For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Well that's a convenient cop-out!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:52 am Read through the posts again and this time be much more observant.
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.
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
Read your own thread [link below] and follow the trail and be more observant.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:02 amWell that's a convenient cop-out!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:52 am Read through the posts again and this time be much more observant.
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!
Btw are you aware you can trace to the previous thread by clicking the 'arrow' beside the reference?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:49 am My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you doColloquially: 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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:42 amRead your own thread [link below] and follow the trail and be more observant.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:02 amWell that's a convenient cop-out!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:52 am Read through the posts again and this time be much more observant.
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!
viewtopic.php?p=379598#p379598
viewtopic.php?p=379597#p379597
The irony is you claimed to be 'more observant'
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:49 am My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you do
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 formatVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:42 am Btw are you aware you can trace to the previous thread by clicking the 'arrow' beside the reference?
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.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:31 amYou still provide no corrective feedback. You are referring to my own content. I know what I said - because I said it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:42 amRead your own thread [link below] and follow the trail and be more observant.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:02 am
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!
viewtopic.php?p=379598#p379598
viewtopic.php?p=379597#p379597
The irony is you claimed to be 'more observant'
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:49 am My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you do
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
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 formatVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:42 am Btw are you aware you can trace to the previous thread by clicking the 'arrow' beside the reference?
The REASON why I omit the content and replace it with "(ETC...)" is because I EXPECT you to click on the arrow...
A mistake so 'obvious' that you are UNABLE to point it out to me?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:55 am Note this point was started because you made an obvious mistake for not being observant.
Tautology.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:55 am I don't think you are aware you had made an obvious mistake.
Translation: You can't point out my mistake.
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.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:23 amThat 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 agree with all that and I didn't ignore your reference to uni/multiverse.QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:42 pmI 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.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:23 amThat 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.
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 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
You get the final say in this one. I believe we have exhausted the subject satisfyingly without a clear winnerTimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:22 pm 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.
I don't want the final say - I want to leave things on an "I don't know" note. Admission of ignorance - mine!
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 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:28 pm 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".
None that can't be explained by the Bekenstein bound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
I gave it a shot: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25327TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:35 pm I don't have enough knowledge on the matter to start a whole thread about it