QO versus mainstream science

Submitted by jhwierenga on Mon, 07/30/2018 - 06:59

QO differs radically from mainstream science, particularly in the areas of physics and cosmology. It has its own account of how the universe came to exist, it has an account of how natural law came to exist and how it operates, and it has its own conception of space, time, gravity, the big bang and cosmic expansion. However, this does not mean that your choices are limited to either accepting QO or accepting mainstream science.

For starters, QO is not (yet) set in concrete. We have only started exploring the consequences of the QO account for the origin of the universe and of natural law, and it is quite possible that a more detailed and rigorous exploration will yield other accounts for space, time and other phenomena. And even if they don't, there is no way of excluding the possibility that someone will someday come up with explanations with lower Occam scores. So a choice for neither one nor the other is perfectly valid, as long as you don't commit the intellectual error of framing.

Another option is to accept the QO concepts of how the universe came to exist, and of how natural law came to exist and how it operates, and use this as a foundation for mainstream science. This option is explored in the lemma Strong QO.

Even those who reject QO altogether can still learn from it. Whether QO is true or not, everyone who admits the possibility that the universe came to into existence out of nothing must support the simplicity imperative - the notion that the universe is fundamentally simple, because simplicity arises more easily than complexity. For scientists, simplicity is not an aesthetic choice, but an imperative.