From: x@x.org   
      
   On 3/12/25 04:28, Richmond wrote:   
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> D  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I'm referring to all that exists outside of space/time as nonsense   
   >>>> which we can disregard, and where we cannot assign any truth value by   
   >>>> the very nature of us, living inside the world. God, unicorns,   
   >>>> parallell universes, all can be safely disregarded as fiction.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> What you will have to do then is come up with a theory which:   
   >>>   
   >>> 1. Explains all the things inflation theory explains   
   >>> 2. Does not predict parallel universes   
   >>> 3. Explains the so called 'fine tuning' problem.   
   >>>   
   >>> The fine tuning problem would be explained by natural selection among   
   >>> multiple universes with different universal constants.   
   >>   
   >> I don't! =D Accepting that we do not know is a perfectly valid   
   >> option. As long as there is no empirical proof, we are perfectly   
   >> entitled to making no pronouncements or come up with no explanations   
   >> at all.   
   >>   
   >> Maybe I misunderstand you?   
   >>   
   >> When no empirical feedback loops exist, I reject epistemic closure as   
   >> well as the principle of bivalence.   
   >   
   > It is acceptable to say we don't know. It's a good idea even. And we did   
   > agree that earlier, but then above you go back to saying 'nonsense', and   
   > still further, 'fiction'. Then you ask for 'empirical proof'. The way   
   > science works is not on empirical proof, but on theory tested against   
   > empirical evidence. And as long as it is still a theory no one knows for   
   > sure and it is not proven. Even Newton's laws turned out to be wrong.   
      
   Hmm.  Perhaps yes, perhaps no, perhaps to some extent.   
      
   When you say the word 'wrong' some times there are those   
   who instantly start mentioning how 'science' says one thing   
   one minute and another and opposite one the next minute.   
      
   Once upon a time in the classical era and the middle ages   
   Aristotle was always 'right', then later Aristotle was   
   'wrong'.   
      
   You push a rock and it stops.  Then there is something   
   called 'inertia' perhaps during the era of Newton.  Now   
   you can provide quotes saying that something called   
   'friction' exists.  Then you might provide some quotes   
   of speculation about the movement of various bodies in   
   outer space and the nature of 'friction' there.   
      
   But if you push a rock and it stops because of friction,   
   why is Aristotle always 'wrong' if you omit the words   
   'because of friction'?  Could there be some error in   
   the application of the words 'right or wrong' or 'true   
   or false' themselves?   
      
   >   
   > So in the case of parallel universes we are dealing with a consequence   
   > of a theory, and although this consequence itself cannot be tested or   
   > verified against evidence, other aspects of the theory can and have been   
   > tested against observation, and it is the best anyone has come up with   
   > so far. So even if it doesn't prove anything about parallel universes,   
   > it does affect the probability.   
   >   
   > So it is a dilemma, does one accept a theory if some consequence of it   
   > is untestable, but other consequences are tested and better than the   
   > previous theory which was found to be flawed?   
   >   
   > There is plenty of this kind of thing going on in science, for example   
   > the size of the/this universe is said to be 90 billion light years   
   > across,   
      
   Now you could possibly provide quotes of this idea, but that might not   
   be the basis for a description of the theories that went into this   
   statement, and why it was made by someone at all.   
      
   Could you do this, or is this supposed to be an example of a   
   presentation made by a faith based religion?   
      
   > but we can't check that from observation, because anything that   
   > far away can no longer be observed. We can only observe 13 billion light   
   > years, any light from before that won't have had time to get here in the   
   > entire age of the universe.   
      
   Ok.  So what evidence do you have that it is possible to exist if it   
   can not be observed.  Perhaps it could be indirectly observed?  In what   
   way?  If it can not be indirectly observed however, what definition do   
   you have for 'existence'?  Do we have to be in an 'afterlife' before   
   we were 'reincarnated' to observe this 90 million years ago time period?   
      
   > Also by looking at cosmic microwave   
   > background radiation we can have theories about what happened before the   
   > big bang, but no one can actually check what happened before the big   
   > bang.   
      
   Again, what is your definition of 'existence'?  Or is 'science' a faith   
   based religion?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)