falsifiability simply means that you could conceivably have an experiment result which show the theory is not correct. This is required because logically the only way experimental evidence can support a theory is if it also can conceivably go against it, else all evidence supports it and is useless in even performing the experiment, so no this idea is not falsifiable because it is a logical issue not an experimental one.



The tldr
If a theory cannot be proven false by evidence then all evidence supports the theory and there is no point in experimentation.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 10 2014 01:22am

The MWI multiverse theory can't be proven false, but all evidence doesn't support it. Right?

"The multiverse hypothesis is a source of debate within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry.[2] Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[3] Steven Weinberg,[4] Brian Greene,[5][6] Max Tegmark,[7] Alan Guth,[8] Andrei Linde,[9] Michio Kaku,[10] David Deutsch,[11] Leonard Susskind,[12] Raj Pathria,[13] Sean Carroll, Alex Vilenkin,[14] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[15][16] and Neil deGrasse Tyson.[17] In contrast, critics such as Jim Baggott,[18] David Gross,[19] Paul Steinhardt,[20] George Ellis[21][22] and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, that the multiverse cannot be a scientific question because it lacks falsifiability, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific" - from the wiki

also a simple falsifiable argument for the multiverse: the universe doesn't tend create things in singles, you could falsify this by proving it does have a tendency to create single unique entities (but it doesn't)

Depends how you are using proven here.

Although I'm no physicist and this is about as in-depth of a physics discussion as you could have. I'll just say I've talked to professors and they say you could in theory design an experiment to test it, but I don't understand any caveats they may have or understand it entirely regardless, but if you couldn't disprove a theory, it's not scientific.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 10 2014 02:11pm

The theory that EVERYTHING can be falsificated must therefore include falsification itself otherwise not everything could be falsificated.. Hence falsification can be itself falsificated. In other words you beat falsification with falsification and therefore falsification is the looser and winner at the same time.

Its almost like a boxing match in which one guy (he stands for falsification) is beaten by another guy (who also stands for falsification). The boxer, falsification is beaten and hence has lost the fight, however before the fight there was an agreement that he will receive sums of money if he looses. Therefore if you falsificate falsification itself it seems like falsification has lost but in reality it has proven itself to be the overall winner.

ah whatever no idea

LOL, you broke my brain

e: i honestly can't tell if he's joking or not, dam you poes law

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 11 2014 08:32am

yeah it's kind of ironical to pose a statement as if it was a law because I say so and then say "whatever no idea" xD

Godel's Theorems clearly show that most things can neither be proven nor disproven. So, just because something cannot be proven false, does not mean it is true.

You're really good at posting things that have nothing to do with the topic.