Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Faith... I believe in science, whatever you want it to be. But when I tell you about a science you don't want to hear it and may as well be calling me a liar when I tell you these things! ''Actually I am aware of that idea and i am currently collecting notes to write a science fiction story along those lines...'' Wonderful, then you probably understand all this quite well.. so why try and stop acting as if it is vague on you? Vague to me? No... but it seems to be a wildly speculative idea... ''No, in fact I am quite sure it had at least something to do with it, the ekroptic universe is my personal favorite... wouldn't that negate your premise if some evidence to support it is found?'' We are working with the most accepted theories. Ekpyrotic theory, whilst it is mainstream is highly speculative and also part of string theory. Ekpyrotic theory is imaginative and perhaps... one of the most speculative models we have simultaneously. I do understand that, it is just mentally satisfying to me... I wouldn't assert it as fact or really even a theory... ''Yes but can you honestly tell me it did? '' Yes. I can honestly tell you it did. Obviously it depends on your interpretation of physics. But in the framework of the Copenhagen Interpretation, yes, this is a very real prediction which should have governed the universe. I see then your idea does have to have an "interpretation" and is a "prediction" of a particular school of thought, not a verified piece of evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Vague to me? No... but it seems to be a wildly speculative idea... You did read the part where I said there was experimental confirmation of this in wheeler's delayed choice experiment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) yes, if you are correct and I think that is huge if but still... if things had been different we wouldn't be here to say anything about it... yes, statistics, lies, damn lies, and statistics... I have no doubt you really believe this aethelwulf, my doubt is in the validity of the statistics. If you want to find something bad enough in statistics it can be found... no I don't think you are intentionally lying but the idea of something being infinitely unlikely that obviously happened raises alarm bells to me immediately.. It reminds me of the argument against abiogenesis, the idea that forming the first cell was so unlikely that the universe could not last long enough to allow it to happen... yet here we are... Some really famous scientists bought into this argument at first until it was realized how inaccurate that assumption was. But this isn't about just ''trying to find statistics,'' it's about taking quantum mechanics seriously. Unless you are trying to tell every quantum scientist and cosmologist that the rules of quantum mechanics (such as the wave function) has no influence on the universe then I can tell you, you'd be up for a fight. I am the one who had offered science in these discussions, if I was an outsider, I'd place more faith in the science, not in the man who just ignores it because ''it doesn't sound good to him.'' Edited July 19, 2012 by Aethelwulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Damn typo's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 But this isn't about just ''trying to find statistics,'' it's about taking quantum mechanics seriously. Unless you are trying to tell every quantum scientist and cosmologist that the rules of quantum mechanics (such as the wave function) has no influence on the universe then I can tell you, you'd be up for a fight. I am the one who had offered science in these discussions, if I was an outsider, I'd place more faith in the science, not in the man who just ignores it because ''it doesn't sound good to him.'' Again you are misrepresenting my stance on this, i understand that by your own definition you have somehow proven that some sort of selection has taken place in the origin of our universe. your assertion that this somehow proves the existence of god or any hyper intelligence and that this intelligence somehow chose the initial conditions of the universe stuns me... I see how you can say there might have been an infinite number of ways the universe could have been due to QM but the intelligent design idea seems less than probable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Again you are misrepresenting my stance on this, i understand that by your own definition you have somehow proven that some sort of selection has taken place in the origin of our universe. your assertion that this somehow proves the existence of god or any hyper intelligence and that this intelligence somehow chose the initial conditions of the universe stuns me... I see how you can say there might have been an infinite number of ways the universe could have been due to QM but the intelligent design idea seems less than probable... Sure... it surely is an ''origin of everything'' when the clock itself started to tick. I am sure, or I at least think... it is probable there could be an answer out of all this ''infinity'' stuff located at the origin of the universe. I am open to that idea. Until we have more conclusive evidence (not proof) can we begin to think of those options more freely. It can however, give evidence that there is some ordered structure of information in the universe we could call ''God''. It certainly isn't something which has a single sentient consciousness. It could be... a great spill of intellect in our distant future shaping the previous existence before it... such as Hawking's Top-Bottom model. An Intelligent Design... design infers a purpose perhaps, made by some high being above us who knows there actions... that is not my stance. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 In the name of simplicity, we might well focus on some single, most phenomenal attribute of the universe available for our attention that is critically tied to extreme unlikelihood, but nevertheless precariously presented to each and every one of us with exactingly fine tuning. My choice would be that out of all of eternity, the very moment at hand should be occurring simultaneously with one of the finite moments coinciding with our lifetime. Unbelievable! There must be some explanation. Perhaps that inner self is always somewhere. As humans or any other beings that must die because of sexual reproduction, it is no surprise to encounter folks who think that we come back again somehow simply because it would thus be not such a great coincidence to find ourselves always in the present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.