Explanatory power & being useful
I believe this whole discussion is based on a fallacy. In a universe governed by quantum mechanics, the apparent ultimate barriers are not so ultimate. In principle, objects behind horizons are quite within our grasp, but only in principle.
Link to original
The existence of other pocket universes remains, and will remain, a conjecture, but a conjecture with explanatory power.
Link to original
Linde has expressed his opinion: “Those who dislike anthropic principle are simply in denial. This principle is not a universal weapon, but a useful tool, which allows us to concentrate on the fundamental problems of physics by separating them from the purely environmental problems, which may have an anthropic solution. One may hate the Anthropic Principle or love it, but I bet that eventually everyone is going to use it.”
Link to original
- No alternatives
Event horizon
-
Not an end of space
-
Merely the end to what we can see
-
Behaviorism vs emotions
-
Quarks - inseparable
-
Inflation theory
-
Lamarck vs Darwin
In each case that I described—quarks, inflation, Darwinian evolution—the accusers were making the mistake of underestimating human ingenuity.
Link to original
Red herring
Falsification, in my opinion, is a red herring, but confirmation is another story. (Perhaps this is what Smolin really meant.) By confirmation I mean direct positive evidence for a hypothesis rather than absence of negative evidence.
Link to original