This subject interests me greatly, and recently began over in the Cottage of Lost Play forum (I felt the subject was too broad for that forum, and so I brought it here).
In a thread regarding the forthcoming biopic about Stephen Hawking (one of my heroes), we were discussing a comment that the actor playing Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) made when he met Hawking for the first and only time. He said something like “We’re both capricorns” (which I interpreted as humor) to which Hawking replied with something like “I am an astronomer, not an astrologer" (which I also interpreted as humor).
This prompted some understandable annoyance at Redmayne for making that comment to such a great mind, which then led to the following exchange (or beginning of an exchange) between myself and Primula Baggins, which speaks to the subject of this thread. I’ve pasted the exchange below as a fire-starter for this conversation, and hope to see a robust exchange of views!
Passdagas the Brown said:
Primula Baggins replied:Sounds like a harmless little joke from Redmayne (and Hawking may have well been joking as well).
In any event, the universe may contain more dimensions than we are aware of (if theoretical frameworks like string theory pan out) and even far more than one universe. If the big bang was actually the creation of a hyper-advanced civilization in another universe, who's to say they didn't have a sense of humor as well - programming some absurd properties into the experiment that included an odd correlation between the future orbits and spin of planets, and the characteristics of future life forms on those planets?
Passdagas the Brown replied:Gahhhh! Not falsifiable, and therefore irrelevant.
Some astrological claims can actually be falsified. And a few scholars have attempted to do so. And so far, the claims that have been tested have turned out to be generally false. So astrology has already failed some scientific scrutiny.
And of course, my scenario above was not particularly serious. Hence the smiley. But I will say that the non-falsifiability of something does not make it generally irrelevant. It simply makes it not subject to scientific scrutiny at the moment, and therefore only irrelevant to the scientific method for the time being.
But of course, there have been a number of hypotheses and theories throughout history that were once non-falsifiable (due to the limitations of knowledge and technology), but through the further development of knowledge and technology, eventually became falsifiable (such as, say, the existence of atoms). So in that sense, a hypothesis that is non-falsifiable at the moment is not irrelevant to science in general. In fact, such hypotheses can spur a plethora of prerequisite studies and technological developments (just as the science fiction of the past has spurred researchers to discover, test and develop, as will the science fiction of today).
My insane hypothesis, of course, requires a whole host of prerequisite discoveries. First, scientists have not yet been able to peer into the time before the big bang (and human scientists may indeed never be able to do so). But there are legions of physicists, etc. who want to do so, and that desire alone may drive us toward doing so. Second, dimensions beyond the 4th (and the existence of a multi-verse) are still just mathematical possibilities, and not observed realities. But there are experimental physicists who are driven by a desire to observe those realities (many of whom are associated with CERN or Fermilab). Third, the nature of our universe is still an open question, and will be until we reconcile quantum physics and relativity. It may be impossible to determine what, or who, is responsible for the creation of the universe until we fully understand what it is. And lastly, we have of course found no evidence to suggest that there's a statistically-significant correlation between the month and day of a human being's birth, and their psychological profile. So choosing this area of study right now is probably not a promising career move.
But the point is that science fiction, and non-falsifiable hypotheses, are not irrelevant at all (provided that they don't contradict already-established laws of physics). They are the imaginative core that drives scientific inquiry. To dismiss it is to dismiss the fuel that drives the engine of that inquiry. The method of science, both experimental and theoretical, is not all science is. Science is a human endeavor bound up with the imagination, and the method is just our way of testing whether or not we're on the right track. It's a tool, not the whole project.
Frankly, I've found there to be a very frustrating dynamic between experimental and theoretical scientists. The former, in particular, seem to often be unable to lift their heads from the underbrush in order to appreciate the driving force that theory (and even mere speculation) has on the scientific process. While the latter can sometimes be too willing to ignore experimental results for as long as possible, if it seems that those experiments are poking holes in their pet theories. However, I feel that the experimentalists can often be the more closed-minded of the two groups (often, not always, as there are a large number of exceptions on both sides).
In that context, the most I can say to experimentalists (and some theorists) who sniff at anything that cannot yet be tested is that the seemingly wild speculation of the past has, on some occasions, become the accepted reality of the present. Because of that, try to keep your mind open to the many rays of reality that may, or may not, be true. Including the possibility that the big bang was the result of an extra-universal experiment by some bored extra-universal experimental scientists!
Looking forward to your thoughts!
-PtB
). Advances in technology do make it possible to discover aspects of our universe that were invisible to us before. I would not describe any theory related to possible physical phenomena within our universe as "not falsifiable." It will almost certainly be falsifiable someday, assuming our species survives and continues to advance.
