Scientific Realism and Primordial Cosmology: arXiv scientific paper:

An Interesting scientific paper at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.04071v1.pdf
Abstract
We discuss scientific realism from the perspective of modern cosmology, especially primordial cosmology: i.e. the cosmological investigation of the very early universe. We first (Section 2) state our allegiance to scientific realism, and discuss what insights about it cosmology might yield, as against “just” supplying scientific claims that philosophers can then evaluate. In particular, we discuss: the idea of laws of cosmology, and limitations on ascertaining the global structure of spacetime. Then we review some of what is now known about the early universe (Section 3): meaning, roughly, from a thousandth of a second after the Big Bang onwards(!). The rest of the paper takes up two issues about primordial cosmology, i.e. the very early universe, where “very early” means, roughly, much earlier (logarithmically) than one second after the Big Bang: say, less than 10−11 seconds. Both issues illustrate that familiar philosophical threat to scientific realism, the under-determination of theory by data—on a cosmic scale. The first issue (Section 4) concerns the difficulty of observationally probing the very early universe. More specifically, the difficulty is to ascertain details of the putative inflationary epoch. The second issue (Section 5) concerns dif- ficulties about confirming a cosmological theory that postulates a multiverse, i.e. a set of domains (universes) each of whose inhabitants (if any) cannot directly observe, or otherwise causally interact with, other domains. This again concerns inflation, since many inflationary models postulate a multiverse.
For all these issues, it will be clear that much remains unsettled, as regards both physics and philosophy. But we will maintain that these remaining controversies do not threaten scientific realism.


Summary:
So much by way of surveying how cosmology, especially primordial cosmology, bears on scientific realism. Let us end by very briefly summarizing our position. We have espoused scientific realism as a modest thesis of cognitive optimism: that we can know about the unobservable, and that indeed we do know a lot about it. Cosmology causes no special trouble for this thesis: though there are systematic limitations, even in the form of theorems, about what we can know about the global structure of spacetime (Section 2). Besides, this thesis is well illustrated, we submit, by countless results of modern cosmology: astonishing though these results are, as regards the vast scales of distance, time (or other quantities, such as temperature, energy and density) that they involve (Section 3). Of course, probing ever more extreme regimes of distance, time or these other quantities tends to call for more inventive and diverse techniques, as regards theory as well as instrumentation. So it is unsurprising that probing the very early universe involves intractable cases of under-determination of theory by data. In the second half of the paper, we saw this in inflationary cosmology: both for ascertaining the details of the inflaton field, for example its potential (Section 4); and for the problems of confirming a multiverse theory (Section 5). But as we said in Section 1, we do not see these cases of under-determination as threatening scientific realism. For it claims only that we can know about the unobservable, and indeed do know a lot about it—not that all the unobservable is knowable.