I see what you mean. But a propagandist aims to do more than get people to agree with him; he wants to make you do something, or go along with something. And surely it's also about the simplicity of the communication, its rhetorical, sloganeering nature? — jamalrob

I see 'agreement' as a first step along the road toward action - a difference of 'degree' rather than 'kind'. That said, I do agree that rhetoric and symbolism often play greater role in propaganda than in some other forms of discourse.

Anyway, I'm not going to fight hard for the "neutral" definition. It just seems to work for the things I commonly regard as propaganda. — jamalrob

No problem. I don't think it's 'wrong' per se. I'm just testing it out a little to see if I'd ever want to use the term in this way.

I think what's tripping me up about this definition is that it would seem to imply that all discourse qualifies as propaganda. After all, there is no value-neutral discourse, even granting that neutrality may sometimes be held up as an ideal worth striving for (e.g. your definition of 'education' above). What distinguishes the propagandist (as traditionally understood) is the means they're willing to use to disseminate their viewpoints, not the mere fact that they are advocating a viewpoint.

Propaganda is always one-sided — jamalrob

Fair enough, although I question whether this really qualifies as 'neutral'. Is purposefully presenting only 'one side of the story' not a form a deception?

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support. — jamalrob

Under this definition how would propaganda differ from education?

:down:

And the reason why the information theoretic framework has become so exciting is that when Shannon information is paired with Gibbs entropy, the two mathematical structures are dual — apokrisis

What's the best way to learn more about this?

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit." — 180 Proof

Ergo, 45% of people alive today are 'pieces of shit'?

Tell us the zoom level at which "information" plays a role in genetics. Describe what role it plays. — Daemon

I'm sorry Daemon. We've been through this already a few times. I don't think working through another example is going to help. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now. I have enjoyed discussing this with you, even though we don't agree. Thanks.

Try DNA. I say DNA works through biology, chemistry and physics. Chemical reactions taking place in living organisms, which could be described in terms of electron shells and all that. — Daemon

We've already had that conversation, Daemon. Every example that is provided to you is taken and replaced by a description at the chemical level. Except that's not what is under dispute. No one is denying the fact that if you zoom in far enough, all you'll find is chemistry.

Talking about information helps us understand the process, but it's not required when describing the process. — Daemon

I think we agree that the concept of 'information' helps us to understand. Where we disagree is on whether the concept of information is dispensable.

I think we can agree that the concept of information is dispensable when describing things at the level of chemistry. I certainly won't dispute that. Where we disagree (I think) is over the question of whether anything important is 'invisible' when describing things at the level of chemistry. I think there is.

The higher-level patterns that are best described in terms of 'information' are not 'visible' at the level of chemical description. As such, chemical descriptions cannot support the same inferences that can be made when describing something in terms of 'information processing'. As such, we could not replace sciences like biology or cognitive science with chemistry. To me, this indicates that the concept of 'information' is indispensable to science. And since it is indispensable, we are entitled to accept 'information' as a first-class citizen in our ontology.

The "information" part is something in our minds, it's extrinsic to the thing we are describing. — Daemon

But our minds are part of the world. And the sciences study the world. And those sciences use the concept of 'information' to describe the patterns occurring between our minds and other things in the world (including our own and other minds).

Whereas I'd say your approach is analogous to looking at a piece of burned toast and saying "there is the face of Jesus Christ". — Daemon

The difference, as has already been pointed out, is that 'information' is an indispensable theoretical tool used across multiple disciplines, whereas we can get along just fine without the face of Christ in our toast.

The interpretation of the marks in both cases is a mental activity. Christ is not in the toast, he's in your mind. — Daemon

If it were impossible to describe the toast without referring to Christ then you'd have a point.

You seem to have decided (rather arbitrarily) that patterns occurring above the level of physical chemistry exist only in our imaginations. So far you haven't provided any compelling reasons for making this demarcation.

The present discussion is already littered with very straightforward examples of what I mean.

In a digital computer the work is done by electrical currents, microscopic bumps and depressions on disks, and so on. When you've described this electrical and mechanical process, there isn't anything left for "information" to do.

In genetics the work is done by nucleic acids and so on, and not by "information".

In our brains the work is done by electrochemical impulses, ion exchanges and so on, and not by "information". — Daemon

Your critique is analogous to looking at a painting through a high-powered microscope and saying, 'there's no Mona Lisa here, just a bunch of organic compounds'.

Information is an emergent pattern of relations amongst physical systems that occurs at a higher level of abstraction than the underlying chemistry. It's not 'something more' than the underlying chemistry, just like the Mona Lisa isn't 'something more' than the materials that make it up. And yet if you were to take every individual atom that makes up the Mona Lisa and pile them up on a table, the Mona Lisa would cease to exist. That's because the Mona Lisa exists as a result of the very specific constraints that have been imposed (via the work of the artist) on the underlying substrate.

Biological information is similar. It's just a pattern that emerges at a specific level of abstraction (roughly the level at which life emerges) through the imposition of constraints on the underlying substrates. When you zoom in too far it 'disappears'. When you zoom back out it's impossible to miss. These patterns are most aptly described via the language of information, just like the patterns that arise at the level of the compound are most aptly described by the language of chemistry.

I know people constantly use the term, but I've yet to see an example where "information" does any work. — Daemon

I guess I'm not sure anymore what you mean by 'doing some work'. You don't seem satisfied by the 'work' the concept is already doing within multiple disciplines. Could you clarify what you mean?

Can you give an example where information does work? — Daemon

As already discussed, pretty much every science 'above' chemistry leverages the concept heavily. I think we're going in circles now, so perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

All theories have limitations. — EugeneW

Yes, exactly. My original point was that we shouldn't reject a useful theory just because it has limitations. So I think we're on the same page.

So here's Count Tim using "meaning" in a way that doesn't explain anything new, in much the same way people misuse "information". When you've said "some chemicals have the same effects as neurotransmitters" you've said it all. The "meaning" part doesn't have any work to do. — Daemon

I agree that these terms don't have any work to do at the level of chemistry. They have work to do at higher levels of description. As such, they have every right to be included in our 'ontology' until such time as we don't need them anymore. But for now, we do need them. And I suspect we always will.

In general relativity, the Earth [becould[/b] be considered the center of the universe. Like the Sun or the center of the galaxy. Motion is relative. — EugeneW

Ha, very cheeky. I was thinking more along the lines of the Ptolemaic model of the universe, but fair enough. In any case, General Relativity has it's own well-known limitations.

So you're referring to a theoretical state that cannot be achieved and cannot be measured? — Xtrix

Correct, it can't be measured directly. It's practically infeasible. Like all scientists, economists build idealized models of observable phenomena. These are always approximations. For extremely complex systems (like economies) it's not feasible to measure the exact state of the system at any given time. Therefore, various proxy measures have devised to estimate the state.

The level of state intervention involved in the economy is enormous. So my point is this: whatever success you point to, why not attribute it to the state? Why is it "capitalism" that accounts for this so-called "efficiency" of production and distribution? — Xtrix

I feel pretty confident that it's a combination.

In this case, nearly every country on earth is capitalist, including Asian and African nations. Saudi Arabia and Sweden and Japan and Gabon and Belize are capitalist in this sense. But clearly that's not the entire story -- it just points to how business is generally run (by owners). In order for the private ownership and private profit to exist, it needs the assistance of the state. — Xtrix

Yes, correct.

It just so happens that the state is now the lapdog of wealth, and wealth is generated in the main from business, particularly the corporate world, and particularly the financial sector of the corporate world. So what I want to see change, therefore, is the concentration of power in the hands of the owner class (the capitalists), and more in the hands of the community. We don't sacrifice productivity or efficiency by doing so. — Xtrix

I agree. That said, it seems like we should want power to be in the hands of the most competent people, regardless of what class they happen to be from.

That depends on your attitude towards the theory. Every law we have can be said to be optimal, perfect and rational in its domain of applicability. — EugeneW

Sure, we could say, by analogy, that geocentrism is optimal, perfect and rational as long as you ignore all of the data that doesn't fit its predictions. At that point it seems like we're stretching the meaning of the words 'optimal', 'perfect' and 'rational' beyond recognition.

But it's also 1. not necessary to understand genetics and 2. not an element of the process. — Daemon

I don't see much evidence that '1' is true. I don't think I've ever come across an explanation of genetics that didn't leverage these concepts (whether in a popular science magazine or in a highly detailed biochemistry textbook).

That's a description of what actually happens. If you told the alien all that stuff, you wouldn't then need to to talk about "instructions" or "information". — Daemon

I doubt that this is true. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by the term 'actually happens', but it seems that if someone doesn't know that 'DNA encodes proteins' then they're missing something vitally important that no amount of knowledge about the chemical structure of DNA (per se) can provide. The knowledge that 'DNA encodes proteins' is an additional insight at a higher level of abstraction not derivable from the knowledge of chemistry alone.

My assertion is that it's being used in such a way that it doesn't explain anything. The particle physics and the chemistry levels do each explain something, but the Informationists are saying it's information that is doing the work in both cases. — Daemon

I might agree with you, depending on what you mean.

Let's go back to an example you raised earlier, that of DNA. Consider the statement 'DNA encodes genetic instructions for the development and maintenance of all known life forms'. Does this qualify as a useful explanation of what DNA does? You might argue that we don't 'need' the references to 'instructions' and 'encoding', but if that's the case, then why does literally every textbook on cell biology and biochemistry (that I've encountered, at least) use the language of 'information' when explaining genetics? Biochemists seem to think it's doing so much work that they can hardly write a paper (much a less a book) without invoking it.

It's analogous to arguing that the periodic table is superfluous because 'we can just use the Schrodinger equation'. Maybe that's true in theory (maybe), but in practice I don't believe the periodic table has ever been 'derived' from quantum mechanics. Even if such a derivation has been achieved I'm not convinced that anyone could have accomplish it without first knowing the periodic table (and the higher-order principles encoded within it).

Thoughts?

All this is fine, the problem arises when the suboptimal, imperfect and/or irrational heuristic is taken to be the optimal, perfect and rational explanation and description of the world. — Daemon

But we don't have any theories that are 'optimal, perfect and rational' explanations and descriptions of the world, at least as far as I am aware. Therefore, every theory we have, whether scientific or otherwise, satisfies the definition of an heuristic.

If you are among those who think information plays some role in addition to what the electrochemical processes do, please explain what it is. — Daemon

I'm not sure what you mean by the words 'in addition'. I don't get the impression (from what I've read) that the proponents of GWT and IIT see information as something that operates 'in addition' to electrochemical processes. These theories simply operate a higher level of abstraction, analogous to the way that chemistry operates at a higher level of abstraction than particle physics. That's my understanding anyway. I'm not an expert in the literature on GWT or IIT by any means.

(By the way, you may be right that GWT/IIT are both garbage from a scientific perspective. I don't know enough right now to weigh in on that. My intention here isn't to defend those theories specifically, but to the question your assertion that 'information' can't be a legitimate explanatory concept).

How (1) are we defining capitalist? — Xtrix

I thought we were using the definition you provided earlier:

Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation. — Xtrix

Do you still agree with this definition? I personally think it's a little narrow (of which more below), but it's the one I thought we were using.

And (2), how are we measuring efficiency? — Xtrix

My understanding is that economists use a concept known as 'pareto efficiency' - the state at which any change in the allocation of resources within the economy would result in a lower standard of living for one or more individuals. This is usually broken down into categories of 'efficiency in production' and 'efficiency in distribution'. Pareto efficiency is a theoretical state that (as far we know) cannot be achieved in practice. Also, there's no way of measuring it directly, so economists usually use other metrics such as GDP, unemployment, etc.

It seems hard to argue that capitalist economies (per your definition above) have not been particularly adept at solving problems related to the efficient production and distribution of goods on an incredibly large scale. That's not to say that they are maximally efficient, or to deny that some degree of central regulation is required for optimization.

It's just too broad to talk about. We can't possibly say that "capitalist countries are more efficient" -- because we haven't the slightest idea what that means. China is productive and efficient, outpacing the US in many ways (including GDP) the last few years. They're without a doubt a communist country, but a mixed economy as well. Is their efficiency due to their "capitalist" parts? — Xtrix

I don't think the waters are as muddy as you are suggesting. By the definition you provided above, it's fairly easy to determine which economies qualify as capitalist. Looking at it through a broader lens, it's generally understood that economies are capitalistic to the degree that they are based on things like private ownership, profit motive, unregulated price systems, competitive markets, unlimited capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, wage labor, etc. It's true that no real-world economy is perfectly capitalistic, but such is always true of the real-world. The lack of a perfect definition, and the existence of fuzzy boundary conditions does not undermine the fact that some economies are clearly more capitalistic than others. Admittedly, China's economy is highly 'mixed', but it seems fairly clear that China's growth was invigorated by the incorporation of many of the practices listed above.

Again, I'm not arguing that capitalism is an unalloyed good. I'm simply arguing that there is enough consensus around the definition of capitalism to effectively categorize most economies as broadly capitalist or not. This doesn't seem controversial to me. Also, the historical data seems to confirm a correlation between increased productivity and efficiency with the adoption of 'capitalistic' practices within an economy.

You're the fourth person I've asked in this discussion. The other three have simply ignored the question. I think that's because they don't have an answer. Can you do any better? — Daemon

I see you've been ignored again. When I read your post the first thing that popped into my mind was the word 'reductionism'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically what you're claiming is that the level of description that includes concepts like 'information' is superfluous. We don't need it in order to 'understand' anything. As such, we are not committed to the existence of the entities posited therein (e.g. 'information', 'encodings', 'symbols', etc.).

I guess my response to this would be that I don't agree that we can understand everything perfectly well without reference to 'information'. Theories of information, semiotics, etc. are useful heuristics. They appear to be indispensable within the fields of biology and cognitive science (and probably other sciences too). By 'indispensable' I mean that much of the research being done in those fields simply could not be done without them. In other words, I think it is reasonable to say that these theories are 'real patterns'. They are useful 'algorithmic compressions' of the information contained within the more granular theories (e.g. biochemistry, biophysics, etc.). They may be 'lossy' compressions, but that's ok. It doesn't imply that the abstractions invoked at this level of description are simply fictions.

Thoughts?

But if you don't define it, then you're not talking about anything. — Xtrix

I agree, and I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't try to define it.

So far as I can see, there are no capitalist economies in the sense of "free market capitalism." — Xtrix

Sure, I can agree with that. No markets are 'absolutely' free. Yet, it seems accurate to say that some markets have been encumbered with more constraints than others at various times throughout history. I think the word 'free' is still appropriate, so long as we recognize that it's being used in a 'relative' rather than an 'absolute' sense.

I see no evidence that capitalist economies have solved problems better than others, nor are more productive, nor are more efficient. — Xtrix

Would you agree that most of the economies of the 'western' world qualify as broadly capitalistic in nature? If so, do you not agree that these economies have the been the most productive and efficient in history?

Sure, if we attribute everything to "capitalism" that's positive, then you're stating a truism. — Xtrix

I'm not attributing everything positive to capitalism. I think that capitalism, as currently practiced in the western world, has some major (and potentially fatal) flaws. But that doesn't mean I'm going to just ignore it's positive aspects.

I think co-ops are very efficient. — Xtrix

They can be. I've worked for a couple of co-ops. My observation has been that co-ops are efficient until they reach a certain size, at which point they typically have to either split or re-organize into a more traditional hierarchy. When they decide to split they effectively become two separate organizations and (in the long run) evolve in different directions. This isn't a 'bad' thing, per se, but it maintains egalitarianism at the expense of the original solidarity. When a co-op decides to organize into a hierarchy, traditional power politics arise. The organization retains its solidarity, but now at the expense of the original egalitarianism.

In my experience, there is an natural trade-off that arises between egalitarianism and solidarity as an organization scales.

How do you calculate the necessary amount of punishment? — Average

Unfortunately, I don't have a formula for this.

We can't talk about alternatives to something we can't define. Your definition of "efficient means of solving extremely complex problems" is inadequate, and I don't agree with it. — Xtrix

That wasn't intended as a definition. It was simply an observation. Capitalistic economies have been the most productive and efficient economies in history. Through them an incredible number of highly complex problems have been solved.

Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation.

If you look at how corporations are organized and governed -- with a few people on top (shareholders, board of directors, CEO) making all the important decisions, and everyone else living with those decisions and taking orders -- then it's easy to point to alternatives: worker co-ops. Workers owning and running their own business. — Xtrix

I wasn't denying the existence of alternatives. Just questioning how efficient the alternatives are in comparison. And I'm not claiming that all corporations are anywhere close to being maximally efficient. Nor, am I claiming that efficiency is the only important consideration, though it certainly is important.

No problem.

I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. — Average

It plays a pretty significant role.

Theories of biological humanity have been used by some of the most nefarious forces in history to justify their atrocities. — Average

Agreed, which is why I think we should play it safe and just avoid 'dehumanization' whenever possible.

But I also don’t think that it’s a good idea to be merciful to someone that would not extend that same mercy to you. — Average

So because person A would (or wouldn't) do X to me, therefore it's ok for me to (not) do X to them?

Given the chance they would probably butcher you just as quickly as their other victims regardless of your humanistic or humanitarian ideas. — Average

So I should just discard one of the main things that differentiates me from them (e.g. my commitment to humanitarian ideals)?

Maybe it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the crime and the fact that such behavior is unwarranted. Under this revised metric it would not be the simple fact that the serial killers are predators but it would instead be the fact that they are hunting people that haven’t done anything to warrant the death sentence. — Average

'Innocent', 'guilty', 'warranted', 'unwarranted'. All of these concepts are vague at the boundaries and can be weaponized in the ways you've described above. Even 'reasonable' people will sometimes disagree on how to classify things. Generally, this is why I tend to advocate for something like a principle of 'least force' or 'least punishment' where we always go with the minimum punishment necessary to protect the rest of society from that person. This way when the fuzzy cases arise (or when we inevitably get things wrong) the consequences are minimized.

I don't deny that there are downsides to this approach.

I don’t think so. — Average

Biology says otherwise.

The US is already savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal in my book and has been for a long time. One look at the CIA and it’s track record should be enough to prove that. — Average

So, let's move in the other direction.

I think I would base it on who is the predator and who is the prey. Otherwise I would be forced to conclude that serial killers are innocent and their victims are guilty. — Average

The predator can become the prey.

And also the shaper of human thought, feeling, and action. Christianity is an expression of thought, feeling, and action as well -- and vice versa. — Xtrix

True.

Systems of beliefs and values shape how we interpret the world and ourselves; these are worldviews, paradigms, perspectives. To argue that nihilism or capitalism is simply an expression of "human nature" either isn't claiming much (since many things may be considered an expression of human nature), or is claiming too much (namely, that it is inevitable, since human beings are primarily motivated by x, where x can be selfishness, greed, personal gain, etc.) The former is a truism, the latter is unjustified (in my view). — Xtrix

My original point was that human beings have been doing terrible things for a very long time. I'm not advocating for defeatism or cynicism. We should try to make things better, starting with ourselves and working outward from there.

I don't see capitalism as intrinsically evil. Capitalism is a fairly efficient means of solving extremely complex problems. We don't appear to have an effective alternative. In my opinion, it's simply a tool that's not being wielded for the common good as it should be.

Do you mean the basic human dignity of the serial killer? — Average

Yes. They are still human, right?

If you know anything about the 13th amendment then you know that slavery is acceptable under the constitution as a form of punishment. — Average

I don't see forced labor as intrinsically 'cruel and unusual', though it can certainly become so.

I wish you would clearly state your precise meaning when you use words like barbarizing because historically concepts like civilization and barbarism have been used to justify atrocities. — Average

Barbarous (adj) - savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal

The practice I’m condemning is the destruction of innocent life and not the punishment of the guilty. — Average

How do you draw the line between 'guilty' and 'innocent'?

But so do cupcakes. Are cupcakes therefore part of human nature? — Xtrix

No. But cupcakes are little different to philosophical outlooks, which are direct expressions of human thought, feeling and action.

I would argue that this only constrains what the state does in front of everyone but not what it does in secret. — Average

I partially disagree. Being forced to do something in secret is itself a constraint. It's usually a lot harder to do something in secret, especially if it's complex or large in scope in which case the probability of being 'found out' goes up exponentially. When information gets leaked the state will have to spend additional resources trying to cover it up, and sometimes they won't succeed. And that can cause real problems for the state, especially if that information falls into the hands of rival political groups, or other enemy states who can then use it to turn their own populations against them, or to build coalitions of other states against them, etc.

I don’t have as much faith as you do in statistics. I believe that things like courts and prisons are actually weapons in the hands of a ruling class. Meaning that they are used not for the sake of “justice” but instead to defend their supremacy — Average

I don't doubt that this occurs, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything that occurs in the US criminal justice system qualifies as 'corruption'.

Of course this isn’t what I’m advocating. But let’s discuss the question in hypothetical terms. If it could be proven that no one would be wrongfully convicted would you have a problem with the policy I’m proposing? If so how would you argue against it? — Average

Since I live in the US I'd probably start by arguing on legal grounds. "Cruel and unusual" punishment is (theoretically) prohibited by the Constitution. On consequentialist grounds, I might query the value of torture as a deterrent over an above to the death penalty and the 'barbarizing' effect that the legitimization of torture has on the wider culture and on international relations. On metaphysical grounds I might try to argue on the basis of basic human dignity. On purely moral grounds I might try to argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and highlight the moral hypocrisy of engaging in the very practice that we're condemning. Those are some of my initial thoughts.

I hear the argument a lot that capitalism is an extension of human nature, or best reflects human nature -- and this betrays a rather cynical view of human beings, I think. I don't agree with it. I think this too is itself a result of capitalism. — Xtrix

Where do you think that 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' come from?

The state doesn’t need permission to do anything. Historically It does whatever it wants. — Average

This seems like an over-simplification. There are usually plenty of internal and external forces constraining the actions of the state. Widely held cultural taboos (such as those against the use of torture) can make it less likely (though certainly not impossible) for the state to engage in such actions.

As far as false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power go you could make the same argument against execution or any form of punishment. — Average

To me it's the 'merciless torture' part that makes the difference here. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where an innocent person can't (normally) be mercilessly tortured due to an accidental miscarriage of justice, especially when you consider that the frequency of accidental wrongful convictions in the US has been estimated at 2 - 10%. Is the merciless torture of even one innocent person by the state worth a % reduction in violent crime? My gut says "no".

What do you mean exactly by “in the other direction”? — Average

Away from cruelty and brutality.

I’m on board with torturing them mercilessly. Not because I’m some kind of sadist but because I think it would help deter others from engaging in similar behavior as well as being a form of justice — Average

I agree that it would probably act as a deterrent. I also agree that it would more fully satisfy the retributive impulses in (some of) those who have been wronged, prevent blood feuds, etc. That said, I have major qualms with granting the State the power to torture. I worry about false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power. Generally speaking, I don't want to live in a world where most people consider torture to be a legitimate form of punishment. If anything, I feel we should be pushing in the other direction. The world is brutal enough as it is without encouraging that kind of sentiment amongst the general population. But maybe I'm just being naive.

Would you consider it evil if those “others” were serial killers? — Average

I don't know. I think so. Should we put serial killers to death? Yes, probably. Should we torture them mercilessly before doing so? I'm not convinced it's a good thing to stoke that fire within ourselves, giving expression to the malevolent impulses that we're supposedly condemning and protecting ourselves against.

At what point does suffering become gratuitous? I’m assuming you mean uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted and not given or done free of charge. — Average

Yes, basically. I don't know the exact point at which suffering becomes gratuitous, but it's usually pretty clear when you encounter it. Suffering is often necessary for growth and for meaning in life. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about actions that are taken such that the primary goal is simply to make the 'other' suffer (perhaps as much as possible) with no consideration for their health, growth, etc., etc.

Basically it says the beginning in time happens in series. After us a next beginning and thereafter again. And before us. Ad infinitum. On that, eternal and infinite 4D space the 3D branes expand in two pieces of infinite bulk connected by a thin wormhole. The branes emerging backfire to their source (the wormhole) and inform when the next two universes (branes) can be inflated into reality (from virtuality). — EugeneW

OK, but how do we "know" this? You seem to find it extremely plausible, but do we have any way of confirming it, or of eliminating alternative theories?