Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Mantra 43 Fecal incontinence due to sex-related weakened anal sphincter
Faith is not "without evidence" argument
- Thread starter Into Тhe Night
- Start date
Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Delusions of grandeur fallacy
Into the Night
Verified User
Correct. It is human nature to want one's ideas to be respected, even better, revered. When one is referring to one's religion, one will use certain modifiers that tell others which things are to be revered, e.g. the holy scripture, the sacred text, the scientific paper on Global Warming, IBDaMann's view on life, etc ... This is what Terry and Cypress do. They are both desperate to be revered themselves, but realize that they are too stupid for anything but mockery. So they go with magic formula of: 1. quote someone famous; whatever he said should work for them if they say it, 2. get some material off of Quora, with some paraphrasing of Wikipedia to fill in any holes, pretending it is their original thought, and 3. Use
I should ask them how that's working out for them. Better yet, I should ask of JPP who now reveres them.
There's no need. I apologize for the careless use of wording. I was not implying that your belief was incorrect in any way. I will state for the record that your view absolutely could be correct. I was merely commenting on Cypress' statement that the idea of a multiverse is sheer speculation. That statement is correct, but expressed as is, it implies that there being only one expandiverse is somehow not sheer speculation. But then your view enters the discussion and your view is a religious one which takes exception to being referred to as "speculation" ... I totally get it. So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. How do I point out, from an unbiased, rational adult's point of view that Cypress' view is not somehow more rational than any other? ... although I suppose I could write what I just wrote right now. Hmmmm.
Perhaps a better way to put it is that Cypress' view is just as religious as yours. I really don't know what the best way to express it would be. I'm open to suggestions.
I still think you're playing word games here, specifically prefix games. There is no reason your belief of one universe can't include many expandiverses within the one universe. You don't have a problem with there being many solar systems within your universe. You don't have a problem with there being many galaxies in your universe. I fail to see why multiple expandiverses somehow causes a problem. I think an infinite number of expandiverses would fit inside an infinitely large universe.
I just don't see the idea of multiple expandiverses within your infinite universe as somehow being contradictory. However, if you say your religious view stops at galaxies, then great! I'll drink to your view while listening to some Outlaws ... yes ... Green Grass and High Tides Forever! I certainly don't have any problem with your view; you aren't asking for homeowners to pay a starlight tax per visible star. Ummmm, you don't project doing so in the near future do you?
It is YOU playing word games here. You are trying to describe a multiverse as it were one universe. That's not possible. That's a paradox. It's got to be one or the other.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. You are wrapping yourself around the axle over prefixes that could have been any other word. So your position is that celestial groups have to stop with galaxies as an arbitrary declaration. Fine. I understand your position.
I also think your universe would have necessarily died a heat death after sufficient finite time (2nd law of thermodynamics) although I'm guessing you imagine a mechanism that you haven't mentioned that avoids this.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are describing yourself. YOU are the one making up 'expandiverse' to describe a multiverse.
I never made any such statement.
Why? The 2nd law of thermodynamics is e(t+1) >= e(t). Entropy is not decreasing. It is simply staying the same. Remember, in a universe with no boundaries, there is no place for thermal energy to dissipate to. There is no 'outside'.
In YOUR 'expandiverse', a boundary is increasing, and therefore entropy is increasing, resulting in a 'heat death'.
What is it you are saying here, Doc?
What is it you are saying here, Cypress?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That pure luck is often confused with being a miracle.
A building collapses; 100 people are killed. A child is pulled unharmed from the rubble. Miracle or luck? I say luck. There is no such thing as supernatural, magical or other violations of the laws of the Universe involved.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
^^^
posts hate rants at 0350 in the morning. Wassup wi dat?
But science isn't supposed to accept amazing, incredible, statistically implausible coincidences.
It's not intellectually or philosophically satisfying to chalk it up to an extraordinary coincidence, an amazing statistical fluke.
The fine tuning of the universe, it's natural laws, it's physical constants means something. I don't know what it means. I don't think it means an old guy in a white robe. But it's a valid question worth investigation and inquiry.
If life is inevitable in the presence of liquid water and energy, it should be reasonably ubiquitous throughout the galaxy.
If advanced intelligence is a consequence of evolution, there should be advanced life in the galaxy besides us.
I'm hoping there is.
If we never find any, I think it means we have to rethink a lot of our assumptions.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed, but a lone survivor in a building collapse isn't an "extraordinary coincidence" nor a statistical fluke.
It's one thing to note the natural laws of the Universe and wonder about their origin. It's another to assert explanations for events within the Natural Universe to forces that violate those natural laws.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
The fact life isn't ubiquitous is akin to dark matter; we're missing something. The X factor.
One is that life is exceedingly rare and requires millions, if not trillions, of permutations of environments conducive to life to spontaneously generate life. Once life happens, if our planet is an average example, it quickly becomes a dominant force of change upon the environment and evolves into higher lifeforms. One answer to Fermi's Paradox is that higher lifeforms have a propensity of destroying themselves.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Before I assemble a more thorough response, can you clarify what you mean by this:
"Polls show nothing. They are random number generators, nothing more."
Also, should I assume that you are a Christian and are among those who believe the Bible is inerrant?
Last edited:
I don't think a building collapse is a good analogy. A building can have a finite number of human occupants. Maybe a few hundred?
There are practically an infinite number of values the critical density of the universe could have taken. It seems to have taken presicely the ratio 1.000..., resulting in flat spacetime at the observable cosmic scale. Similar argument can be made for the pantheon of physical constants.
We can't even imagine what science will look like in 200 years, so I think the question of the origin of the natural laws and the fine tuning of our observable universe are worth leaving on the table
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I am fascinated by your "cart before the horse" reasoning here. Why does this mystify you? If any of those other universes were our universe you wouldn't be here to perceive it. It's not like there's some REASON for you to be here. You just are.
Does the water in the puddle say "Gosh, isn't it magical that there was a hole EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AS ME to fit into here on the road?"
(Go ahead, bitch and whine because someone is presenting an alternate way of looking at a point you never considered. I'll expect nothing less.)
Good point.
I think we need to convince ourselves there is no microbial life on Europa, Mars, Enceladus, etc. before we conclude that liquid water is not the prime origin of life. We would have to rethink that something happened on Earth, some complex and statistically improbable series of physical and chemical events that transformed inert chemicals into self sustaining and replicating biological cells.
Last edited:
"That's just the way it is!" is not intellectually or philosophically satisfying.
I don't think the good scientist just throws his hands up, and declares that's just the way it is, and there's no point asking any other questions. That sounds more like religious dogma, designed to shut down inquiry and questions.