The purpose of mathematical models is to predict reality. They do this very well. When you can do as well, you will be in a position to justify negative comments. Until then you are blowing hard.>>
Right. In my belief, a mathematical model (of an aspect of "reality") is a mathematical depiction of that reality. "Reality" is a function of existence which, you recently suggested, physics has lost faith with. But forgetting that, if we have a mathematical model and we're able to identify variables and quantify each identified variable then we can evaluate the function of the quantified variables, which is a "prediction" and of course we SHOULD be able to perform experiments that validate the prediction empirically.
Yes, it is only the output predictions that matter to the scientific method. While predictions are untested (or even while they are incalculable, as happens increasingly!) the model is merely a hypothesis.
My maths ability is not as good as theirs and consequently I am not a physicist. My logical ability is possibly a lot better and so I am able to point out that they are unjustifiably conflating their mathematical models with reality.
All good physicists understand the difference between a valid hypothesis (such as some form of multiverse) and a hypothesis that has been tested and has the status of an established scientific theory. Saying something MAY be real (or even is probably real, if someone is really confident) is not the same as certainty that it is.
However, it is worth noting that the Everett multiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that has equal scientific status (in terms of its ability to make testable predictions about the real world). It has an elegance (of assumptions) that is appealing to many physicists who know that assuming little is a good thing.
There's a word used to describe that (in philosophy) and I forget it for the minute.
I have an hypothesis that is an attempted explanation as to why almost any given idea at any given time is thought to be "the nearest we have come to describing reality". I haven't tried to write down this hypothesis because it is largely intuitive and it would be difficult. But we can compare these ideas which they invest so much faith in with other ideas, which in the infinite wisdom of the Creators of this site, we are not allowed to discuss.
Come to Open Discussion group and open a topic if you wish. There are many varied viewpoints.
) I accept only what is tested as scientific truth and the machinery as only possibly more than that.
OHH !....but u can always fallback on the spineless "....but w/ an infinite amount of tries it will" How in the he!! would u know that it will work w/ an infinite amount of tries ?
You seem to be quoting yourself and calling yourself spineless. I suggest quoting someone else instead.