Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

NAND gates in two universes

139 views
Skip to first unread message

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 5, 2015, 8:16:13 PM7/5/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes, I am creating a new thread simply to cut through all the crap
from all the previous ones.

This is motivated by the fact that I currently reading Max Tegmarck's
"Our Mathematical Universe." Tegmarck is an avid believer in
multiverses, an infinite number in fact, but is also a respected and
highly regarded physicist and cosmologist. The book is fantastically
interesting (I recommend it highly to all) but what struck me is a
section detailing exactly the current debate we have here.

Here is what he writes about multiverses (those at what he calls
"Level I" but that is not important here):

"Observers living in parallel universes at Level I observe the exact
same laws of physics as we do, but with different initial conditions
than those in our Universe...It's these slight differences that
ultimately determine what happens in their universes: which regions
turn into galaxies, which regions become intergalactic voids, which
stars get planets, which planets get dinosaurs, which planets get
their dinosaurs killed by an asteroid collision...In summary, students
in Level I parallel universes would learn the same thing in physics
class but different things in history class."

That, to my mind, is exactly the situation with our two robots, both
made of NAND gates but living in different universes. In one
universe, conscious creatures evolve, in the other they don't. Our
robots exploring each in their own universe, acting in their worlds
and observing the results of their actions, studying the mechanisms at
work in all the objects including living beings, will each have very
different experiences and will quite likely end up with different
conclusions. There is nothing at to to say that a universe which had
not yet developed anything with consciousness could not eventually do
so. But it is quite possible for one universe simply to have it and
the other not to.

I don't see any point arguing further about NAND gates or about
different universes. Different universes can be quite different even
with the same laws of physics. Questions about the universe will have
different answers provided they are not simply about the laws of
physics but rather to what happens to complex systems that are
influenced not only by the laws of physics but by the entire prior
history of the universe which determines their own initial state when
they are born,created, manufactured and which determines their
experiences acting in their universe.

One more point, this time about the inane arguments we have had here
about probability and determinism and the like. Tegmark writes, on
the very same page from which I have quoted here (page 122 in my
Vintage Books 2015 edition): "the seed fluctuations responsible for
all cosmic structure [the differences between the multiverses] were
generated by quantum fluctuations which are for all practical purposes
random." Note: it doesn't matter whether they are "truly" random. But
for all practical purposes they behave exactly in the manner that
probability theory predicts for random processes.

Message has been deleted

jonathan

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 7:26:12 AM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 7/5/2015 8:15 PM, RSNorman wrote:
> Yes, I am creating a new thread simply to cut through all the crap
> from all the previous ones.
>
> This is motivated by the fact that I currently reading Max Tegmarck's
> "Our Mathematical Universe." Tegmarck is an avid believer in
> multiverses, an infinite number in fact, but is also a respected and
> highly regarded physicist and cosmologist.



He's still wrong, the only multiverses that exist are
the countless ecosystems. Each ecosystem is it's own
mini-universe, with it's own unique (reductionist) rules
and laws born around it's particular 'conditions'.

But all ecosystems follow the same general principles
of self organization or evolution. They are all fractal
in character, which your cosmologists mistakes for
infinite universes because it suits his specialty.

The most complex - life - shows us how the universe works
not the simplest, such as particle physics.



s

Bill

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 11:01:11 AM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This seems like a somewhat entertaining exercise even if entirely
speculative. No one know how this particular universe works, filling in the
blanks with conjecture and untestable hypotheses. In fact the whole field of
alternate universe arose to "explain" the lacuna in current theoretical
accounts.

If the Big Bang or cosmic inflation or quantum weirdness have what seems
like insurmountable difficulties, we can plug in alternatives to fill the
holes. There is no increase increase in actual knowledge but ignorance is
sufficiently disguised to satisfy most people.

Since people will discuss alternative universes, for which no evidence is
even possible, and consider one view superior to another, ignorance is not
just postponed,it's ignored altogether.

When you consider that this is the central feature of most human thinking
(social, political and economic theories being good examples), how much of
what we think we know is even real?

Bill

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 11:46:11 AM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You enormously underestimate just how accurately our modern theories
of cosmology agree phenomenally with what we observe in the universe.
Well established physics -- the standard model plus general relativity
-- takes us back to very early in the lifetime of our universe and
inflation goes back even more. You should know that the models show
that inflation for us was essentially over when our universe was just
10^-32 seconds old. And inflation models have consequences that can
be tested in our curent universe and the cosmological observations --
the flatness of the universe and the inhomogeneities in the background
radiation -- agree extremely well will the predictions of the theory.

All this is far more than "entire speculation" will "conjecture and
untestable hypotheses." But if you want to carry out your own
argument to the extreme, everything we call "science" is nothing more
than a "somewhat entertaining exercise" to "explain the lacuna in
current accounts" resulting in "no increase in actual knowledge but
ignorance .. sufficiently disguised." You probably like that
statement but that "somewhat entertaining exercise" is incredibly good
at explaining the world we live in and there is no substitute that is
remotely as good, complete, and intellectually satisfying.

As Tegmark explains it, multiverses are NOT something made up to try
to explain enormous gaps in our knowledge. Rather multiverses are a
logical consequence of inflation theory, a model of cosmology that
fills an enormous gap in our knowledge of our own universe.



chris thompson

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 12:06:12 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You realize you're addressing someone who probably thinks that if there are 10^23 universes, there's a 50% chance we're in any one of them- either we are or we aren't.

Chris

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 12:31:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
As is usually the case here, answering a complete idiot with actual
facts is not intended to convince that idiot but rather to try to
influence all the hangers-on and fellow travelers who think that
science is nothing but conjecture and guesses in a vain attempt to
explain away the spiritual and divine reality of God's world.

jonathan

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 12:56:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This is the statement of someone that has a superficial
knowledge of cosmology. You should read this paper
to see just how LITTLE we know about the universe.
And it's written by the primary FOUNDER of inflationary
theory and one of the top cosmologists in the world.


I'll only quote this one line to demonstrate our
collective scientific ignorance of the universe.
And I don't have time to go into the cosmic
coincidence problem or fine-tuning problem
which also indicate physics hasn't the first clue
about how the universe works.


A quintessential introduction to dark energy
By Paul J. Steinhardt
Department of Physics, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08540, USA


"Most of the energy in the Universe is not `matter’.
In its first 300 years, physics has focused on the
properties of matter and radiation, including dark matter.
Now we know that they represent less than 30% of the
composition of the Universe. The rest consists of something
we know virtually nothing about."

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






passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 1:31:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Tegmark, is, of course, exactly right. Including his belief, like Everett who invented Many Worlds Quantum Theory, that it guarantees us eternal life. "Tegmark Suicide Experiment". But keep in mind, Tegmark, and anyone else that understands it says suicide is a very bad idea.

It's weird, but the alternatives are even weirder. It's the same exact thing, same exact Many Words as repeated Big Bangs and Big Crunches from a General Relativity closed universe. About as unified as they'll ever get. Heck, even the current darling and passing fad to unite the two, Membrane Theory, the Dark Energy guys, say it's Many Worlds too.

The alternative is Copenhagen, that dominated it during Schrodinger and Einstein's life, that they hated so much. It says if a cat is in a tree in a forest and the tree falls down, you can't say it's fallen down and killed the cat or not fallen down until you look, until you look it's both. Shocking, but the only way they could predict experiments. There's a 5% chance the cat is alive over there, a 15% chance it's dead over here, a 7% chance it's alive over there, etc. The cat is a cloud in space, in some cases dead and in some cases alive. How the cat feels about being dead and alive at the same time is a paradox, as is why hairless apes have this magical ability and cats don't.

Many Worlds says you have your feet in Many Worlds at the same time, some Worlds have live cats and some Worlds have dead cats. When you look, you put both feet in worlds with just dead cats or worlds with just live cats, you are no longer in those worlds. The cat never suffers the paradox and trauma of being dead and alive at the same time spread out in space, and hairless apes don't have magical abilities cat's don't have.

And it's all in the Gospel of Thomas 2000 years ago. Every bit of it. If you can make the two different you's into one, if you know the end is the beginning, you won't die, this IS Heaven.

P.Oxy 654.9-21
J[esus] said, "[If] those pulling you [say to you, 'Look,] the kingdom is in the sk[y,]' the birds of the sk[y will go before you. Or if they say t]hat it [is] beneath the ground, the fish of the se[a will go in, preced]ing you. And the king[dom of God] [i]s within you [and outside you. Whoever] knows [himself will] find this [and when you] know yourselves [you will know that] you are [children] of the l[iving] father. [But if] you will [not] know yourselves, [you are] in [poverty] and you are the pov[erty.]"

Thomas 11
Jesus says: "This heaven will pass away, and the (heaven) above it will pass away. And the dead are not alive, and the living will not died. In the days when you consumed what was dead, you made it alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?

Thomas 18
The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be too. Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning. And he will know the end, and he will not taste death."

Thomas 113
His disciples said to him: "The kingdom - on what day will it come?""It will not come by watching (and waiting for) it. They will not say: 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it."

Etc.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 1:31:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Steinhardt is a big supporter of Many Worlds. He has a nice historical analysis of the idea too. The general notion is ancient.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 1:36:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Science is nothing but conjecture and guesses at what makes the Universe work, which by definition of the word, is God. Science can never ever understand how the Universe works, much less make it work.

All science is or ever will be is the ability to predict experiments. Not truth, not knowledge, etc. Just the ability to predict experiments.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 1:41:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Science is a religion to them. Something to cling to for comfort, to sort things out, something that can do no evil and runs the Universe.

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 12:56:11 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 1:46:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:51:56 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I repeat: "You enormously underestimate just how accurately our modern
theories of cosmology agree phenomenally with what we observe in the
universe." There are rather large holes in our current state of
science. This cosmological problem is one, the nature and origin of
consciousness (the real subject matter here) is another, abiogenesis
yet another. However the enterprise we call "science" is what gave
Steinhardt the ability to write that work and to propose his own model
of a cyclic universe.

I should also notice that Steinhardt uses some notions you (jonathan)
so admire about complexity theory. "At the onset of matter
domination, the k-essence field switches to a new attractor
solution that acts like a cosmological constant" . Even further: "the
nature of an attractor equation is that the evolution of the scalar
field is completely insensitive to the initial value of the Żfield and
its time derivatives." However Steinhardt's paper itself is an example
of the science you so detest, arguing based on an understanding of the
small details of traditional scientific arguments and predictions.
Working out predictions of the models and testing them against
experimental data. All those fine details building the science up
from fundamentals rather than the woo-woo you espouse.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 2:21:12 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:24:58 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 7/5/2015 8:15 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>> Yes, I am creating a new thread simply to cut through all the crap
>> from all the previous ones.
>>
>> This is motivated by the fact that I currently reading Max Tegmarck's
>> "Our Mathematical Universe." Tegmarck is an avid believer in
>> multiverses, an infinite number in fact, but is also a respected and
>> highly regarded physicist and cosmologist.

>He's still wrong, the only multiverses that exist are
>the countless ecosystems.

I'm sure he'll experience extreme chagrin when you correct
his error, especially since your argument is so persuasive
and so well-supported by evidence, as shown below:

>. Each ecosystem is it's own
>mini-universe, with it's own unique (reductionist) rules
>and laws born around it's particular 'conditions'.
>
>But all ecosystems follow the same general principles
>of self organization or evolution. They are all fractal
>in character, which your cosmologists mistakes for
>infinite universes because it suits his specialty.
>
>The most complex - life - shows us how the universe works
>not the simplest, such as particle physics.
--

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

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 2:41:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:19:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:24:58 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
><WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On 7/5/2015 8:15 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>>> Yes, I am creating a new thread simply to cut through all the crap
>>> from all the previous ones.
>>>
>>> This is motivated by the fact that I currently reading Max Tegmarck's
>>> "Our Mathematical Universe." Tegmarck is an avid believer in
>>> multiverses, an infinite number in fact, but is also a respected and
>>> highly regarded physicist and cosmologist.
>
>>He's still wrong, the only multiverses that exist are
>>the countless ecosystems.
>
>I'm sure he'll experience extreme chagrin when you correct
>his error, especially since your argument is so persuasive
>and so well-supported by evidence, as shown below:
>
>>. Each ecosystem is it's own
>>mini-universe, with it's own unique (reductionist) rules
>>and laws born around it's particular 'conditions'.
>>
>>But all ecosystems follow the same general principles
>>of self organization or evolution. They are all fractal
>>in character, which your cosmologists mistakes for
>>infinite universes because it suits his specialty.
>>
>>The most complex - life - shows us how the universe works
>>not the simplest, such as particle physics.

I admit to feeling extreme chagrin in not being able at all to even
get a glimmer as to what jonathan means be "ecosystem."

jillery

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 2:41:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:05:29 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

...and he's never said half the things he said.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

jillery

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 2:46:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:51:56 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually we know very little about dark matter, too. Why are you
surprised that (most) scientists know they don't know everything?

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 2:51:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:24:58 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I would like to see an example of a fractal system which is not
infinite. I would like to see an example of an ecosystem which
exhibits fractal organization. At least a biological ecosystem -- I
have no idea at all what you mean by that term.

And what I learned (and taught) about biological ecosystems is not
that they have their own unique rules and laws but rather that they
are all subject to exactly the same principles of energy flow and
matter (C, N, P, H2O) cycling. I also wonder why "Mediterranean"
biomes are found in California, Chile, South Africa, and Australia.
No, I don't really wonder; I know.



jonathan

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 7:01:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Just incredible! In the first sentence you claim
how accurate our science is, then in the second
you list the minor little gaps that exist
here-and-there.

Those minor things like why those cosmological constants
have the values they do? The nature of our soul
and creation itself?

That's like saying I know everything about that
building over there except..how and...why it exists.
But I do know /exactly/ how many cinder blocks it's
made of!

Well I want to know why and how, not how many.




> However the enterprise we call "science" is what gave
> Steinhardt the ability to write that work and to propose his own model
> of a cyclic universe.
>
> I should also notice that Steinhardt uses some notions you (jonathan)
> so admire about complexity theory.



Absolutely, it's an attractor solution, right down my ally
so to speak.



"At the onset of matter
> domination, the k-essence field switches to a new attractor
> solution that acts like a cosmological constant" . Even further: "the
> nature of an attractor equation is that the evolution of the scalar
> field is completely insensitive to the initial value of the ¯field and
> its time derivatives." However Steinhardt's paper itself is an example
> of the science you so detest,



NOT IT ISN'T! My hobby is a dynamical approach. An output
or attractor based approach.

From Steinhardt's paper on Dark Energy, notice the word
'desperation' and the solution proposed is a dynamical
or attractor solution. Which is what I use for my
stock trading system. An output based/attractor approach.


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

"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,..."

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


"...does not require the fine-tuning of initial conditions"

Initial conditions are irrelevant from a dynamical approach.
A point you can't seem to accept, just as a flat-Earther
would cringe to learn the new geometry and upset all
his egg carts he's so carefully built, and all at once.

You still cling to a linear/input mindset or world view
where precise observations of the...past are exalted.
A dynamical approach looks at how the output is changing
and could /care less/ about the initial conditions, as
the whole idea is that self organized systems behave
/chaotically at the part level/ but stable on the
output side.

What he's really saying is the solution to they
mystery of why the cosmological constants just
happen to be so finely-tuned, either at the start
or now is because like everything else, they EVOLVE!

So like any healthy ecosystem the relationships
will be 'just right' or finely-tuned at ALL TIMES!

And you should take note that he's stating dark energy
/emerged/to became the dominant form of energy, creating
a second universal inflation at almost the same time
as (human) life evolved on Earth.

Quite a 'coincidence' wouldn't you say?




s





Bill

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 8:01:10 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RSNorman wrote:

...
What you offer is a series of stories told well. Superficially plausible
until one looks behind the shiny cover of the New Book of Knowledge. Almost
all of what is known about nature is what we think about it which is much
less than any actual facts.

The universe exists. Did it have a beginning, did it come from nothing, will
it eventually go way? We have one fact and from that we construct elaborate
superstructures made entirely from our ideas of what might be or could be or
should be. Skepticism is the only rational response to this kind of thing.

Bill


RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 8:16:10 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:58:54 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> field is completely insensitive to the initial value of the Żfield and

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 8:31:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:58:54 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> field is completely insensitive to the initial value of the Żfield and
Perhaps you might want to actually read the paper rather than
quotemine the statement "Why did the Universe begin to accelerate just
as humans started to evolve?" This deliberately controversial
question suggests that the evolution of humans is somehow related to
the origin of dark energy. The reality is expressed in the answer:

"The k-essence component has the property that it only behaves as a
negative pressure component after matter-radiation equality, so that
it can only overtake the matter density and induce cosmic acceleration
after the matter has dominated the Universe for some period, at about
the present epoch. And, of course, human evolution is linked to matter
domination because the formation of planets, stars, galaxies and
large-scale structure only occurs after the beginning of the
matter-dominated epoch."

In other words, "Why did the Universe begin to accelerate just as
large scale structure, galaxies, stars, and planets started to exist?
We humans have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Cosmologists have long argued that without large-scale structure,
galaxies, stars, and planets, all dependent on a matter-dominated
universe, there of course would not be humans. That is a basis for
the "fine tuning" or "anthropic" problem.

Quantum mechanics and special relativity turned classical physics
topsy-turvy. Yet we still use Newtonian mechanics in Euclidean space
and a separate time for almost all commonplace situations here on
earth. General relativity turned gravitation theory all topsy-turvy
but we still use Newtonian gravity forces, fields, and potentials for
almost all commonplace situations here on earth. Any forthcoming new
theory incorporating inflation and dark energy will also turn
classical physics topsy-turvy. But we will still continue to use it
and to teach it for almost all commonplace situations here on earth.

And you still refuse to accept that it is the procedures and methods
of classical science that enabled Steinhardt to write what he did.

Furthermore, you studiously snip out everything I write that argues
against the points you wish to make. I always have argued here that
notions of complexity theory make very good science when applied by
scientists who actually know what they are doing. Complexity science
becomes indistinguishable from pseudoscience when made into the
woo-woo type of thing you harp on.

RSNorman

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 8:41:10 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes, the universe exists. We have a science which exceptionally well
predicts and explains almost all events starting from a few
microseconds after its starting and continuing many billions of years
into the future. We have not got to those first microseconds nor what
happens after many tens of billions of years. We can explain and
predict incredibly accurately everything on a time and distance scale
of femtoseconds to millions of years and picometer to millions of
light years.

We do not have an explanation (yet) for the ultimate origin nor for
the ultimate destiny of the universe. We do not (yet) understand the
relationship between the standard model and general relativity. We do
not (yet) have an explanation for dark matter and dark energy. There
is still work to keep scientists occupied.

There is an explanation for the ultimate origin: Creation. There is
an explanation for the ultimate destiny: Armageddon. Those
explanations have no value in helping us understand anything else
about the workings of the physical universe for billions of years and
for the here and now of where we live. Tell me where your scepticism
lies in regard to these explanations.

Paul J Gans

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 9:56:10 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I sometimes think that to him "ecosystem" is one that takes his
"ideas" and repeats them as truth. You know, a kind of "echosystem".

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Bill

unread,
Jul 6, 2015, 10:01:09 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RSNorman wrote:

...

>>
>>The universe exists. Did it have a beginning, did it come from nothing,
>>will it eventually go way? We have one fact and from that we construct
>>elaborate superstructures made entirely from our ideas of what might be or
>>could be or should be. Skepticism is the only rational response to this
>>kind of thing.
>>
>
> Yes, the universe exists. We have a science which exceptionally well
> predicts and explains almost all events starting from a few
> microseconds after its starting and continuing many billions of years
> into the future. We have not got to those first microseconds nor what
> happens after many tens of billions of years. We can explain and
> predict incredibly accurately everything on a time and distance scale
> of femtoseconds to millions of years and picometer to millions of
> light years.
>
> We do not have an explanation (yet) for the ultimate origin nor for
> the ultimate destiny of the universe. We do not (yet) understand the
> relationship between the standard model and general relativity. We do
> not (yet) have an explanation for dark matter and dark energy. There
> is still work to keep scientists occupied.
>
> There is an explanation for the ultimate origin: Creation. There is
> an explanation for the ultimate destiny: Armageddon. Those
> explanations have no value in helping us understand anything else
> about the workings of the physical universe for billions of years and
> for the here and now of where we live. Tell me where your scepticism
> lies in regard to these explanations.

Explanations are plentiful, always have been. It's what intelligent
observers do. These observers are intelligent because they look for
explanations and then devise them. It doesn't follow that explaining
something means anything or that the explanation is correct or that
worthwhile knowledge is gained.

Consider past attempts: Galen, Aristotle, Paracelsus, Ptolemy or Franz
Joseph Gall or Lemarck. Not only did these people explain things, people
believed their explanations, sometimes for thousands of years. No one knows
if the current bout of lofty explanations really explain anything, only that
some are more popular than others.

Bill


RSNorman

unread,
Jul 7, 2015, 8:46:10 AM7/7/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You seem to think that science is "a search for truth". And then once
we have found it we declare "now we know the answer." All scientists
know and all non-scientists should know that science is only a quest
to gather an ever greater understanding of the world in which we live.
As our observational skills improve -- with telescopes and microscopes
and now all varieties of laboratory instrumentation -- and our
analytic skills improve -- with the development of mathematics and
computational tools -- and our cumulative knowledge increases -- with
the widespread recording and promulgation of results and theories --
we make constant improvements on that understanding.

At the leading edge of science, the exploration of problems as yet
unsolved, of course there are different approaches and different
theories with each proponent arguing "this is the proper way to go".
That is how progress is made. Somehow you think this represents a
kind of failure. On the contrary, it is the way science succeeds.

Now it is your turn. Please tell us what you think is a "correct
explanation" of anything in the universe. And please tell us what you
think is a good example of "worthwhile knowledge."

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jul 7, 2015, 1:51:08 PM7/7/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 14:36:15 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
Whatever he means by it, it's almost certain that it isn't
what an ecologist would expect it to mean.

Jonathan loves buzzwords, pontificating on the meaning of
things with unknown meaning, and "correcting" those who've
spent lifetimes of study.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2015, 9:40:32 PM7/18/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Dark Matter actually exists for a fact. Show Newton the data on the rotation of galaxies or how they orbit each other, he could do the calculation on how much Dark matter is there.

And we've learned other stuff. Such as the Dark Matter is more like a sphere around the Galaxy, not the disc shape of the stars.

Dark Energy is some light from the other side of the visible universe is a little dimmer than expected. Rather etherial, and requires a lot of faith in the state of current physics, (such as their ignorance of Dark Matter), to assume they would know how dim light would be after passing through the entire Universe. Maybe there is such a thing and maybe there isn't.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2015, 9:45:33 PM7/18/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
But the Universe does exist. It's not the Void. Something's up.

In school, I discovered if I couldn't come up with the reason for some math when asked to show something, I would say "by symmetry" it was a get out of jail free card I could play anytime.

The only thing as symmetric as the Void, is that everything that can happen, does happen, the cyclic Universe of Godel, Einstein, Everett, the historical Jesus, and everyone else with their head screwed on right.

Mr. B1ack

unread,
Jul 19, 2015, 3:30:31 AM7/19/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Dark Matter actually exists for a fact. Show Newton the data on the
>rotation of galaxies or how they orbit each other, he could do the
>calculation on how much Dark matter is there.

Cousin to the "lumiferous aether" no doubt ............

Some kind of unseen/undertectable/uncharacterizable
matter MIGHT be responsible for the way galaxies
rotate .... but, IMHO, it's digging deep into mythological
territory. Sounds very 18th century along with "vital
energies" and such.

I think the weirdness in the way galaxies rotate requires
no mysterious substances. Galaxies contain a LOT of
matter ... which creates a LOT of gravity ... meaning
that regular relativistic time/space effects need to be
more carefully considered. The center of galaxies may
actually be rotating at a different speed, but time-
dialation makes it seem that they aren't.

OR it's all just somethings simulation and the "laws" of
physics really ain't.

Ernest Major

unread,
Jul 19, 2015, 5:35:31 AM7/19/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 19/07/2015 08:27, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Dark Matter actually exists for a fact. Show Newton the data on the
>> rotation of galaxies or how they orbit each other, he could do the
>> calculation on how much Dark matter is there.
>
> Cousin to the "lumiferous aether" no doubt ............
>
> Some kind of unseen/undertectable/uncharacterizable
> matter MIGHT be responsible for the way galaxies
> rotate .... but, IMHO, it's digging deep into mythological
> territory. Sounds very 18th century along with "vital
> energies" and such.

So, back in the 19th century you would have dismissed predictions of
Neptune's existence? (Neptune was the dark matter changing Uranus's orbit.)
>
> I think the weirdness in the way galaxies rotate requires
> no mysterious substances. Galaxies contain a LOT of
> matter ... which creates a LOT of gravity ... meaning
> that regular relativistic time/space effects need to be
> more carefully considered. The center of galaxies may
> actually be rotating at a different speed, but time-
> dialation makes it seem that they aren't.

Do you really find it plausible that hundreds of astrophysicists have
overlooked relativistic effects on galactic rotation curves?

In principle the discrepancy between the rotation curves observed and
those predicted from the observation of directly detectable mass could
be due to currently undetectable mass, or to different* new physics
(Vulcan doesn't exist), but dark matter accounts for all the
observations and competing theories don't.

*Some dark matter has been shown to exist - rogue planets and neutrinos.
But it has also been shown to be insufficient, so the dark matter
hypothesis needs new physics in the form of new particle classes, rather
than a different theory of gravity.
>
> OR it's all just somethings simulation and the "laws" of
> physics really ain't.
>


--
alias Ernest Major

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2015, 6:55:31 AM7/19/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I donno' Newton's Laws describe it pretty well, why resort to more convoluted explanations? I've never heard it from those in the field, but we can't see brown dwarfs, we can't see planets tossed out of their solar systems, etc. Lots of things we can't see that could be responsible. If planets tossed out, the sphere would make sense, but have there been enough sun cycles to toss out that many planets etc.

Bill

unread,
Jul 19, 2015, 3:50:31 PM7/19/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> But the Universe does exist. It's not the Void. Something's up.
>
> In school, I discovered if I couldn't come up with the reason for some
> math when asked to show something, I would say "by symmetry" it was a get
> out of jail free card I could play anytime.
>
> The only thing as symmetric as the Void, is that everything that can
> happen, does happen, the cyclic Universe of Godel, Einstein, Everett, the
> historical Jesus, and everyone else with their head screwed on right.

You need to post your replies after the part you are replying to. I almost
missed yours because it was in the wrong place. Notice how this reply
immediately follows yours ...

Anyway - there is no factual basis for the nonsensical mantra: "everything
that can happen, does happen". That's grasping at straws when you can't
find a "rational" answer. I have used this aphorism as a parody from time to
time since it illustrates the hopeful optimism of those I believe are
hopelessly optimistic.

In fact the opposite may be true because entropy is continuously depleting
the store of possibilities. As time passes, less is possible until
everything becomes impossible.

In your cyclic universe, entropy will somehow be swept away, the batteries
will re-charge and our basket of possibilities will be (magically?) filled
yet again. There's a nice symmetry but there is no conceivable way to know
or even trace the remnants of the defunct universes.

If you reply please follow the suggestions above.

Bill

Bill

unread,
Jul 19, 2015, 6:40:30 PM7/19/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ernest Major wrote:

..

>
> In principle the discrepancy between the rotation curves observed and
> those predicted from the observation of directly detectable mass could
> be due to currently undetectable mass, or to different* new physics
> (Vulcan doesn't exist), but dark matter accounts for all the
> observations and competing theories don't.

In a sense, the physics of today still relies on the assumptions of the
17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The idea that the universe is explainable as
a kind of deterministic machine, filled with little cogs accumulating into
larger cogs is still implicit in most theories. The idea that everything
reduces to discrete pieces without remainder derives from classical physics
and still determines how the universe is understood.

This is the basis for hypothesizing dark matter and energy, reality doesn't
fit classical physics and it's believed that it should. If the tiny slice of
the universe we can observe in the tiny amount of time we've been observing,
is transient and in flux, we may be observing processes rather than static
events.

Bill

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2015, 8:15:30 PM7/19/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Steinhart deals with the entropy issue if you read the link provided.

Not to mention that entropy can decrease, it's a matter of probability. First thing they mention in a modern Thermodynamics course. A real world example is Brownian Motion.

"Nonsensical"? It resolves all paradoxes and predicts all experiments better than any other theory. Probably why Everett, Godel, Einstein, and the historical Jesus bought it. Last time I checked those guys had a tendency to be right.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2015, 8:20:30 PM7/19/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Not to mention the Conservation Laws. The only thing in science rightly called a "law". To do the QT you have to pretend GR doesn't exist, and vice versa, but both dance to the tune of the Conservation Laws.

And unlike Entropy, you can never ever violate the Conservation Laws, (for long).

And if a one time Universe, that violates the Conservation Laws to the absolute maximum. That isn't science, it's Voodoo.

Earle Jones27

unread,
Jul 20, 2015, 12:50:27 PM7/20/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*
I created the idea of one conservation law:

It is called the "Law of Conservation of Stomach Acid."

"Everyone creates the same amount of stomach acid –
Some do this in their own stomachs –
Others do this in the stomachs of those around them."

earle
*

Bill

unread,
Jul 20, 2015, 1:20:28 PM7/20/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You really don't understand how these newsgroups work or even the simplest
rules of posting. Include what you are replying to in your reply. Post your
reply after the part you're replying to. Ignore this and your posts will be
ignored.

Bill

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 20, 2015, 4:20:27 PM7/20/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Why on earth would you think I give a damn about talking to you?
0 new messages