inference of a multiverse more plausible now: dark flow (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 01, 2011, 22:10 (4857 days ago) @ David Turell


> > > This phenomenon is within our universe, and is unexplained. Perhaps there is a source for the flow also with our universe.
> > 
> > True, but in a scientific view, 'perhaps' isn't an explanation.
> 
> I know, but 'inference' is just as weak a word. My point is that they have made a guess and I have made a guess, and some folks can find statistical circles in the microwave background, but proof of nothing. The whole attempt is to get to multiverse somehow, and get rid of any suggestion of supernatural origin. And nothing is truly proven at this juncture, even the Big Bang Theory.-Inference isn't weak, it's how science does it's job. -Inference is the heart and soul of science:-If x then y. (Hypothesis)
X. (Test)
Therefore y. (Correlation.)-But at no point is causation guaranteed. -In the case I'm discussing here, we've observed something that doesn't fit the standard theories. The only 2 approaches is to extend the current model or make a new one.-To put it bluntly, even if its the only explanation in existence for this, it is also the best one. This is also my answer to your other question on evolution by NS. Until a better, more powerful theory displaces it, its all we have. So I accept it. In the case of dark matter however... time is needed. This is the first time I've been prompted to take a multiverse seriously. (Outside of conjecture, that is...)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"