S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

[TimeSeeker]

Read through the posts again and this time be much more observant.

Well that's a convenient cop-out!

If you a see an error in my reasoning then point it out and provide CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. You know - like I keep doing. Teach me!

Or consider the alternative hypothesis - you are the student in this dynamic.

[TimeSeeker]

There is however the fine-structure (Sommerfeld's) constant. The magic 1/137.036. That is not random if our universe is alone!

That is an biased interpretation. The fine-structure may well be random. It simply means that if it was anything other than what we have measured it then we wouldn't be here to measure it in the first place.

It would be a universe with different laws and without us. Anthropic principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-stru ... xplanation

The anthropic principle is a controversial argument of why the fine-structure constant has the value it does: stable matter, and therefore life and intelligent beings, could not exist if its value were much different. For instance, were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were greater than 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the universe would be warm enough for life as we know it

[Veritas Aequitas]

Read through the posts again and this time be much more observant.

Well that's a convenient cop-out!

If you a see an error in my reasoning then point it out and provide CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. You know - like I keep doing. Teach me!

Read your own thread [link below] and follow the trail and be more observant.

viewtopic.php?p=379598#p379598
viewtopic.php?p=379597#p379597

The irony is you claimed to be 'more observant'

My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you do Colloquially: I am more observant.

Btw are you aware you can trace to the previous thread by clicking the 'arrow' beside the reference?

[TimeSeeker]

Read through the posts again and this time be much more observant.

Well that's a convenient cop-out!

If you a see an error in my reasoning then point it out and provide CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. You know - like I keep doing. Teach me!

Read your own thread [link below] and follow the trail and be more observant.

viewtopic.php?p=379598#p379598
viewtopic.php?p=379597#p379597

The irony is you claimed to be 'more observant'

My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you do Colloquially: I am more observant.

You still provide no corrective feedback. You are referring to my own content. I know what I said - because I said it.
What is the POINT you are making?

But that is expected of your avoidance tactics

I don't know how to "BE MORE OBSERVANT" than I already am, any more than you know how to be taller than you already are.

I need MORE INFORMATION (knowledge/awareness). I need YOU to tell me HOW to be more observant. I need YOU to show me my errors.

Colloquially: I need you to TEACH me.

What you are doing right now is no different to throwing a trantrum because I am not seeing the world from your perspective.

The onus is on you to communicate your perspective effectively - the onus is on me to listen

Btw are you aware you can trace to the previous thread by clicking the 'arrow' beside the reference?

Naturally, I am. Which you could have inferred if you count the number of times I have given you references to my own posts in the following format

(ETC...)

The REASON why I omit the content and replace it with "(ETC...)" is because I EXPECT you to click on the arrow...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well that's a convenient cop-out!

If you a see an error in my reasoning then point it out and provide CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. You know - like I keep doing. Teach me!

Read your own thread [link below] and follow the trail and be more observant.

viewtopic.php?p=379598#p379598
viewtopic.php?p=379597#p379597

The irony is you claimed to be 'more observant'

My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you do Colloquially: I am more observant.

You still provide no corrective feedback. You are referring to my own content. I know what I said - because I said it.
What is the POINT you are making?

But that is expected of your avoidance tactics

I don't know how to "BE MORE OBSERVANT" than I already am, any more than you know how to be taller than you already are.

I need MORE INFORMATION (knowledge/awareness). I need YOU to tell me HOW to be more observant. I need YOU to show me my errors.

Colloquially: I need you to TEACH me.

What you are doing right now is no different to throwing a trantrum because I am not seeing the world from your perspective.

The onus is on you to communicate your perspective effectively - the onus is on me to listen

Btw are you aware you can trace to the previous thread by clicking the 'arrow' beside the reference?

Naturally, I am. Which you could have inferred if you count the number of times I have given you references to my own posts in the following format

(ETC...)

The REASON why I omit the content and replace it with "(ETC...)" is because I EXPECT you to click on the arrow...

Note this point was started because you made an obvious mistake for not being observant.
I don't think you are aware you had made an obvious mistake.
I am not going to be bothered about it anymore.

[TimeSeeker]

Note this point was started because you made an obvious mistake for not being observant.

A mistake so 'obvious' that you are UNABLE to point it out to me?

I don't think you are aware you had made an obvious mistake.

Tautology.

IF I have made a mistake AND you point it out to me then I will BECOME AWARE of my mistake.
IF I have made a mistake AND you can't point it out to me then I will REMAIN UNAWARE of my mistake.

So, the burden of proof is on you

I am not going to be bothered about it anymore.

Translation: You can't point out my mistake.

Which leaves me with only two hypotheses:
1. I have made a mistake, but you are unwilling to point it out.
2. I haven't made a mistake.

If hypothesis 1 is true, then it would lead me to conclude that you are an asshole who loves schadenfreude. And you INSIST that hypothesis 1 is true.

Are you an asshole who loves schadenfreude?

[QuantumT]

There is however the fine-structure (Sommerfeld's) constant. The magic 1/137.036. That is not random if our universe is alone!

That is an biased interpretation. The fine-structure may well be random. It simply means that if it was anything other than what we have measured it then we wouldn't be here to measure it in the first place.

I understand very well why you'd say that, but I wasn't implying a proof of creationism explicitly! As you can see above, I've underlined a very important detail in my highly logical claim! That you'd ignore that, surprises me a bit.

At least five "settings" needs to be "set" exactly right, to get the exact universe we live in. The strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, gravity and light. That's like throwing five dices and getting a 1, 2, 3, 4 and a 5 in the first attempt. That is statistically very improbable, don't you agree? It's much more likely that you'd need dozens of attempts to get it. So logic tell us that, without a creator, there must be many universes with different settings "out there".

There could also only be ours, but that would either require crazy luck, or a creator. And may I remind you that a creator doesn't necessarily need to be eternal or divine. It could be done in an advanced computer by mere mortals.

I'm not settled in this conundrum, but I know it must be one or the other. Crazy luck is much too unlikely.

PS. Other universes surrounding ours could also solve the mystery of accelerating expansion (aka dark energy).

[TimeSeeker]

There is however the fine-structure (Sommerfeld's) constant. The magic 1/137.036. That is not random if our universe is alone!

That is an biased interpretation. The fine-structure may well be random. It simply means that if it was anything other than what we have measured it then we wouldn't be here to measure it in the first place.

I understand very well why you'd say that, but I wasn't implying a proof of creationism explicitly! As you can see above, I've underlined a very important detail in my highly logical claim! That you'd ignore that, surprises me a bit.

At least five "settings" needs to be "set" exactly right, to get the exact universe we live in. The strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, gravity and light. That's like throwing five dices and getting a 1, 2, 3, 4 and a 5 in the first attempt. That is statistically very improbable, don't you agree? It's much more likely that you'd need dozens of attempts to get it. So logic tell us that, without a creator, there must be many universes with different settings "out there".

There could also only be ours, but that would either require crazy luck, or a creator. And may I remind you that a creator doesn't necessarily need to be eternal or divine. It could be done in an advanced computer by mere mortals.

I'm not settled in this conundrum, but I know it must be one or the other. Crazy luck is much too unlikely.

PS. Other universes surrounding ours could also solve the mystery of accelerating expansion (aka dark energy).

I agree with all that and I didn't ignore your reference to uni/multiverse.

Here is the (statistical) problem with your reasoning.

IF our universe is alone it doesn't matter whether there are 5 or 5 billion variables that need to be JUST RIGHT. It means that it is highly improbable that we are here. And yet - our very own existence is THE black swan. THE falsification criterion!

And so our existence, however improbable - it is not impossible. What incredible CRAZY LUCK to be alive!

IF our universe is NOT alone we have no information about the other universes. They could all have EXACTLY the same magical variables as our universe OR they could have vastly different magical variables.

If all multiverses had vastly variables I think that would be evidence to say that it is MORE PROBABLE that multiverses are random.

And IF all multiverses had IDENTICAL variables I think that MAY be evidence to say that "Multiverses can only exist in THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION".

In fact, there is NO experiment that I can contrive in which I reach the conclusion "The universe or multiverses are NOT random".

[QuantumT]

I don't believe in crazy luck. I think the answer is obvious, as I mentioned earlier: The accelerating expansion.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't believe in crazy luck. I think the answer is obvious, as I mentioned earlier: The accelerating expansion.

You don't get to believe or not believe, I am afraid

Highly improbable events happen ALL THE TIME at sufficiently large scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

There is, unfortunately no easy way to determine if our universe's existence is the exception or the norm.

[QuantumT]

You don't get to believe or not believe, I am afraid

Highly improbable events happen ALL THE TIME at sufficiently large scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

There is, unfortunately no easy way to determine if our universe's existence is the exception or the norm.

You get the final say in this one. I believe we have exhausted the subject satisfyingly without a clear winner

[TimeSeeker]

You get the final say. I believe we have exhausted the subject satisfyingly without a clear winner

I don't want the final say - I want to leave things on an "I don't know" note. Admission of ignorance - mine!

This "accelerated expansion" you speak of, is that the universe accelerating towards its edges, or is that the universe accelerating towards a singularity? What if we are inside a black hole? What it The Big Bang was a White Hole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hol ... White_Hole

There is ALWAYS an alternative perspective from which to interpret the evidence. And it makes "just as much sense".

[QuantumT]

I don't want the final say - I want to leave things on an "I don't know" note. Admission of ignorance - mine!

This "accelerated expansion" you speak of, is that the universe accelerating towards its edges, or is that the universe accelerating towards a singularity? What if we are inside a black hole? What it The Big Bang was a White Hole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hol ... White_Hole

There is ALWAYS an alternative perspective from which to interpret the evidence. And it makes "just as much sense".

I see some practical problems with a whole universe inside another universe, but that's a totally different subject. One of us should make a thread about it.

[TimeSeeker]

I see some practical problems with a whole universe inside another universe, but that's a totally different subject. One of us should make a thread about it.

None that can't be explained by the Bekenstein bound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
All of the information of the universe will fit in a black hole which is significantly smaller than the universe itself!
Compression.

I don't have enough knowledge on the matter to start a whole thread about it, so if you are interested here is a useful video: https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA

[QuantumT]

I don't have enough knowledge on the matter to start a whole thread about it

I gave it a shot: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25327