Does the cosmos have a reason?

IBDaMann said:
Does Cypress still believe there is such a thing as a scientific consensus?
Click to expand...
scientISTS may say they agree on some political thing.

but its still not science if their opinions were just paid for and not actually based on science.

like big pharma shill tard corrupt doctors lying about vaccines, for instance.
 
AProudLefty said:
Where ever you are, there you are.
Click to expand...

AProudLefty said:
Where ever you are, there you are.
Click to expand...
pineal_gland_1280x800-1024x640.jpg
 
Litmus said:
scientISTS may say they agree on some political thing.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and more importantly, scientists can be religious, e.g. Christian, Global Warming, etc.

Litmus said:
but its still not science if their opinions were just paid for and not actually based on science.
Click to expand...
Correct. It's not science if it's an opinion or is subjective, e.g. a matter of consensus

Litmus said:
like big pharma shill tard corrupt doctors lying about vaccines, for instance.
Click to expand...
That's one of the many examples we face today. If there is no falsifiable model, it isn't science.
 
Cypress said:
Alexander Vilenkin, theoretical physicist: "What we are doing is somewhat strange in the sense that we find there is this mathematical structure that underlies the universe, and we are in the process of discovering this structure. This mathematics describes how the universe evolves, it also seems to describe how the universe came into being. So, it's very puzzling: does this mathematics have some independent existence of its own in some Platonic realm, or is it a mere description of the universe? It appears the development of physics points to the first possibility."


Click to expand...
it's merely descriptive.

it does not part that physics points to the first possibility.

that's just made up bullshit.

physics and religion are not related.
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
it's merely descriptive.

it does not part that physics points to the first possibility.

that's just made up bullshit.

physics and religion are not related.
Click to expand...
Descriptions are not explanations.

Know one knows exactly why mass has inverse squared gravitational properties, and no one even knows why the universe is mathmatical.

There's no evident reason why abstract mathematical frameworks should accurately reflect the motions and interactions of physical reality.

Am eminent physicist famously called it 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.'

You're free to throw up your hands in defeat and howl "that's just the way it is!", but that is a lazy and intellectually unsatisfying answer.
 
Cypress said:
Descriptions are not explanations.

Know one knows exactly why mass has inverse squared gravitational properties, and no one even knows why the universe is mathmatical.

There's no evident reason why abstract mathematical frameworks should accurately reflect the motions and interactions of physical reality.

Am eminent physicist famously called it 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.'

You're free to throw up your hands in defeat and howl "that's just the way it is!", but that is a lazy and intellectually unsatisfying answer.
Click to expand...
math is also not an explanation.

its descriptive math.

yer fucking dum.
 
Cypress said:
Now you're catching on. What is it that caused the cosmos to have a universal rational mathmatical foundation? It's not obvious or evident why it should.

Descriptions are not explanations.
Click to expand...

You said math is also not an explanation.

I don't care about the origin of a bunch of stuff.

Religion is about how to treat each other, not which came first, the chicken or the chicken math.

Yer dum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top