From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   x  writes:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   'Science says' is a packed phrase. The product of science is a model of   
   reality as we currently (think) we know it. The model changes over time,   
   and that is to be expected, as our knowlege is not perfect or   
   complete. If we knew everything already we would not need to do   
   science. So, by 'wrong' I meant that Newton's model, although it works   
   in its own context, doesn't work in other contexts.   
      
   >   
   > 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?   
      
   This sounds like a description of how knowlege changes over time. It all   
   seems quite reasonable. Maybe it is the word 'right' which is the   
   problem. A scientific theory is a model which has not yet been proved   
   wrong. But it is quite hard to prove theories right. So the model   
   reflects our current knowledge and understanding, but it could turn out   
   to be wrong in the future.   
      
      
   >   
   >> 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?   
      
   It comes from inflation theory. When we look at galaxies we see they are   
   moving away from us at an accelerated rate. This is based on the dopplar   
   effect and other things. So because it takes time for the light to   
   arrive, we know that the galaxies are no longer where they appear to be,   
   but we calculate where they are based on their motion and   
   acceleration. And we find that they are much further away. Too far to be   
   observed anymore.   
      
   >   
   >> 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?   
      
   We can observe things as they were when the light from them started   
   travelling toward us.   
      
   >   
   >> 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?   
      
   I am not sure where you are going with this. It's not such a strange   
   idea. Does your computer exist when you are not looking at it? when   
   nobody is looking at it? You have no way to tell directly, but you have   
   a mental model in which it is there all the time, and that makes more   
   sense than trying to explain why it ceased to exist and then came back   
   into existence. So working out existence from models isn't faith based   
   religion, people do it all the time in their heads, and science is an   
   extension of it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)