Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:08:36.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - On Probability and Cosmology: Inference Beyond Data?

from Part V - Methodological and Philosophical Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

Martin Sahlén
Affiliation:
Astronomy, Upsala University, Sweden
Khalil Chamcham
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Joseph Silk
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
John D. Barrow
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Simon Saunders
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Cosmological Model Inference with Finite Data

In physical cosmology we are faced with an empirical context of gradually diminishing returns from new observations. This is true in a fundamental sense, since the amount of information we can expect to collect through astronomical observations is finite, owing to the fact that we occupy a particular vantage point in the history and spatial extent of the Universe. Arguably, we may approach the observational limit in the foreseeable future, at least in relation to some scientific hypotheses (Ellis, 2014). There is no guarantee that the amount and types of information we are able to collect will be sufficient to statistically test all reasonable hypotheses that may be posed. There is under-determination both in principle and in practice (Butterfield, 2014; Ellis, 2014; Zinkernagel, 2011). These circumstances are not new, indeed cosmology has had to contend with this problem throughout history. For example, Whitrow (1949) relates the same concerns, and points back to remarks by Blaise Pascal in the seventeenth century: ‘But if our view be arrested there let our imagination pass beyond; … We may enlarge our conceptions beyond all imaginable space; we only produce atoms in comparison with the reality of things’. Already with Thales, epistemological principles of uniformity and consistency have been used to structure the locally imaginable into something considered globally plausible. The primary example in contemporary cosmology is the Cosmological Principle of large-scale isotropy and homogeneity. In the following, the aim will be to apply such epistemological principles to the procedure of cosmological model inference itself.

The state of affairs described above naturally leads to a view of model inference as inference to the best explanation/model (e.g. Lipton, 2004; Maher, 1993), since some degree of explanatory ambiguity appears unavoidable in principle. This is consistent with a Bayesian interpretation of probability which includes a priori assumptions explicitly. As in science generally, inference in cosmology is based on statistical testing of models in light of empirical data. A large body of literature has built up in recent years discussing various aspects of these methods, with Bayesian statistics becoming a standard framework (Hobson, 2010; Jaynes, 2003; von Toussaint, 2011). The necessary foundations of Bayesian inference will be presented in the next section.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrecht, A. and Phillips, D. 2014. Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse. Physical Review D. 90(12).Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2014. On under-determination in cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 46, 57–69.Google Scholar
Carr, B. (ed.) 2007. Universe or multiverse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, R. T. 1946. Probability, Frequency and Reasonable Expectation. American Journal of Physics. 14, 1–13.Google Scholar
Cox, R. T. 1961. The Algebra of Probable Inference. Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dawid, R. 2013. String Theory and the Scientific Method. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dawid, R. 2015. Physics theory: ‘Simple’ or ‘elegant’ criteria are not valid. Nature. 518(7539), 303.Google Scholar
Efstathiou, G. 2008. Limitations of Bayesian evidence applied to cosmology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 388(3), 1314–20.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. F. R. 2014. On the philosophy of cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 46, 5–23.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. F. R. and Silk, J. 2014. Defend the integrity of physics. Nature. 516(7531), 321–3.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. F. R. and Uzan, J-P. 2014. Inflation and the Higgs particle. Astronomy Geophysics. 55(1), 19–20.Google Scholar
Haack, S. 1993. Evidence and Inquiry. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hobson, M. P. et al. (eds.) 2010. Bayesian methods in cosmology. Camridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jaynes, E. T. 2003. Probability Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Knobe, J., Olum, K. D. and Vilenkin, A. 2006. Philosophical implications of inflationary cosmology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 57(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
Knuth, K. H. and Skilling, J. 2012. Foundations of Inference. Axioms. 1(1), 38.Google Scholar
Kolmogorov, A. N. 1933. Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitrechnung. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und Ihrer Grenzgebiete. vol. 2. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
Kragh, H. 2014. Testability and epistemic shifts in modern cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 46, 48–56.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation. 2nd edn. London, UK: Routledge.
Lyth, D. H. and Liddle, A. R. 2009. The Primordial Density Perturbation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maher, P. 1993. Betting on theories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, N. and Ellis, G. F. R. 1996. On the Moral Nature of the Universe. Theology & the Sciences. Minneapolis, USA: Fortress Press.
Norton, J. D. 2010. Cosmic Confusions: Not Supporting versus Supporting Not. Philosophy of Science. 77(4), 501–23.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1969. Is Logic Empirical? In Cohen, R. S., and Wartofsky, M. W. (eds). Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1966/1968. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. vol. 5. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Skilling, J. 2010. Foundations and algorithms. In Hobson, M. P. et al. (eds.) Bayesian methods in cosmology. Chapter 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smeenk, C. 2014. Predictability crisis in early universe cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 46, 122–33.Google Scholar
Steinhardt, P. J. 2011. The Inflation Debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? Scientific American. 304(4), 36–43.Google Scholar
Tegmark, M., Aguirre, A., Rees, M. J. and Wilczek, F. 2006. Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters. Physical Review D. 73(2), 023505.Google Scholar
Van Horn, K. S. 2003. Constructing a logic of plausible inference: a guide to Cox's theorem. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 34(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
von Toussaint, U. 2011. Bayesian inference in physics. Reviews of Modern Physics. 83(3), 943–99.Google Scholar
Whitrow, G. J. 1949. Cosmology and the a priori, Chapter IX. In The structure of the universe. London, UK: Hutchinson's University Library.
Wigner, E. 1932. On the Quantum Correction For Thermodynamic Equilibrium. Physical Review. 40(June), 749–59.Google Scholar
Zinkernagel, H. 2011. Some Trends in the Philosophy of Physics. Theoria-Revista De Teoria Historia Y Fundamentos De La Ciencia. 26(2), 215–41.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×