From: x@x.org   
      
   On 3/12/25 07:52, Richmond wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)