For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
The degrees of freedom are 3*(Y/PL)^3. And this becomes infinite if the size of the universe is infinite.
The physical universe could be finite or infinite. The whole is infinite though.
It is what it is.
OK. So what is the size of the universe?
Lets say that it's not infinite. How big is it? Give me its size In Planck lengths.
That it is.
No. What I have said I don't call a theory is apples fall to the ground and something makes apples fall to the ground. Those are not theories, because in the context of the world in which we live, and the rules of science as they apply in that context, apples fall to the ground. That apples fall to the ground only becomes theoretical if you question the context in which we live. It is theoretically possible that we live in the mind of God or in a simulation. In either case we would have to adjust our understanding and accept that at any time, God or the game player could change the rules on a whim. Unless or until that happens, there is no testable difference between an ideal world, a simulated world or a real world. My favourite option is that the world is real, so I choose to believe it in the current absence of counterfactuals.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:24 pmOK, but you SAY that you don't call that "a theory", but then you also say that you know you are theorising.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:15 pmYes Skepdick, I know. I know I am making the aesthetic choice that we are living in what might loosely be called a 'real' world and not in the mind of God or a simulation in the way that Nick Bostrom suggests.
You can call me a theist if you like, but you've got my thinking back to front:
Boy, is that ever true!
Because those places are all hellholes. That's what Socialism creates. But the next Socialists will always tell you, "That wasn't real Socialism."thing is if you what socialism there are counties that proport to live by such, why don't they go there?
We only know the size of the observable universe which is about 93 billion light-years.
The plank length is 1.6 x 10-35 meters. So the diameter of the universe is 93*10^9*3*10^8*/1.6*10^-35~5*10^61 PL.
"Apples fall to the ground" is not a theory.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm No. What I have said I don't call a theory is apples fall to the ground and something makes apples fall to the ground.
Science rests upon an implicit theory.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm Those are not theories, because in the context of the world in which we live, and the rules of science as they apply in that context apples fall to the ground.
Indeed, quantum physics does that. It's quite literally called Quantum contextuality.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm That apples fall to the ground only becomes theoretical if you question the context in which we live.
The claim "we live in a simulation" is equivalent (up to isomorphism) to the claim "The universe is logical".tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm It is theoretically possible that we live in the mind of God or in a simulation.
None of this matters. So long as you believe that the universe operates on rules you are semantically committed to the simulation hypothesis.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm In either case we would have to adjust our understanding and accept that at any time, God or the game player could change the rules on a whim.
We aren't even up to testability here. There is no semantic difference between the two theories. They mean the exact same thing, they are just saying it using different words.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm Unless or until that happens, there is no testable difference between an ideal world, a simulated world or a real world.
Obviously the world is real. That doesn't preclude it from being a simulation.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm My favourite option is that the world is real, so I choose to believe it in the current absence of counterfactuals.
I didn't. i got it back to front AND front to back. That's what isomorphism means in Mathematics.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm You can call me a theist if you like, but you've got my thinking back to front:
tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm Apples fall -> something makes them fall.
No idea how it works, but I'll call it gravity, like everyone else.
You left out ... "but I call it God, like everyone else".tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:41 pm Reality exists -> something made that happen.
No idea how it happened.
The force in question is called gravity. As I have acknowledged many times now, there are different theories about what causes that force, but in all those theories that force is called gravity.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:20 pmWell, it is. Scientists don't actually understand, even, what the force in question actually is.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:14 pmWe have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory.
Well, slapping a label on a phenomenon is not the same as being able to say what it is. Labels are free. The real achievement is to be able to explain the nature of the thing one has labelled.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:18 pmThe force in question is called gravity. As I have acknowledged many times now, there are different theories about what causes that force, but in all those theories that force is called gravity.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:20 pmWell, it is. Scientists don't actually understand, even, what the force in question actually is.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:14 pmWe have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory.
I disagree.
Again, I disagree. In my view science doesn't assume rules, it just looks for patterns.
I disagree. In fact that is true of the rest of your post. They're your points of view and I respect them, but they are in my view precisely the sort of aesthetically based choices that simply don't interest me. One thing that is factually wrong is this:
I left it out for the obvious reason that I don't call the explanation of reality God.
That is what scientists are trying to do with the dozen or so ongoing research projects aiming to explain the force called gravity.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:24 pmWell, slapping a label on a phenomenon is not the same as being able to say what it is. Labels are free. The real achievement is to be able to explain the nature of the thing one has labelled.
And?tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:46 pmThat is what scientists are trying to do with the dozen or so ongoing research projects aiming to explain the force called gravity.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:24 pmWell, slapping a label on a phenomenon is not the same as being able to say what it is. Labels are free. The real achievement is to be able to explain the nature of the thing one has labelled.
Disagreement is cheap.
Pattern-matching is just looking for regularities in data.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:42 pm Again, I disagree. In my view science doesn't assume rules, it just looks for patterns.
Disagreement is cheap. In fact, my hypothesis for why you disagree is the same as it always was - you don't understand why my words are true.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:42 pm I disagree. In fact that is true of the rest of your post.
It's not about aesthetics. Isomorphisms are not "aesthetic" they are mathematical equivalences.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:42 pm They're your points of view and I respect them, but they are in my view precisely the sort of aesthetically based choices that simply don't interest me.
Oh, OK. What do you call it? It doesn't really matter what you call it for me to call you a Theisttillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:42 pm I left it out for the obvious reason that I don't call the explanation of reality God.
Gravity is not a theory.
Nobody is going to stop you from believing that.