From: x@x.org   
      
   On 3/12/25 07:13, x wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   I am sorry.  I forgot about the earlier statement that 'faith is evil'.   
   I meant no disparagement by it.   
      
   >   
   >> 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)