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.
Which side acknowledges belief/faith as such? ideally both, but not always.
^ You could probably dig up a lot of quotes from him saying roughly the same thing, if you were previously unaware of him mentioning this, you managed to validate it for yourself- that's great.
If you mean the idea that some alien might have manipulated spacetime to make a 'pocket' universe which turns out to be ours, I think most cosmologists would acknowledge it as a possibility, but probably a remote one, because while it's theoretically possible to produce pocket or bubble universes (it's the mechanism behind the inflationary multiverse), there's no known theoretical way to set the physical parameters to specific values, and it would also kick the can down the road in as much as the parameters of the alien universe would need to be as finely tuned to be capable of supporting life as ours is supposed to be... IOW it's not a particularly useful explanation.When it comes to the explanatory power concerning one particular large encompassing object - this phenomena suddenly becomes off-limits for some. (Not Andrei Linde)
That really has nothing to do with what I said.
The equivocation thing with faith and belief
serves only to obscure, and should be dropped.
If you mean the idea that some alien might have manipulated spacetime to make a 'pocket' universe which turns out to be ours, I think most cosmologists would acknowledge it as a possibility, but probably a remote one, because while it's theoretically possible to produce pocket or bubble universes (it's the mechanism behind the inflationary multiverse), there's no known theoretical way to set the physical parameters to specific values, and it would also kick the can down the road in as much as the parameters of the alien universe would need to be as finely tuned to be capable of supporting life as ours is supposed to be... IOW it's not a particularly useful explanation.
Hi there! I know you never follow up for some reason, but I wanted to thank you again for, unwittingly, I am sure, totally undermining a common creationist argument about big numbers of genetic changes being "needed" for evolution and there not being enough time.'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such'
False negatives and false positives are still relative to the patterns the observer conceives. So are the constraints which defines the patterns. Any truth about such signal patterns is also relative.
You might be interested in the truth ... but the truth you seek is in your mind.
It's clear that the parameters will have some values, just as we know that measuring an entangled particle will give some value, but we don't know how those parameters could be set to specific values, any more than we know how to set an entangled particle to some specific value."there's no known theoretical way to set the physical parameters to specific values"
applies to natural causes also, and there's also no known mechanism to prevent intentionally setting the physical parameters either.
No, multiverses are predictions of existing theories about the universe. They only exist as predictions of our understanding of fundamental physics, and they can only produce what is consistent with fundamental physical laws. That would potentially include any possible combination of possible parameter values, so anything conceivable consistent with those fundamental laws.i.e. the multiverse must be able to create anything, with one exception, anything that could ever be described as God, which would defeat the whole purpose of the theory in the first place .. yet more arbitrary restrictions necessary to constrain possibilities to the desired outcome.
Can I ask a favour? Please don't treat me like a moron. Thanks.
It's clear that the parameters will have some values, just as we know that measuring an entangled particle will give some value, but we don't know how those parameters could be set to specific values, any more than we know how to set an entangled particle to some specific value.
If you want to produce testable hypotheses, it helps to start with what is known and what is thought to be theoretically possible before considering more speculative ideas. When you start speculating in multiple dependent unknowns without any relation to the known or theoretically possible (like unknown intentional agencies with unknown capabilities beyond our theoretical understanding), there is no leverage or utility for enquiry; no 'explanation' of that kind is any more useful than any other. It's no different from myth, magic, & legend.
No, multiverses are predictions of existing theories about the universe. They only exist as predictions of our understanding of fundamental physics, and they can only produce what is consistent with fundamental physical laws. That would potentially include any possible combination of possible parameter values, so anything conceivable consistent with those fundamental laws.
It might be the case that our universe was created in an alien physics experiment, and it might be the case that life on Earth was seeded by robotic probes from another galaxy, these are understood to be theoretically possible, but unless we have good reason for supposing them to be likely or to have occurred, i.e. specific supporting evidence, we have no good reason to take such ideas seriously. That is even more the case for speculations about what is not known to be theoretically possible or is known not to be theoretically possible under the fundamental laws as we know them.
As I've said before, if you can show how an intentional creator agency, creating our universe with the specific parameter values it has, is any better an explanation, given reasonable criteria for a good explanation, than 'Magic', I'll defend its position as second-worst explanation.
We know how books are made and who makes them. We know that we developed the cognitive, physical, technical, and cultural means to produce books. We know that this occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, following millions of years of evolution laying the groundwork for these developments. It's a wonderful thing, but no mystery.Thanks for the detailed response, and I think we agree on much of that.
Regarding what we know is theoretically possible then- I think we agree we have to at least allow both (which is not always conceded by some so that's a start!) Which brings us to the question- which would be the least improbable?
I have a very old copy of Origin of Species on my desk, I can explain all the materials on some chemical level by purely 'naturalistic' mechanisms. From the ink to the paper to the binding to the cover- I could just about get by without intelligent design. The thing I cannot explain by naturalistic mechanisms is the information content.
Having said that yes, it must be allowed, that one of his 'ancestors' blindfolded at a typewriter, could type the same book: i.e. A monkey's random keystrokes 'would potentially include any possible combination of possible parameter values, so anything conceivable consistent with those fundamental laws.'
The reason it is a very poor competitor as an explanation for the book, is because those possible combinations include an infinite number that are utterly unintelligible. That is they specify no symbolic (representational) information. Whereas the same mechanisms in the hands of a creative intelligence will usually convey meaning of some sort.
The fundamental power of explanation here is not merely intelligence but the capacity for anticipation.
A phenomena unique to creative intelligence.
The book not only does exist, but in practice only can exist because of the desire, will to make it so.
For the record, you sound like a pretty thoughtful intelligent person to me.
If I thought you were a moron, I would probably just ignore your posts.
We know how books are made and who makes them. We know that we developed the cognitive, physical, technical, and cultural means to produce books. We know that this occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, following millions of years of evolution laying the groundwork for these developments. It's a wonderful thing, but no mystery.
The real mystery is whether or not we are capable of escaping the confines of our own symbolic representations inherent to the meaning of creativity, in order to conclude the existence of it independently from us.Well exactly- the mystery is not how volumes of symbolic (representational) information can be created.
The mystery is only how they could ever be created without creativity.
Likely few see a problem with dumb old rocks and waterThe real mystery is whether or not we are capable of escaping the confines of our own symbolic representations inherent to the meaning of creativity, in order to conclude the existence of it independently from us.
I had a haircut in my back yard the other day. Later I saw a raven/black crow actually bundling the scattered mess of my small tufts of hair left on the grass into one big bundle. It flew away with it in all its beak in only one flight. I had a good chuckle and thought how creative that bird was. Then I wondered whether or not it was just me relating to what I'd just witnessed as what I mean by 'creativity', or whether the bird actually knew it was being 'creative'?Likely few see a problem with dumb old rocks and water forming a gorgeous crystal cave.
Where's the line between dull inert and "only a (C)reator can do it"?
I had a haircut in my back yard the other day. Later I saw a raven/black crow actually bundling the scattered mess of my small tufts of hair left on the grass into one big bundle. It flew away with it in all its beak in only one flight. I had a good chuckle and thought how creative that bird was. Then I wondered whether or not it was just me relating to what I'd just witnessed as what I mean by 'creativity', or whether the bird actually knew it was being 'creative'?
I went inside smiling and by sheer fluke I happened to stumble across that day's science news release, here. I found an almost unpronouceable scientific term for it: 'kleptotrichy'.
Interestingly, the expert animal behaviorist in that article, also notes: “Popular observations precede science rather than the other way around, which is a valid way to do science”. But does that science there, have anything to do with either kleptotrichy or creativity, existing independently from whatever those terms mean to us humans? Are we just reading what those terms mean into what we see there? Where does the real creativity exist there, in coming up with those terms and their meanings? Who is the real creator exhibiting the creativity there?
My working answer to that is simply: 'Its us', because that's where the evidence at hand leads us ...
The real mystery is whether or not we are capable of escaping the confines of our own symbolic representations inherent to the meaning of creativity, in order to conclude the existence of it independently from us.
Such as what? DNA? we know how DNA information accumulates. Evolution is a creative process.Well exactly- the mystery is not how volumes of symbolic (representational) information can be created.
The mystery is only how they could ever be created without creativity.
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?