From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Wed, 12 Mar 2025, 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.   
   >   
   > I accept your definitions and wording. Evidence or proof, there are   
   > distinctions. I'm more or less fine with either.   
   >   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > I'd say inference, not consequence. Consequence for me is about   
   > effects as a result of something. Inference is when some people (not   
   > me) draw conclusions from theories which can not be tested   
   > empirically.   
   >   
   >> verified against evidence, other aspects of the theory can and have been   
   >   
   > Or verified against evidence.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I disagree. Probability for me is part of the language of math. I am   
   > of the opinion that it only has validity, when used for things ehich   
   > can be verified against evidence, _unless_ we're talking pure   
   > mathematics, in which case (correct me if I am wrong) you will   
   > probably talk about proof.   
      
   How likely do you think it is that the moon existed before there was any   
   life on earth? We have no direct evidence of such. We have to theorise.   
      
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > If one denies epistemic closure, then it is not a dilemma. I deny it   
   > when it comes to inferences that lie beyond verification against   
   > evidence (or falsification), unless we are doing pure logic.   
   >   
   >> 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, 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. 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.   
   >   
   > True! I remain agnostic about those things. When I say nonsense, it is   
   > when it comes to states in this world.   
   >   
   > I acknowledge the value of inferences and interpretations of numbers   
   > in the form of words (as opposed to the "shut up and calculate"   
   > stance) on pragmatic and psychological grounds. Scientists who have a   
   > need for religion and want immortality, but cannot due to religion   
   > being story tales, derive great pleasure out of the multiple world   
   > interpretation and infinite possibilities. From a physical/evidence   
   > point of view I call that nonsense.   
   >   
   > From a psychological and pragmatic point of view... go ahead, be my guest!   
   >   
   > I must thank you for pointing out my errors in words. I am not a   
   > native english speaker, and since I stopped doing academic philosophy   
   > many decades ago, I allow myself the luxury of being a bit   
   > sloppy. This is of course not good style. I appreciate your   
   > corrections! =)   
      
      
      
   I am not sure what the connection with religion is, but you have raised   
   it a few times, perhaps you should explain?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)