#epistemology # [[Epistemic status]] #shower-thought #to-digest #non-biological # Related > [!TODO] Related # TODO > [!TODO] TODO > https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9938 > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05016.pdf > book lost in math Sabine physics - arg against [[Karl Popper|Popper]]'s [[Philosophy/Epistemology/Falsifiability|falsifiability]] # Beyond falsifiability >Cosmological models that invoke a [[The multiverse|multiverse]] – a collection of unobservable regions of [[Space|space]] where conditions are very different from the region around us – are controversial, on the grounds that unobservable phenomena shouldn’t play a crucial role in legitimate scientific theories. I argue that the way we evaluate multiverse models is precisely the same as the way we evaluate any other models, on the basis of abduction, Bayesian inference, and empirical success. There is no scientifically respectable way to do cosmology without taking into account different possibilities for what the universe might be like outside our horizon. Multiverse theories are utterly conventionally scientific, even if evaluating them can be difficult in practice. >~ [[Sean Carroll]] Exploring a new continent is controversial, on the grounds that it has never been seen before. I argue that the way we evaluate new regions is precisely the same as the way we evaluate any other places, on the basis of maps, research, and reports of successful voyages. There is no respectable way to travel without taking into account different possibilities for what the land might be like outside our view. Exploring new continents is utterly conventionally adventurous, even if evaluating them can be difficult in practice. It is like trying to evaluate a book without taking into account what lies beyond its pages. The book may be hard to understand in practice, but it is always scientifically conventional to take into account what may be outside its scope.