Our Miserable Future

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Since ID/IR has been thoroughly trounced and shamed, in no small part from the Dover trial, and the "Discovery" Institute - which hasn't discovered a thing, here's a video by Dr. Krauss, explaining that a "designer" is not needed, and in fact, violates the law of parsimony.

Enjoy!

Lawrence Krauss on Life, the Universe and Nothing - YouTube

Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

My cookies will expire before I watch all of this, and it'll mess up my User Control Panel.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

My cookies will expire before I watch all of this, and it'll mess up my User Control Panel.

That's ok Av, you would learn some real facts anyway, so I'd stay away if you were you.

 

[Joshua0]

My cookies will expire before I watch all of this, and it'll mess up my User Control Panel.

That sort of stuff would make any sane person lose their cookies.
I am beginning to see a pattern emerge of what goes on here.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

That sort of stuff would make any sane person lose their cookies.
I am beginning to see a pattern emerge of what goes on here.

Yep. Pattern here at CF.

Creationist: "We have assertions we can't support with evidence, and we have all the answers and we'll just cherry pick what we think supports our dogma."

Scientists: "Follow the evidence where it leads and explain it using the most parsimonious answer."

Creationists: "Na na na na.... I can't hear you."

BTW, did you watch Dr. Krauss' video?

Scientists:

(next day) Repeat step one.

 

[Strathos]

"ir"?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Nonsense though creationism may be, I've often thought using the law of parsimony to disprove a designer / creator was intellectually lazy. It's as though they're saying "If something is too complex for me to understand then it's probably wrong."

 

[troodon]

Parsimony is not a law, more like a preference or a recommendation. I bias I suppose, we are to be biased towards parsimony.

 

[Joshua0]

Yep.

Revelation 18:2 (ASV)

And he cried with a mighty voice, saying, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, and is become a habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hateful bird.

 

[Michael]

Scientists: "Follow the evidence where it leads and explain it using the most parsimonious answer."

In this particular case you're talking about *exactly one* scientist that personally believes in *at least* three "unseen entities" (in the lab), and has no clue where *any* of it comes from. None of his beliefs show up in a lab, save perhaps 5 percent. Worse yet, he believes that he lives in a very "special time", the only time in all of history where he can verify that he lives in a "special time"! The whole concept of "parsimonious" goes right out the window the moment your realize that the "scientific" calculation for the energy density of empty space was 120 orders of magnitude off, probably the worst calculation in physics! Even when they did come up with an energy density that sort of "worked", they turned right around and claimed that this particular energy density was not "gravitationally attractive" like all other forms of mass/energy, they claimed it's "gravitationally repulsive" as though is made of pure magic!

The term "parsimonious" has no meaning at all in this case.

 

[Michael]

Oh, and one more point....

Krauss "rightly" rails on string theory for not being able to be falsified, yet he utterly ignores all the data that falsifies his own faith in inflation, dark energy and mythical forms of matter.

He also made a very key statement early on in that video when he claimed that physicists "knew the right answer" (flat universe) in advance because it involves a "mathematically beautiful" calculation that comes up with a "zero net energy" number. That's completely absurd. He's utterly ignoring every single release and use of energy for the whole of eternity to make such a claim.

In terms of "parsimonious" explanations of our universe, mainstream cosmology theory isn't even *close* to being in running compared to a simplified panentheistic theory that involves nothing except pure plasma physics and preexisting awareness.

Krauss is a *terrible* atheistic guru. His arguments are utterly ridiculous IMO.

 

[TheBear]

Since ID/IR has been thoroughly trounced and shamed, in no small part from the Dover trial, and the "Discovery" Institute - which hasn't discovered a thing, here's a video by Dr. Krauss, explaining that a "designer" is not needed, and in fact, violates the law of parsimony.

Enjoy!

Lawrence Krauss on Life, the Universe and Nothing - YouTube

Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great video! Thanks!

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Great video! Thanks!

You're welcome!

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Oh, and one more point....

Krauss "rightly" rails on string theory for not being able to be falsified, yet he utterly ignores all the data that falsifies his own faith in inflation, dark energy and mythical forms of matter.

He also made a very key statement early on in that video when he claimed that physicists "knew the right answer" (flat universe) in advance because it involves a "mathematically beautiful" calculation that comes up with a "zero net energy" number. That's completely absurd. He's utterly ignoring every single release and use of energy for the whole of eternity to make such a claim.

In terms of "parsimonious" explanations of our universe, mainstream cosmology theory isn't even *close* to being in running compared to a simplified panentheistic theory that involves nothing except pure plasma physics and preexisting awareness.

Krauss is a *terrible* atheistic guru. His arguments are utterly ridiculous IMO.

When should we expect your published findings?

 

[Michael]

When should we expect your published findings?

Largest structure in universe discovered - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News

The results were already published, and I had nothing to do with it.

Krauss is just another guy, with weird, unsupportable beliefs, just like every other guy. Unfortunately his beliefs are predicted upon "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), just like every other human being. He's no atheistic guru.

 

[Michael]

Ya know...

His core belief that he lives in a "special" time, a time where his beliefs can be "validated" somehow in his mind, yet will not be possible to verify in the future, should be his first clue that he's violating one of the core tenets of astronomy theory. By placing himself in a "special" place in 'spacetime', he's effectively violating the Copernican principle just to prop up his faith in "dark" (invisible) stuff, and to make himself feel "special" somehow.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Largest structure in universe discovered - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News

The results were already published, and I had nothing to do with it.

Krauss is just another guy, with weird, unsupportable beliefs, just like every other guy. Unfortunately his beliefs are predicted upon "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), just like every other human being. He's no atheistic guru.

Great article! Thanks for linking, however, it in no way contradicts Dr. Krauss' calculations.

Perhaps you could link some mainstream, respected physicists that disagree (with actual calculations) with Dr. Krauss?

Otherwise, we're all aware of your feelings on dark matter/energy. Duly noted.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I also loved all the legaleeze mumbo-jumbo he spewed about violating the speed of light laws. Great quote there about there being no limit on how fast 'space' can expand. Of course "space" isn't physically defined in GR or by GR, and lawyers galore would have to physically define it, and explain how it 'expands' in a magical way.

 

[Michael]

Great article! Thanks for linking, however, it in no way contradicts Dr. Krauss' calculations.

It absolutely does! His calculations begin and end with the *assumption* that redshift is related to the expansion of "space". In GR, there is a limit on how large the largest structure could be, assuming it all came from a singular "clump". More specifically *inflation theory* imposes it's own limits. The selection of a geometric frame of reference has it's *own* implications as a recent paper explained that I posted in a different thread related to this topic.

It absolutely has a direct implication on all of his core beliefs, right down to, and *including* the notion that redshift is related expansion.

Perhaps you could link some mainstream, respected physicists that disagree (with actual calculations) with Dr. Krauss?

You mean "others that agree with him"? How likely is that?

There are and have been many respected scientists that accept(ed) the concept of a static universe. Even Hubble himself understood wrote about the fact that redshift could be related to a loss of photon momentum, not *just* expansion. Only in recent years has the mainstream been so darn arrogant about claiming to "know" how things work, including inflation and dark energy and mythical forms of matter.

I hope you realize that SUSY theory has become a "mythical matter of the gaps" theory at this point:

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

Otherwise, we're all aware of your feelings on dark matter/energy. Duly noted.

My feelings and Krauss's feelings "shouldn't" be an issue. You "should" be able to empirically demonstrate your claims in controlled experimentation regardless how anyone 'feels' about it. Unfortunately you guru's belief system requires absolute "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), just like every other guy. Your "guy" is just sure he's "special" because he lives in such a "special" time.