You haven't shown me that we need to demonstrate the causation with data. You haven't shown for instance causation for gravity with its data.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You haven't shown me that we need to demonstrate the causation with data. You haven't shown for instance causation for gravity with its data.Post #2232, not stop obfuscating. What physical causation do you have to show correlating with your claim?
I already have. What causes gravity is irrelevant. What is relevant in determining correlation is what gravity influences. Now addressing your claim, what physical causation do you have.You haven't shown me that we need to demonstrate the causation with data. You haven't shown for instance causation for gravity with its data.
BINGO!Well that's fun but of course it is only fun and does nothing to explain the cause of gravity.
Numbers come from your sources. The attempt at providing a consensus comes from the same posts. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. What are you missing?You are not stating what numbers are differing by 100 order of magnitude and what consensus you are referring to.
2. No, it is in the index of the book if you wish to have it. It was written in 1997 I believe so if the math was incorrect it would have been shown to be by peer review.
Fine tuning.I already have. What causes gravity is irrelevant. What is relevant in determining correlation is what gravity influences. Now addressing your claim, what physical causation do you have.
I know they come from my sources. They are numbers on probabilities of different features.Numbers come from your sources. The attempt at providing a consensus comes from the same posts. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. What are you missing?
Look, enough silliness. I have spent an entire professional career doing statistical analysis and correlations as a research chemist and process engineer. I know what I'm talking about. If you don't want to answer my question just say so and I won't pursue it any further.Fine tuning.
This is not silly. You haven't shown how theLook, enough silliness. I have spent an entire professional career doing statistical analysis and correlations as a research chemist and process engineer. I know what I'm talking about. If you don't want to answer my question just say so and I won't pursue it any further.
No it isn't.Well, it´s what you said.
Sorry, the post to Rick wasn't sent and then it went with the one to QuatonaThis is not silly. You haven't shown how the
No it isn't.
This is not silly. You haven't shown how we need to demonstrate the causation with data and as I've shown we don't know the causation for gravity or other forces in nature.Look, enough silliness. I have spent an entire professional career doing statistical analysis and correlations as a research chemist and process engineer. I know what I'm talking about. If you don't want to answer my question just say so and I won't pursue it any further.
Yeah, one of his other books seemed to promote a one universe at a time model. He was writing the book with another person though, so that might be the difference.But someone wrote a number in a paper and it agrees with my preconceptions. Obviously it is correct, even though it is wildly different than another number from a video which also agrees with my preconceptions and is therefore correct.
From the paper linked above :
The paper references Smolin, Lee, The Life of the Cosmos, p.45, Oxford University Press, 1997 as the source of this claim.
You: What causes gravity?No it isn't.
Lets look at the fine tuning aspect in regard to design. The fine tuning of the universe when studied looks as if there were a great multitude of possibilities to where certain values could be set. The values are "set" precisely to where they need to be for intelligent life to exist and for our universe itself to exist. So we have something that has many competing possibilities and out of those the ones required for life as we know it were the ones that were "set". Now if these were highly probable to occur due to some physical law it could have happened due to this law. Physicists now agree that this is not looking hopeful. It could be possible but then we would have to move the fine tuning to the physical law itself. Chance has been ruled out as a possibility due to the relatively low probability of all the values necessary for the universe and life to exist. We see the fine tuning as being "set" in a precise way which then permits complex life to exist; in design we observe that choice between competing possibilities which are unlikely to occur by chance and are sufficiently complex as to assure a certain purpose or outcome. That is how we observe human design and what we look for when determining whether artifacts are intelligently designed or products of chance or environmental pressures. So choice and complexity and purpose/outcome and a low probability of occurring can be used to detect design and that design is more likely to be designed than to have happened by chance or law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?