Actually, the Standard Model of inflationary cosmology is remarkably well-defined, with only one major point left, which is the precise nature of pre-inflation space. The maths is extremely elegant, and every single piece of evidence supports every single other piece of evidence in favour of the 'Big Bang' model.
If you want to learn more about standard cosmology, I would recommend Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos, an easy to follow, eloquent discussion of the development of physics from Newton to M-theory.
The central idea of the 'computer simulation' theory is that a computer simulation would by necessity place very particular upper bounds on certain details, like the amount of energy available in a particle (an upper limit which has been partially observed); and also the existential assertion that if it were possible to make a completely accurate computer simulation of the universe, it is statistically more likely than not that ours is one of the simulations, simply because there would be more simulations than 'real' universes.
True. There will always be a practical limit to our ability to understand the universe. But that doesn't mean we should abandon science - the extremely elegant science, supported by every single piece of evidence in existence - and start casting about for gods or demons or giant space-turtles to fill the gaps.
... but you do mean to imply that the Standard Model doesn't make sense?
I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, but that's the way I read it, and I'd rather clear up any misunderstandings or confusion, rather than assuming.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
If you want to learn more about standard cosmology, I would recommend Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos, an easy to follow, eloquent discussion of the development of physics from Newton to M-theory.
The central idea of the 'computer simulation' theory is that a computer simulation would by necessity place very particular upper bounds on certain details, like the amount of energy available in a particle (an upper limit which has been partially observed); and also the existential assertion that if it were possible to make a completely accurate computer simulation of the universe, it is statistically more likely than not that ours is one of the simulations, simply because there would be more simulations than 'real' universes.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, but that's the way I read it, and I'd rather clear up any misunderstandings or confusion, rather than assuming.