specific predictions or testable hypothesis.

 

A physical theory is synonymous with a mathematical model. It may well be true that models started with some "physical insight" but ultimately these need to be stated mathematically. Almost inevitably the mathematical formulation will "feedback" into the "physical interpretation" and can change ones perspective.

 

So, "physical interpretation" what is that? A lot of people think that this is the theory. In reality it is a description of a mathematical calculation or construct using "physical ideas and language". This is what you will read in most popular science books. The ideas and ethos of some calculation.

 

Physical interpretation can be very useful in theoretical and mathematical physics. It can guide you and lead to ideas you may not have seen in the "pure maths". But it is not substitute for the real work.

 

Also sometimes physical interpretation and analogies can lead to ill-posed questions. These really arise from not looking at the mathematical framework. Often a little understanding of the mathematics will make such questions "vanish". Great examples of this are "what is the universe expanding into?" and almost every question about virtual particles.

Edited February 5, 2010 by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sayonara]

Anything irrational, or illogical here? Doesn't look like it.

Yes. Making attack the first line of defence for a model you are proposing.

 

If you wish to discuss the same topic on these boards, then you are going to have to do so according to the conventions of the discipline the topic belongs to, as well as the rules of SFN. Now I realise that this thread has been more of a grudge match than a debate, but I'm hoping (perhaps optimistically) that the participants will learn from the mistakes made.

[ponderer]

Keeping an open mind is great as long as you don't let your brain fall out.

 

There's a reason physicists and mathematicians study the basics thoroughly (including where things came from historically *and* practically, by mathematical derivations). Knowing your history indeed helps you change the future, but you need to *know* the history, and be willing to find out that your belief systems are wrong when empirical evidence show them as such.

 

If a model is strictly philosophical and does not follow, or has problems explaining current observations, or has problems fitting the current working mathematical models, or is shown to contradict principles that are evident, then it's not a good model.

 

While it's true that scientists must keep an open mind, the people/person behind a certain model must follow his own advice and keep and open mind allowing for the possibility that his model has mistakes.

 

Specially when the model is not based on mathematical information and came up without actual studying of our current knowledge which has *WORKING* theories.

 

~moo

 

You make some good, points.

 

The study of physics, is actually the study of the Philosophy of Physcis. Along the way the Philisophy of got dropped.

 

Philosophy is a very strict discilpine of logic underlying all mathematics, and material science. I cannot recommend highly enough the book The Philosophy of Science, J.C. Smart.

 

Consequently, I personally think that there should be room for philosophical approaches and discussion in physics.

 

That a model does not agree with observation is important for mainstream physics, in terms of research, industry, text books and such. However, a model may still have a certain philosophical elegance, and understanding its shortcomings may lead to better models.

 

Being an impatient fool, whose father used to tell him all the time, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, and finding that physics wasn`t explaining what I wanted to know, well, you get the idea.

 

I decided to used the rule of arbitration of believability, Occam`s Razor. I turned physics upside down. I did an end around, to cut to the chase. Find the absolute simplest explanation possible for existance, period, and a universe just fell out as a consequence.

 

That is philosphical interesting if nothing else.

[ajb]

That a model does not agree with observation is important for mainstream physics, in terms of research, industry, text books and such. However, a model may still have a certain philosophical elegance, and understanding its shortcomings may lead to better models.

 

There is definitely an important role played by "toy models". These are models that were never meant to be realistic, but are sophisticated enough to be useful in understanding mechanisms and constructions needed in more "realistic models". (Without quantifying what I mean by "realistic".)

 

Things that spring to mind here are the quantisation of scalar field theories and supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

 

Scalar field theory is generally not thought to be "fundamental" with the possible exception of the Higgs. It is studied as a simple model to get at the features of quantising other fields like Dirac fields or the electromagnetic field. We "reduce the number of indices" and consider "commuting classical fields".

 

Supersymmetric quantum mechanics allows us to see the main features of supersymmetric field theory (positive energy vacuum, the Witten index, pairing of bosonic and fermionic states etc ) without the added complication of special relativity.

 

Many other examples can be found.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, let's discuss definitions for a second.

 

If we were in a LEGO forum, a model would mean colorful building blocks arranged in a specific construct.

A model might mean something different in philosophy. Or construction.

 

This, however, is a science forums, and when we say "Model" we mean a scientific model. A scientific model requires very clear properties to be called a model. A model *describes* a phenomena scientifically and mathematically. Without math, a model is not a model, it is a hypothetical philosophy.

 

So let's get our definitions straight here, please. We are in a science forum and not in a free-for-all philosophy forum. It's not about what you wish, or how you feel, or what your opinion is. Science isn't about feelings, or wishes or opinions. It's about empirical data and strict definitions.

 

Let's start using them. This is not a model. It's an idea. It might one day turn into a model. It's not yet one.

 

~moo

[pywakit]

I've so far only done a quick scan of the OP... But one question pops into my mind every time I see a thread like this...

 

Why does the universe have to be logical to a human?

 

If people thought about that a bit more they'd realise it doesn't.

 

That is a very good point. But you have forgotten something very critical. All human's capacity for logic varies from one to another. And it's quite subjective.

 

90% of Americans think it's 'logical' to believe in a supreme being. An additional 3% think it's logical to believe they have some 'spirit' that seperates them from other lower animal life ( rough numbers ).

 

Some people think it's logical to refuse to answer direct questions that they don't like the answer to.

 

Where was/is the 'logic' in thinking it was possible that out of an entire universe of stars ... at least quadrillions of them ...only ourstar 'might' have planets?

 

A purely mathematical possibility, eh? Even in the face of ALL the other knowledge we had showing those stars were pretty much the same as ours.

 

Yet in the same breath, you can deny the possibility that a man who has studied the universe for half a century is by definition 'clueless' about the nature of our universe because he does not have a degree in math, or physics. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he has a good working knowledge of the germane issues.

 

So what's the mathematical probability that a layman could use general knowledge of physics and math ... and a million observations to figure out the overall functions and structure of the universe?

 

Less than 1 in quadrillions? This is irrational.

 

No. The universe doesn't have to be 'logical' to humans. If it were we would have an elf for president, and our future would be preordained in the worn out cards of a charlaton.

 

Rational, however, is quite another story. It does have to be rational.

[mooeypoo]

Rational, however, is quite another story. It does have to be rational.

Rational != Logical to human beings, or "makes sense", or "sounds true" or "fits in my mind".

[pywakit]

They laughed at Bozo the clown, too.

 

To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right. (Bob Park)

 

A model needs to make specific, testable predictions. It must be falsifiable, i.e. there must be a quantifiable way to show that it is wrong. A mathematical framework makes this possible. Without it, the model is generally of little value. It is because of such specifics that previous models in science (not just Cosmology) have been shown to be wrong or incomplete.

 

Another excellent point. So we can use reason, based on a plethora of supporting evidence ... experimental, observational, and even ( partial ) mathematical evidence to decide if the model warrants further research, and exploration. Mathematically, experimentally, observationally.

 

Isn't it nice that the model has many many ways it could be falsified! So that leaves us with just 'completing the math' to determine it's true value.

 

Perhaps it will end up with little, or no value after all. But if we can throw money at Frampton's 'empty packet' universe, or Turok's magical 'time reversal' universe, or Green's 10^500 universes, then it seems rational to explore an apparently 'sensible' solution that has no such bizarre requirements to function.

 

Too rational?