This is What Fine Tuned Universe Means

[R. Dean]

Starting with the Big Bang the laws of Physics seems to show
that the ration of the force of gravity and the rate of
expansion was perfectly balanced. Had they been off balance
by a fraction, the universe would have either collapsed back
in a big crunch or expanded too fast for stars and galaxies
to form. Without stars, no elements heavier than hydrogen
or helium could exist. This is one of at least four fine
tuned constants. And many scientist do accept the fine
tuned argument. However, rather than see this as evidence
of a designer/creator some scientist appeal to a concept
of infinite numbers of universes. If this is true, then
it just a matter of chance that at least one of these
countless universes would have the necessary parameters
for life to emerge even intelligent life. But how does
one prove the existence of other universes?
As I remember this hypothesis called the Anthropic
Principle was first advanced by the English physicist
Brandon Carter in 1973 And has been controversial ever since.

In his book "Just Six Numbers" Martin Rees list six
fundamental constants:
1)The Force of Gravity and the expansion.
2)How firm the atomic nuclei is bound together. He gives the number .007
3)The ration of matter in the universe and the gravitional
force.
4) An anti-gravity force which controls the expansion, a discovery
made in 1998.
5) The seeds of all cosmic structure which was imprinted in the
big bang which depends on one ration about 1/100,000.
6) The spatial dimensions in our world. This dimension "D"
equals 3. any other number and we could not exist.

Each of these constants are critical, but necessary for
the evolution of the universe and life on at least one
planet.

This sounds a bit redundant but Rees is a recognized
scientist.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:25:45 -0400, in article
<GF0hx.375527$513.2...@fx19.fr7>, R. Dean stated..."

If this is true, then we know that the determination of ages are well
determined. (Radioactive decay rates and the speed of light do not
differ by more than a few percent.)

If life is consistent with the laws of nature, then it does not need
intervention outside of nature. (On the other hand, if life is not
coherent with some law of nature, then the laws of nature are not fine
tuned for life.)


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[kit...@netzero.com]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 6:27:04 PM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> Starting with the Big Bang the laws of Physics seems to show
> that the ration of the force of gravity and the rate of
> expansion was perfectly balanced. Had they been off balance
> by a fraction, the universe would have either collapsed back
> in a big crunch or expanded too fast for stars and galaxies
> to form. Without stars, no elements heavier than hydrogen
> or helium could exist. This is one of at least four fine
> tuned constants. And many scientist do accept the fine
> tuned argument. However, rather than see this as evidence
> of a designer/creator some scientist appeal to a concept
> of infinite numbers of universes. If this is true, then
> it just a matter of chance that at least one of these
> countless universes would have the necessary parameters
> for life to emerge even intelligent life. But how does
> one prove the existence of other universes?
> As I remember this hypothesis called the Anthropic
> Principle was first advanced by the English physicist
> Brandon Carter in 1973 And has been controversial ever since.
>
> In his book "Just Six Numbers" Martin Rees list six
> fundamental constants:
> 1)The Force of Gravity and the expansion.
> 2)How firm the atomic nuclei is bound together. He gives the number .007

Is this the Bond constant?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yes, that's precisely what it is, a near infinite number of Universes, the Many Worlds of the Kingdom of the Father. Everything that can happen, does happen. Some have planet Earth's and some don't.

Repeated Big Bangs/Crunches from General Relativity, Many World Quantum Theory, even the passing fad to united the two, Membrane Theory, all say it's Many Worlds, and all three describe the same exact Many Worlds.

After all, if we can't say which Big Bang/Crunch came "first" then they all happen at the same time. They overlap when possible, and differ in other places, such as the life and death of Cats belonging to Schrodinger. In which case, the Quantum Theory is just a set of rules for sorting out the overlapping Many Worlds of General Relativity. More united than Membrane Theory.

And of course, it means we all live forever and live all our possible lives, in the Many Worlds of the Kingdom of the Father as the historical Jesus said. Jesus was dead right about everything.

[dcl...@qis.net]

Excellent point Tom S.

Creationist's "fine Tuned" arguments hold that he universe is amazingly fine tuned for life to survive in it, but very badly tuned for life to evolve in it. So the universe is only half fine-tuned, and God had to intervene to correct the mistake.

[jonathan]

On 6/19/2015 6:25 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
> Starting with the Big Bang the laws of Physics seems to show
> that the ration of the force of gravity and the rate of
> expansion was perfectly balanced. Had they been off balance
> by a fraction, the universe would have either collapsed back
> in a big crunch or expanded too fast for stars and galaxies
> to form. Without stars, no elements heavier than hydrogen
> or helium could exist. This is one of at least four fine
> tuned constants. And many scientist do accept the fine
> tuned argument. However, rather than see this as evidence
> of a designer/creator some scientist appeal to a concept
> of infinite numbers of universes. If this is true, then
> it just a matter of chance that at least one of these
> countless universes would have the necessary parameters
> for life to emerge even intelligent life. But how does
> one prove the existence of other universes?
> As I remember this hypothesis called the Anthropic
> Principle was first advanced by the English physicist
> Brandon Carter in 1973 And has been controversial ever since.
>

But the problem is even more difficult than just
trying to explain a special ratio at the Big Bang.
The problem is the Big Bang had to have a special
initial ratio set so that as it evolved over time
some...14 billion years later...the universe
would then be just right for life. This second puzzle
is called the cosmic coincidence problem.

And it's thought Dark Energy was an insignificant
component up until the current epoch, almost at
the same time humans first evolved on Earth Dark
Energy become the dominant force and produced
the current second period of universal inflation.

Here's a great paper explaining all this much
better from one of founders of the Big Bang
theory.


A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy

(excerpts)

3. Fine-tuning, cosmic coincidence, and the
quintessential solution

Whatever form the dark energy takes, two new cosmological
problems arise. First,the component must have a tiny
energy density (ca. 10¡47 GeV4) today. How does
this small value arise from a microphysical theory?
We will refer to this puzzle as the fine-tuning problem’.

A second problem arises when the cosmological model is
extrapolated back in time to the very early Universe,
at the end of inflation, say. The quintessence
energy density decreases at a different rate from
the matter density, and their ratio shrinks by many
orders of magnitude as we extrapolate back in time.

The observations tell us that, somehow, the ratio was set
initially just right so that now, fifteen billion years
later, the ratio is of order unity. Accounting for the
special ratio in the early Universe will be referred to
as the `coincidence problem’ (Steinhardt 1997). The
coincidence problem is a generalization of the flatness
problem pointed out by Dicke & Peebles (1979).

The fine-tuning and cosmic coincidence problems are vexing.
They are often posed as a paradox: why should the acceleration
begin just as humans evolve? In desperation, some cosmologists
and physicists have given renewed attention to anthropic
models (Weinberg 2000). But many continue to seek a dynamical
explanation which does not require the fine-tuning of initial conditions
or mass parameters and which is decidedly
non-anthropic.

A dynamical approach would seem to demand some sort
of quintessence solution, since it would have to
entail some interaction between the dark energy and
the matter radiation background.

http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf


Paul J Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/darkenergy.html


s

[passer...@gmail.com]

There are no "laws" of nature knowable to reason. Incompleteness Theorem.

There may or may not be a god that answers prayers, but there's definitely no knowable "laws" in nature.

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:

[passer...@gmail.com]

Steinhardt is a big supporter of Many Worlds.

It's always been obvious, not just Everett, but Godel and his comical sidekick and fawning admirer, Al Einstein knew it too. Including the eternal life part.

[Robert Camp]

On 6/19/15 3:25 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
> Starting with the Big Bang the laws of Physics seems to show
> that the ration of the force of gravity and the rate of
> expansion was perfectly balanced.

"Perfectly balanced" is a somewhat loaded expression.

Unless you're asserting that our particular universe was destined to
come into existence, the only thing "perfect" about the ratio is that
without it the exact universe that resulted (this one) would not
have...well, resulted. The former perspective begs the question, and the
latter is tautologous.

> Had they been off balance
> by a fraction, the universe would have either collapsed back
> in a big crunch or expanded too fast for stars and galaxies
> to form. Without stars, no elements heavier than hydrogen
> or helium could exist. This is one of at least four fine
> tuned constants. And many scientist do accept the fine
> tuned argument.

Many scientists accepts some version of the anthropic principle.
"Fine-tuned" is another, more loaded, expression.

> However, rather than see this as evidence
> of a designer/creator some scientist appeal to a concept
> of infinite numbers of universes.

First, there is nothing you've presented here supports any kind of
logical or evidential inference to a designer. Second, the multiverse
concept may or may not be true, but it is *not* required as a response
to anthropic reasoning.

> If this is true, then
> it just a matter of chance that at least one of these
> countless universes would have the necessary parameters
> for life to emerge even intelligent life. But how does
> one prove the existence of other universes?
> As I remember this hypothesis called the Anthropic
> Principle was first advanced by the English physicist
> Brandon Carter in 1973 And has been controversial ever since.

To be clear, the anthropic principle was not linked to theories of the
multiverse.

> In his book "Just Six Numbers" Martin Rees list six
> fundamental constants:
> 1)The Force of Gravity and the expansion.
> 2)How firm the atomic nuclei is bound together. He gives the number .007
> 3)The ration of matter in the universe and the gravitional
> force.
> 4) An anti-gravity force which controls the expansion, a discovery
> made in 1998.
> 5) The seeds of all cosmic structure which was imprinted in the
> big bang which depends on one ration about 1/100,000.
> 6) The spatial dimensions in our world. This dimension "D"
> equals 3. any other number and we could not exist.

As far as I know, Martin Rees does not believe that his arguments
support an inference to some kind of supernatural designer.

> Each of these constants are critical, but necessary for
> the evolution of the universe and life on at least one
> planet.

Of course they are, otherwise life would not exist on that one planet.
As with other iterations of your pressing this argument here, you fail
to note the how it gets pre-loaded with all of your anthropocentric
assumptions.

> This sounds a bit redundant but Rees is a recognized
> scientist.

Well, it would certainly be hell not to be recognized.

[Robert Camp]

Why did the universe have to be "just right for life?"

[Mike Dworetsky]

It is the difference in mass of four H atoms and one helium atom, which
expresses the energy available from fusion in stars. Its relevance is that
it governs the length of time that stars spend on the main sequence, to
allow life to develop on suitable planets. Change it and stars either "burn
out" faster, or do not generate enough energy to warm planets.

Explain to us what you think the "Bond Constant" is; I have never heard of
this expression.

>
>> 3)The ration of matter in the universe and the gravitional
>> force.
>> 4) An anti-gravity force which controls the expansion, a discovery
>> made in 1998.
>> 5) The seeds of all cosmic structure which was imprinted in the
>> big bang which depends on one ration about 1/100,000.
>> 6) The spatial dimensions in our world. This dimension "D"
>> equals 3. any other number and we could not exist.
>>
>> Each of these constants are critical, but necessary for
>> the evolution of the universe and life on at least one
>> planet.
>>
>> This sounds a bit redundant but Rees is a recognized
>> scientist.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Ernest Major]

On 20/06/2015 08:59, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> kit...@netzero.com wrote:
>> On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 6:27:04 PM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:

>>> 2)How firm the atomic nuclei is bound together. He gives the number
>>> .007
>>
>> Is this the Bond constant?
>
> It is the difference in mass of four H atoms and one helium atom, which
> expresses the energy available from fusion in stars. Its relevance is
> that it governs the length of time that stars spend on the main
> sequence, to allow life to develop on suitable planets. Change it and
> stars either "burn out" faster, or do not generate enough energy to warm
> planets.
>
> Explain to us what you think the "Bond Constant" is; I have never heard
> of this expression.

It's a milliBond (think James Bond, 007). (I've heard worse jokes.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:52:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
<387738e8-828e-44e8...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
stated..."

>
>There are no "laws" of nature knowable to reason. Incompleteness Theorem.

"Incompleteness Theorem" - the only things that occur to me are the
incompleteness theorems of Kurt Godel and others in mathematics, and
I don't understand how they relate to there being (or not) "laws" of
nature (of any sort).

[jonathan]

So it's a bond, millibond?




s

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Incompleteness Theorem describes all the equations of the Quantum Theory and General Relativity, (they use numbers, it's anything that uses numbers, at a minimum), and the equivalent Halting Problem describes all computers, computer programs, and humans.

It's a fundamental thing, it's you option if you want to continue your life ignorant of it. Your choice.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:51:43 -0700 (PDT), in article
<f0a4383b-4112-4a13...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
stated..."

>
>The Incompleteness Theorem describes all the equations of the Quantum Theory and
>General Relativity, (they use numbers, it's anything that uses numbers, at a
>minimum), and the equivalent Halting Problem describes all computers, computer
>programs, and humans.
>
>It's a fundamental thing, it's you option if you want to continue your life
>ignorant of it. Your choice.

[[...snip...]]

I know that you are not going to acknowledge your ignorance of what your
talking about, so it is pointless to inform you of this:

The Incompleteness Theorems are about formal systems of proofs such as Peano
Arithmetic. They do not apply to the kind of systems of equations used in
physics: differential equations, tensor calculus etc.

As far as the Halting Problem, it applies to ideal computers with potentially
infinite storage, and only by analogy, approximation, or heuristics to real,
physical objects which have finite bounds. One must be especially careful in
applying the theory of computability to humans.

See Dunning-Kruger effect.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No, Monkey Brain, the Incompleteness Theorem applies to everything that uses the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, which is all of modern science, including the Quantum Theory. Media Idol Hawking since even Monkey Brains have heard of him, and Greg Chaitin, inventor of Algorithmic Information Theory and universally acknowledged world's greatest expert on Godel...

Gregory J. Chaitin: "At the time of its discovery, Kurt Gödel's
incompleteness theorem was a great shock and caused much uncertainty
and depression among mathematicians sensitive to foundational
issues, since it seemed to pull the rug out from under mathematical
certainty, objectivity, and rigor. Also, its proof was considered to
be extremely difficult and recondite. With the passage of time the
situation has been reversed. A great many different proofs of
Gödel's theorem are now known, and the result is now considered easy
to prove and almost obvious: It is equivalent to the unsolvability
of the halting problem..."

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html

On the intelligibility of the universe and the notions of
simplicity, complexity and irreducibility
Gregory Chaitin, IBM Research Division

Well, if you believe in quantum physics, then Nature plays dice, and
that generates complexity, an infinite amount of it, for example, as
frozen accidents, mutations that are preserved in our DNA. So at
this time most scientists would bet that the universe has infinite
complexity, like O does. But then the world is incomprehensible, or
at least a large part of it will always remain so, the accidental
part, all those frozen accidents, the contingent part.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/bonn.html

Gödel and the End of Physics
Stephen Hawking

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without
it, we would stagnate. Gödel's theorem ensured there would always be
a job for mathematicians.

http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/news/20030308news/StephenHawking20
030308.htm

And the Halting Problem applies to ALL computers, that was Turing's point, he was totally clueless if that's not true. It says the computer will fail to produce an output. If it has limited data storage it's even more certain it will crap out and fail to produce an output. What the hell about that is complicated?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yep, you've chosen permanent lifelong ignorance. You will cling to it at all costs and in the face of all evidence, you're a forum atheist.

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 6:17:01 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:

[TomS]

"On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:41:14 -0700 (PDT), in article
<15f67a93-6ea4-4a94...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
stated..."

>
>No, Monkey Brain, the Incompleteness Theorem applies to everything that uses the
>natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, which is all of modern science, including the Quantum
>Theory.

[[...snip...]]

From Wikipedia, "Incompleteness theorems"

"The conclusions of Gödel's theorems are only proven for the formal theories
that satisfy the necessary hypotheses. Not all axiom systems satisfy these
hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers
as a subset. For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean
geometry, of real closed fields, and of arithmetic in which multiplication is
not provably total; none of these meet the hypotheses of Gödel's theorems."

Dunning-Kruger in operation.

[Bob Casanova]

On 21 Jun 2015 03:03:12 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:

>"On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:41:14 -0700 (PDT), in article
><15f67a93-6ea4-4a94...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
>stated..."

>>No, Monkey Brain, the Incompleteness Theorem applies to everything that uses the
>>natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, which is all of modern science, including the Quantum
>>Theory.

>From Wikipedia, "Incompleteness theorems"
>
>"The conclusions of Gödel's theorems are only proven for the formal theories
>that satisfy the necessary hypotheses. Not all axiom systems satisfy these
>hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers
>as a subset. For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean
>geometry, of real closed fields, and of arithmetic in which multiplication is
>not provably total; none of these meet the hypotheses of Gödel's theorems."

Arguing with a troll is fruitless; all you do is encourage
it; note the similarity to wrestling with a pig. A better
technique is to either ignore it (probably best) or
snip-with-reasons-stated. In the case of this particular
troll, this is almost always followed by a comment that
there's nothing left.

>Dunning-Kruger in operation.

Yep, a classic case.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[TomS]

"On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:41:38 -0700, in article
<djtdoa92hsrraepp4...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."

>
>On 21 Jun 2015 03:03:12 -0700, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:
>
>>"On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:41:14 -0700 (PDT), in article
>><15f67a93-6ea4-4a94...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
>>stated..."
>
>>>No, Monkey Brain, the Incompleteness Theorem applies to everything that uses the
>>>natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, which is all of modern science, including the Quantum
>>>Theory.
>
>>From Wikipedia, "Incompleteness theorems"
>>
>>"The conclusions of Gödel's theorems are only proven for the formal theories
>>that satisfy the necessary hypotheses. Not all axiom systems satisfy these
>>hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers
>>as a subset. For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean
>>geometry, of real closed fields, and of arithmetic in which multiplication is
>>not provably total; none of these meet the hypotheses of Gödel's theorems."
>
>Arguing with a troll is fruitless; all you do is encourage
>it; note the similarity to wrestling with a pig. A better
>technique is to either ignore it (probably best) or
>snip-with-reasons-stated. In the case of this particular
>troll, this is almost always followed by a comment that
>there's nothing left.

I just wanted to make it clear for bystanders that what he
was saying is contested. I should have stopped sooner.

>
>>Dunning-Kruger in operation.
>
>Yep, a classic case.


--

[passer...@gmail.com]

I post Greg Chaitin, inventor of algorithmic information Theory and universally acknowledged world's greatest expert on Godel, saying in a peer reviewed paper that it applies to the math of the Quantum Theory, and you chop something out of Wiki, you have no understanding of whatsoever.

Yes, Monkey Brain, eternally determined to stay eternally stinking ignorant, it doesn't apply to Euclidean geometry because Euclid doesn't use numbers, shit for brains, as I said. And no, Monkey Brain, Euclid does not describe the Universe.

The most important thing that's happened in math in the last century, if not ever, and you are determined, at all costs, to stay stinking ignorant of the slightest notion of what it means.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Speaking of being determined to stay stinking ignorant.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>Speaking of being determined to stay stinking ignorant.

Then why do you continue? Ignorance, even ignorance as
blatant as yours, is usually curable.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> passer...@gmail.com:
>
>>Speaking of being determined to stay stinking ignorant.
>
> Then why do you continue? Ignorance, even ignorance as
> blatant as yours, is usually curable.

Wouldn't that depend on what is considered knowledge? My
impression from posting here is that consensus is the
primary component which depends on how one was indoctrinated
which will depend on what one believes is true already.

When one's knowledge consists of vague generalities loosely
attached to an opinion, facts are not necessary. Ignorance
would then be embedded in the alleged knowledge.

Bill

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mm9o8b$2lj$1...@dont-email.me>

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> > passer...@gmail.com:
> >
> >>Speaking of being determined to stay stinking ignorant.
> >
> > Then why do you continue? Ignorance, even ignorance as
> > blatant as yours, is usually curable.
>
> Wouldn't that depend on what is considered knowledge? My
> impression from posting here is that consensus is the
> primary component which depends on how one was indoctrinated
> which will depend on what one believes is true already.

And no doubt you will claim that _you_ aren't indoctrinated, nossir.

> When one's knowledge consists of vague generalities loosely
> attached to an opinion, facts are not necessary.

Or alternatively, when one has spent one professional life working with
statistics, its just possible that ones opinion may be more informed
than someone who thinks that "it either happens or it doesn't"
necessarily yields odds of 50:50.

> Ignorance would then be embedded in the alleged knowledge.

While in your case ignorance is firmly embedded in your, well,
ignorance.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> passer...@gmail.com:
>
>>Speaking of being determined to stay stinking ignorant.
>
> Then why do you continue? Ignorance, even ignorance as
> blatant as yours, is usually curable.

Wouldn't that depend on what is considered knowledge? My
impression from posting here is that consensus is the
primary component which depends on how one was indoctrinated
which will depend on what one believes is true already.

When one's knowledge consists of vague generalities loosely

attached to an opinion, facts are not necessary. Ignorance

would then be embedded in the alleged knowledge.

Bill

[Bill]

There was once a science called phrenology. People who spent
their professional careers studying phrenology collected
knowledge that no one cares about. There are people who
study folklore and most of them specialize.

There are people who are expert in Norse mythology, for
instance, and publish their studies in weighty tomes that no
one reads. Since most people are ignorant of and indifferent
to these myths, knowledge about them seems pretty useless.

What is even more interesting is that the beings in the
Norse pantheon don't even exist so knowledge about them is
completely useless. How is having knowledge about something
non-existent preferable to ignorance? How is not knowing
about something that exists any different knowing about
something that doesn't exist?

Bill

[Burkhard]

says who?

so knowledge about them is
> completely useless.

assuming they don't exist, why do you think only knowledge about
existing things is useful?

How is having knowledge about something
> non-existent preferable to ignorance? How is not knowing
> about something that exists any different knowing about
> something that doesn't exist?

It's one of these things that if you have to explain them, it is
unlikely your interlocutor will get the explanation either
>
> Bill
>

[chris thompson]

Why am I unsurprised that you cannot conceive of a use for knowledge about the forces that shaped an entire culture? Why am I unsurprised that you probably consider virtually the entire body of human knowledge pointless, since it doesn't seem to be of use to you, at this moment. I can easily see you in about 1890 tossing Gregor Mendel's work onto the bonfire, because you wanted the bookshelf space and what the hell, no one's reading it anyway.

We already know you consider statistics to be of no use. Let that be your guide next time you cross a major road. After all, it doesn't matter if a truck is a half mile away and doing 30 mph, or 50 yards away and going 80 mph. The chances of making it across are always going to be 50-50; either you do or you don't.

Chris

[Bill]

chris thompson wrote:

...

>>
>> What is even more interesting is that the beings in the
>> Norse pantheon don't even exist so knowledge about them
>> is
>> completely useless. How is having knowledge about
>> something non-existent preferable to ignorance? How is
>> not knowing about something that exists any different
>> knowing about something that doesn't exist?
>>
>> Bill
>
> Why am I unsurprised that you cannot conceive of a use for
> knowledge about the forces that shaped an entire culture?
> Why am I unsurprised that you probably consider virtually
> the entire body of human knowledge pointless, since it
> doesn't seem to be of use to you, at this moment. I can
> easily see you in about 1890 tossing Gregor Mendel's work
> onto the bonfire, because you wanted the bookshelf space
> and what the hell, no one's reading it anyway.
>
> We already know you consider statistics to be of no use.
> Let that be your guide next time you cross a major road.
> After all, it doesn't matter if a truck is a half mile
> away and doing 30 mph, or 50 yards away and going 80 mph.
> The chances of making it across are always going to be
> 50-50; either you do or you don't.
>
> Chris

I haven't been talking about the acquisition of knowledge.
My point is that much of what. we think we know is about
things about which we can't be certain, fuzzy facts and
unexamined assumptions. When someone claims that not knowing
something is ignorance, they imply that their own knowledge
is sufficient. But ignorance of what? Knowledge of what?

People claim knowledge based on facts that haven't been
vetted, like from statistics. Knowing what should be true
based on statistics, has nothing to do with what actually
happens so what's the value of statistics?

Well, statistics tell us what can, possibly, happen. Alas,
there's too much slop and wiggle room for definite,
inescapable, certain predictions. I can reach into a bushel
of apples knowing that I'll pull out an apple but not which
apple. This is trivial of course but it seems profoundly
meaningful to some here.

Bill

[Mike Dworetsky]

(Strokes cat) We've been expecting you, Mr Bond...

[chris thompson]

Of course you have. What do you think statistics is all about? Why do you think people publish tomes on the Norse pantheon? They're examining data they've collected, or sharing knowledge they've acquired.

> My point is that much of what. we think we know is about
> things about which we can't be certain, fuzzy facts and
> unexamined assumptions.

So, we're back to the old, "Since we can't know everything, we can't know anything" trope.

> When someone claims that not knowing
> something is ignorance, they imply that their own knowledge
> is sufficient.

No they don't. When you don't know something, you're ignorant. We call that a "definition."

> But ignorance of what? Knowledge of what?
>
> People claim knowledge based on facts that haven't been
> vetted, like from statistics.

You really are ignorant of the whole point of statistical analysis, aren't you? Statistical analysis _IS_ the vetting process.

> Knowing what should be true
> based on statistics, has nothing to do with what actually
> happens so what's the value of statistics?

You're back to "should." Haven't you been wrong enough on that one already? Statistics tells us things like probability distributions, whether two sample means are significantly different, or of there's a meaningful cause and effect relationship between variables.

>
> Well, statistics tell us what can, possibly, happen.

It's rather more powerful than that. Did you read the population biology text, the statistics text, and that cryptanalysis paper yet? Obviously not, or you'd see how mistaken you really are.

> Alas,
> there's too much slop and wiggle room for definite,
> inescapable, certain predictions. I can reach into a bushel
> of apples knowing that I'll pull out an apple but not which
> apple. This is trivial of course but it seems profoundly
> meaningful to some here.
>
> Bill

The above doesn't show just ignorance, it shows willful, obstinate, cultivated ignorance. And that's your own fault at this point.

Chris

[jillery]

<PING> Dang it!
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

In reply to your last non sequitur, in your first case, you don't know
that something exists. In your second case, you know that something
doesn't exist. Just sayin'.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mm9sdr$j8u$1...@dont-email.me>

Indeed. And the reason that no one cares about phrenology is that
someone who studied it demonstrated that it was unsupported by any
evidence.

In the case of statistics, the person who is making negative claims
about statistics is someone who is clearly completely ignorant of the
topic (or a troll) (i.e. you). So why should anyone who has an
interest in reality trust the ignoramus or the expert?

Now, if you were to show some expertise in statistics, then your
opinion may hold some weight. In the light of your past pronouncements,
however, that is not a scenario that needs to be taken in the slightest
bit seriously.

> There are people who
> study folklore and most of them specialize.
>
> There are people who are expert in Norse mythology, for
> instance, and publish their studies in weighty tomes that no
> one reads. Since most people are ignorant of and indifferent
> to these myths, knowledge about them seems pretty useless.
>
> What is even more interesting is that the beings in the
> Norse pantheon don't even exist so knowledge about them is
> completely useless.

What a sadly impoverished imagination you must have. Even if you
exclude the conclusions that can be drawn about the world view of those
who developed the mythology, have you no appreciation for the sheer
poetry of the mythology?

Whether or not you are really a creationist I don't know, and I don't
care, but many of the creationists who have posted in this NG seem to
have the same tunnel vision and inability to allow their imagination to
roam free. What a very dull and mentally constraining world view.

> How is having knowledge about something
> non-existent preferable to ignorance? How is not knowing
> about something that exists any different knowing about
> something that doesn't exist?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:39:44 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>> passer...@gmail.com:

>>>Speaking of being determined to stay stinking ignorant.

>> Then why do you continue? Ignorance, even ignorance as
>> blatant as yours, is usually curable.

>Wouldn't that depend on what is considered knowledge? My
>impression from posting here is that consensus is the
>primary component which depends on how one was indoctrinated
>which will depend on what one believes is true already.

Your impression, like your personal definitions of such
terms as "unique" and "habitable zone", is incorrect. HTH.

>When one's knowledge consists of vague generalities loosely
>attached to an opinion, facts are not necessary. Ignorance
>would then be embedded in the alleged knowledge.

You've described some of your own posts, and nearly all of
pisserby's, quite well.

[Inez]

Try standing under a falling piano that you don't know about and see if that helps you understand.