Why Trust A Theory?
Ethan Siegel

Damning the Popperianism and the Multiverse.

The way of confirming a theory is indeed very important, and it consists of two arenas.

One, empirical knowledge (tests and observations)

Two, conceptual contemplation (theorizing and speculation)

From these, there are some derived issues.

Science: what is science?



From here, it comes the Popperianism. Thus, I will discuss this issue with 4 steps.

A, empirical knowledge (test and observation data)

B, invaliding the nonsense which is unfalsifiable with empirical means

C, about Popperianism

D, about Dawid’s three points

Step one: the empirical knowledge is USEFUL but is only a very, very low level tool in the path of searching for truths. In fact, it has absolutely ZERO power as a tool to confirm the true (final) truth. I will give three SOLID examples here.

Example one, the Standard Model (of particle physics) is a phenomenological model; that is, every piece of it is based on empirical data. And, it has passed ALL additional (not the original discovering pathways) throwing monkey wrench challenges thus far (that is, to Today, December 25, 2015). Yet, with this total invincibility from all (any) empirical tests, SM is still definitely an incomplete hodgepodge, totally wrong as a correct (final) theory. How do we know this? Because, it is totally USELESS to perform many genuine TASKs, such as:


Dark energy and dark mass


Hierarchy problem

Calculating nature constants (Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, Alpha, etc.)

Determining the Neff with an internal framework

Providing a base (or just a language) for the SM particles

Giving any hint about the initial condition at or before the Big Bang

… the list goes on.

Thus far, the empirical tests and observations are unable to neither supporting the validity of SM as a final theory nor giving hints for its improvement, and its being a wrong theory is CONFIRMED by its failures of performing those important TASKs listed above.

Example two: the General Relativity (GR) has also passed (survived) all the monkey wrenches which we can throw at it. If the gravitation-wave is confirmed, it simply passed one more monkey wrench, an icing on the cake. If it is not confirmed (or confirmed as nonexistence), it cannot diminish GR’s great success on so many rounds of victory. Yet, GR is DEFINITELY a wrong theory, playing ZERO role in the correct (final) theory. We know this because:

Not compatible with the quantum world,

Playing ZERO role in the very important tasks (open questions) below:

Dark energy and dark mass


Hierarchy problem

Calculating nature constants (Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, Alpha, etc.)

Determining the Neff with an internal framework

Giving any hint about the initial condition at or before the Big Bang

… the list goes on. See, http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-1909398622

Some might say that ‘black hole’ is the god-child of GR. But, ‘black hole’ is a total trash in the correct theory.

First, it is not directly verified.

Then, it is totally useless, not being able to help its god-father to perform any tasks listed above. ‘Black hole” plays ZERO role:

In any viable cosmology model: ‘black hole’ is not even needed in any viable galaxy formation model.

In any viable dark mass model.

Again, it is the task (not test) criterion cut the ‘black hole’ out to be any useful object in constructing a correct theory.

Example three: the Higgs nonsense. A new boson (of 125 +/- Gev) was discovered in July 4th 2012, and it was NAMED as Higgs boson. Yet, more than 3 years later, the Higgs mechanism is not verified (empirically). Worse yet, even if Higgs mechanism were right, it would have given ZERO help for making SM a better (complete) theory. Furthermore, Higgs mechanism itself cannot provide a procedure to calculate the mass of the so called Higgs boson. On the other hand, a Vacuum Boson model (VBM) was able to calculate (derive) the mass of a vacuum boson as 125. 46 +/- Gev while the measured mass of new boson is 125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev., see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong .

That is, the ‘Empirical test (data)’ itself has no POWER of judgment, distinguishing the right from the wrong. The greatness of data must be evaluated via other means. The validity of Vacuum Boson is of course supported by its prediction of its mass which was verified with an empirical data. But, the key of its validity comes from its ability to perform all TASKs listed above, and I will show the supporting links on this later. In addition to predicting the mass of the vacuum boson mass, the VBM made two other predictions.

i. The excited state of vacuum energy (vev) is {X (n) = 2(n + 1) X, (X is the ground state)}. So, the X (1) should sit around at 3 X = 738 +/- Gev.

ii. At ground state vev, the X (1) will not manifest. When the X (1) is reached, the ground state vacuum boson will be greatly reduced (if not disappear altogether) in accordance to a dynamic equation.

On December 15, 2015, CERN released the RUN 2 (13 Tev) data, and there is a hint about a bump around 750 Gev region. If this new bump is a usual-boson, it should and must show up in the LHC Run-1 data from the following reasons (rules of thumb).

R1, the largest particle can be produced in p-p collision is about (1/2) the total energy. So, for 8 Tev, the maximum is 4 Tev particle (perhaps with very low production rate).

R2, the production rate increases for the lower mass particle; that is, (1/4) of the maximum should have high enough production rate in a reasonable amount of data (such as 4 to 5 fb-1). That is, anything (with mass) below 1 Tev (under 8 Tev collision energy) should give a hint (bump) with 5 fb-1 data and should show up definitely with 20 fb-1 data.

Thus, with the Run 1 data (about 25 fb-1), we were very confident to announce that there is no SUSY under one (1) Tev, and there is no other USUAL-boson.

Thus, this Vacuum Boson Model can be confirmed with LHC data in two ways.

W1, a new bump (around at 750 Gev) is confirmed AND the old bump (125 Gev boson) is reduced.

W2, when 125 Gev boson showed up, there must not have a 750 Gev bump.

The W2 is already confirmed with 25 fb-1 data from each lab. In fact, with 4 fb-1 data, LHC Run 1 was already getting a hint for the 125 Gev boson. That is, with 4 fb-1 data for the LHC Run 2, the W1 can be evaluated: the 125 Gev bump should be reduced in relation to the height of the 750 Gev bump.

Ignoring this fact by CERN is a social issue, and it is another super evidence for the weak power of empirical data. Of course, this Vacuum boson vs Higgs nonsense issue will be resolved after more Run 2 data from LHC. Yet, this Vacuum boson issue can still be evaluated now with the ‘TASK’-epistemology (see step three).

With these three examples, the empiricism is somewhat useful but plays only very low level role in the path of searching for truth, as a squire of the lowest rank. While passing all empirical tests, GR is definitely wrong and unable to play any role in the final theory. Standard Model of particles is wrong but plays a major role in the final theory. Performing the TASKs is the most powerful tool in the science epistemology.

Now, step two, any empirical non-falsifiable nonsense can always be invalidated. I am going to use two SOLID examples on this.

Example A, the KEY point of Multiverse (either as premise or as consequence) is that the Nature constants (of any universe) cannot be calculated (derived) as they are random happenstances. While Multiverse by its definition is beyond any empirical reach, it can be invalidated by showing its premise or consequence is simply nonsense, by showing the following two facts:

F1, the nature constants of THIS universe can be derived (calculated).

F2, to show that that calculation is not bubble dependent. See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/damage-control-for-the-multiverse/ .

Example B, M-string theory claims that all SM particles are formed as VIBRATIONS of M-string, but it does not have any vibrating-equation (formula) to describe those SM particles, the {string unification}. There is no need of empirical testing their claim as it is a simply failed claim. How can a failed claim be truth? Richard Dawid came up a great idea (the only game in town) to rescue it. The only game in town in the Stone Age is {eat, sleep and sex}, and it is much truer than the M-string nonsense. In fact, the {string unification} is completed, see http://putnamphil.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-final-post-for-now-on-whether-quine.html?showComment=1403375810880#c249913231636084948 . The blindness of Dawid and his gang is not excusable as the above post sits in the blog of a very prominent philosopher, Hilary Putnam. Dawid and his gang’s claim about the ‘only game in town’ is just a big LIE, the greatest shame of mankind.

With these two examples, the empirical non-falsifiable nonsense can easily be invalidated.

Step 3, about Popperianism

Coyne wrote: “Pigliucci who, on weak grounds, claim that ‘Popperism is dead’.”

Massimo Pigliucci was in fact a diehard Popperianism defender, see https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/lee-smolin-and-the-status-of-modern-physics/comment-page-1/#comment-11969 . I have written the falsifiability issue in detail at his webzine (Scientia Salon):

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/lee-smolin-and-the-status-of-modern-physics/comment-page-1/#comment-11968 and

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/physicists-and-philosophers/comment-page-3/#comment-11910 .

I am very happy that Pigliucci has changed his position and coming to the side of damning the stupidest idea of mankind, the Popperianism.

There is NOT a single science advancement which is the RESULT of a (or some) theory being FALSIFIED outright. Some said that the absence of Vulcan falsified Newtonian gravitational theory (NGT). This is a gross misunderstanding: a) the prediction of Vulcan is not a life-death issue for validating the NGT, b) the confirmation of General Relativity (GR) falsified Vulcan prediction but not falsifying the NGT, although it amended NGT and replaced it. In the science (including physics) history, all the old theories are replaced, not falsified from the OUTSET.

On the other hand, many theories have been empirically falsified MANY times (such as SUSY) while those devotees are simply moving the goal-post. Popperianism is totally POWERLESS to weed them out. Both Popperianism and SUSY are the biggest jokes of mankind.

Finally, the Popperianism is totally USELESS. Those M-string/Multiverse devotees are simply ignoring the Popperian type criticism by claiming that the true truth can never be falsified. The only way to kill those M-string/Multiverse nonsense is by showing that M-string theory can be easily invalidated by showing that it has failed on its stated MISSION: the {string unification} while the {string unification} is completed in other way. The Multiverse can be easily invalidated by showing its falsehood about it foundation {the nature constants of ALL universes are random happenstances, not derivable (calculable)} with the calculations of the nature constant of THIS universe.

First, truth (by definition) cannot be falsified. Any theory not representing truth can of course be falsified. A true description of truth can never be falsified.

Second, the not-testable and the not-falsifiable are two different things. True truth is always testable (with empirical means or with task performing) but not falsifiable (by definition).

Third, a ‘proposition’ can totally be confirmed with the ‘TASK’-epistemology. For example, the vacuum boson model (VBM) is the result of a unified force equation {F (unified force) = K ħ / (delta T * delta S)} which can perform the following TASKs.

Part one:

Calculating the Planck CMB data (Dark energy and dark mass), see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/

Calculating nature constants (Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, Alpha, etc.), determining the Neff with an internal framework, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html

Hierarchy problem, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/why-making-something-easy-so-difficult-aae8e3715b6d#.mt3p8do26 and http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/rise-of-gravitation-and-hierarchy.html

Baryongenesis, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/baryongenesis-master-key-of-all.html

String unification, see http://putnamphil.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-final-post-for-now-on-whether-quine.html?showComment=1403375810880#c249913231636084948

Linking physics to the origin of life, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/key-mission-of-life/ and


Gravity, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-great-divide_1900.html and http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html

Part two: ruling out the nonsense (not falsifiable empirically)

SUSY, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/natures-master-key-cuts-out-susy-the-undead/ and

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/ and

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/gone-with-the-wind-susy/ and


Multiverse, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/damage-control-for-the-multiverse/ and


M-string theory, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/m-f-string-theories-failed-theories/

Popperianism is only an ideology for atheism; it is not only wrong but is totally stupid as a SCIENCE epistemology. Karl Popper’s idea that “a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific” is totally stupid if science is defined as truth searching machine.

Step four, about Richard Dawid’s “non-empirical theory confirmation”.

Dawid used three points in his argument.

P1, be the only game in town

P2, FITs with all known (physics) knowledge

P3, provides some unexpected NEW insight

First, only the ‘game’ of nature is the only game in nature. Dawid’s ‘game’ is a human endeavor. Claiming a human game of any kind is the only game for nature without any evaluation (whether it is the same as the game of nature) first is the dogmatism and theological epistemology. The only game in town in the Stone Age is {eat, sleep and sex}, and it is much truer than the M-string nonsense.

Second, fitting all known knowledge is indeed a very important criterion. The problem is the semantic meaning of the word ‘fit’. What does ‘fit’ mean? In physics, ‘fit’ must mean ‘reproduce’ all known systems. So, if M-string (or any theory) fits with the known knowledge, it must REPRODUCE:

All Standard Model particles with its language

Quantum uncertainty principle (QUP) from its first principle

Resolve all open questions (calculating nature constants, dark energy, dark mass, baryongenesis, etc.)

Yet, M-string theory has failed on all the above. No, M-string theory does not FIT with any known physics.

Third, providing new insight is again a very important criterion, as this is just a rephrase of the Occam’s razor. M-string claimed that it DISCOVERed gravity, and as the only viable quantum gravity; this is totally a LIE. If M-string is able to describe the quantum gravity, it can and MUST DERIVE the QUP (quantum uncertainty principle). But, the QUP was hand put in into the M-string, not the other way around. It is a LIE because that I know the way of deriving QUP.

The current mainstream physics still view that both space and time are continuum while the QUP is an empirical law. The only way to derive QUP from a more fundamental base is to recognize that both space and time are QUANTIZED. With these quantized space and time, we get the Unified Force equation {F (unified force) = K ħ / (delta T * delta S)}, and then we can derive the QUP. Only by deriving QUP, we can then describe the quantum gravity (the source of dark energy and dark mass). Note: this was described in detail on {page 26, Super Unified Theory, US copyright TX 1–323–231, issued on April 18, 1984}.

In addition to Dawid’s nonsense, someone claims that M-string is too elegant to be false, as it has mathematic esthetic and mathematic consistency.

What is beautiful? With a few strokes, an artist can show a beautiful person or scenery on a paper. I can do the strokes too but no beautiful painting. No, stroke itself is not beautiful.

Yes, mathematics has an internal esthetic, which comes from its internal consistency. Yet, is QUP {Delta P x Delta S >= ħ} having any mathematic esthetic? Beautiful of what? QUP is just a statement written with mathematic LANGUAGE (code) without any mathematic content. The BEAUTY of QUP is that with such a simple statement it describes the entire micro-activities of this physical universe. Is Newton’s gravity equation (NGE) having MATHEMATIC beauty? Beautiful of what? No, it has no MATHEMATIC beauty. It is beautiful because that with such a simple statement it describes almost the entire macro-activities of this physical universe. In this sense, the Schrödinger equation (SE) also has mathematic beauty.

Is M-string has one (or just a set) equation with similar beauty the same as QUP, SE and NGE or the Unified Force equation (UFE)? We all know the answer, a big NO. Again, a big M-string theory LIE.

Yes, there is mathematic consistency, defined by the Godel’s incompleteness theorems. But, is QUP mathematic consistent? Consistent of what? Relates to what? No, mathematic consistency is definitely not a trait of QUP, neither of SE or NGE. Yet, SE (Schrödinger equation) is having mathematic consistency with QUP (quantum uncertainty principle). And, UFE is consistent with both QUP and SE.

No, M-string theory is not consistent with ANY known physics.

It (M-string) failed on string unification, not consistent with the Standard Model particle zoo, not consistent to anything.

Its god-child (SUSY) is thus a big joke.

Its god-grandchild (Multiverse) is conceptually retard.

It failed to make contact to any known physics, such as {QUP which cannot be DERIVED from it but was put in it by hand; calculating nature constants, answering open questions: baryongenesis, dark energy, dark mass, etc.}.

M-string theory is a 45 years of wasted time, the biggest joke of mankind. The only way to continue this M-string stupidity is by playing a game, the blindness game.

I have published the Alpha calculation online over 20 years at many physics blogs. Yet, Dawid and his gang still claim that M-string is the ONLY game in town, see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/totally-blind-deaf-googlefacebookblogosphere-era-jeh-tween-gong .

Science as a human endeavor, it is definitely socially-biased (see http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=9017#comment-1383933 ), but Dawid’s work makes science to be a joke and is a shame of mankind.

In summary, the empirical knowledge plays role of squire of the lowest rank in the final theory epistemology. The Popperianism is not only wrong but is totally stupid. The only epistemology for the FINAL theory is the TASK-epistemology which evolves into a Beauty-contest epistemology (see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/ ).