How much of this is really science?

From: danny mayes <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:18:13 -0400

 From "A Different Universe" by Robert Laughlin (winner of the Nobel
Prize in physics in 1998):

"Greek creation myths satirize many things in modern life, particularly
cosmological theories. Exploding things, such as dynamite or the big
bang, are unstable. Theories of explosions, including the first
picoseconds of the big bang, thus cross Barriers of Relevance and are
inherently unfalsifiable, notwithstanding widely cited supporting
"evidence" such as isotopic abundances at the surfaces of stars and the
cosmic microwave background anisotropy. One might as well claim to infer
the properties of atoms from the storm damage of a hurricane. Beyond
the big bang we have really unfalsifiable concepts of budding little
baby universes with different properties that must have been created
before the inflationary epoch, but which are now fundamentally
undetectable due to being beyond the light horizon. Beyond even that we
have the anthropic principle- the "explanation" that the universe we can
see has the properties it does by virtue of our being in it. It is fun
to imagine what Voltaire might have done with this material...String
theory is immensely fun to think about because so many of its internal
relationships are unexpectedly simple and beautiful. It has no
practical utility, however, other than to sustain the myth of the
ultimate theory."

Laughlin goes on to argue that string theory is a "textbook case of a
Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just
barely out of reach." Essentially, he is arguing these pursuits into
cosmology have taken us beyond our ability to reliably test theories,
and therefore beyond the bounds of meaningful science. He does not
argue we should stop pursuing science, but instead that we should focus
on emerging laws instead of a reductionist attempt to create a TOE. The
main thing is he wants scientists to be more cognizant of these areas
where they cross Barriers of Relevance, and can no longer reliably
produce verifiable data.

Is Laughlin right that so many of these topics we discuss are beyond the
reach of "real" science? Should certain questions be put on hold until
science/technology has caught up with our ability to test questions?
I don't know the answer, but it seems reasonable to ask the question as
to whether science can take us only to a certain point, from which we
must then apply logic, circumstantial evidence, etc.

It occurred to me while reading Laughlin's book that in Cosmology
reductionism can be roughly compared to a study of the past, while
emergence can be roughly considered a study of the future, or at the
least of the evolution of states into the more recent past.

Danny Mayes

PS- another book I'm reading, Schrodinger's Rabbits by Colin Bruce,
quotes Penrose as telling Bruce "David [Deutsch] seem to disagree on
every conceivable point." That two individuals so imminent in the field
could disagree so thororoughly on matters seems to make Laughlin's point.
Received on Tue Apr 19 2005 - 22:26:09 PDT