Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:08:33 UTC No. 16280431

>>16280283
No they don't

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:10:08 UTC No. 16280433

Btw this is a false flag religion thread.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 21:42:38 UTC No. 16280698

What's wrong with the small chance except you, a result of that chance, find it odd? There's no rule that every event should be very high probability. That's the whole point of probability, otherwise we would talking about certainties all the time. Secondly, universe likely has infinite civilisations at long distances away.
>>16280433
It really is

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 22:05:55 UTC No. 16280719

>>16280431
>>16280698
A selection effect from a large series is more natural than brute luck allowing for stable atomic nuclei / complex chemistry / stable planetary orbits / many other things that need to be right for an observer to appear.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 22:56:46 UTC No. 16280767

>>16280698
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/07/08/how-finely-tuned-is-the-universe/

Here’s a very short read on the matter.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:43:53 UTC No. 16281709

bump

Simulacrum at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:12:24 UTC No. 16282534

>>16280283
>All of these combined pretty much guarantee that there is some variation of multiverses (paralell or linear) with varying laws of physics. It’s just way too unlikely that we struck a 1 in 10^10^150 chance, instead there must be a selection effect at play.

Ah, the inverse gambler's fallacy. You just love to see it when someone uses a form of argumentation that is rarely recognized as a logical fallacy, and watch so many people fall for it because it sounds logical even though it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler%27s_fallacy

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:19:31 UTC No. 16282729

>>16282534
Your link goes on to debunk the reverse gambler’s fallacy in relation to fine tuning.

> A rebuttal paper by John Leslie points out a difference between the observation of double sixes and the observation of fine tuning, namely that the former is not necessary (the roll could have come out different) while the latter is necessary (our universe must support life, which means ex hypothesi that we must see fine tuning).[3] He suggests the following analogy: instead of being summoned into a room to observe a particular roll of the dice, we are told that we will be summoned into the room immediately after a roll of double sixes. In this situation it may be quite reasonable, upon being summoned, to conclude with high confidence that we are not seeing the first roll. In particular, if we know that the dice are fair and that the rolling would not have been stopped before double sixes turned up, then the probability that we are seeing the first roll is at most 1/36.

So if the universe is fine tuned for life, it is extremely likely that these die have been cast many times previously until we struck this result.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 06:29:32 UTC No. 16283237

>>16282729
Can anyone refute this? Are multiverses basically confirmed using this reasoning?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 07:47:06 UTC No. 16283269

>>16280283
>>Fine tuning
Do you have any evidence that the constants were ever tuned? As in: is there any reason you believe that they could have been otherwise and are not, in fact, constant?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 07:54:22 UTC No. 16283272

>>16283269
They must’ve been tuned at creation. And they need a point being created because the alternative is an infinite past which can not be true (you can not pass an infinite amount of time to get here).

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 07:55:57 UTC No. 16283273

>>16283272
So you just assume, and thus the entire fine tuning argument.
Really bang up job everyone, just believe it.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:08:48 UTC No. 16283284

>>16283273
They could have been just set to the current values at creation. But then you need to explain some sort of underlying machinery that spits out these values deterministically.

A more natural and less specific explanation is that there is a selection effect from random noise (anthropic principle).

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:10:34 UTC No. 16283286

>>16283284
Anthropic principal doesn't say there was any noise.
It says "if it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here." All it can show is that it is this way.
Again, do you have any *evidence* that it was ever otherwise? That it could have been? That it might be?
>but then you need to support thing you don't believe
I think you're retarded. My support: you can't make your argument

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:22:28 UTC No. 16283293

>>16283286
Your argument is essentially: We can’t know with certainty

Mine is: This is most likely since it’s the least complex, least specific and thus most natural solution.

Of course we can’t know for sure, we can’t reach that far back. What do you expect? It’s outside our reach so the best we have is arguments about probability and naturality and simplicity.

>It just is that way!
Is less compelling than what I propose (selection effect from random noise).

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:26:36 UTC No. 16283295

>>16283293
To assume the constants were not constant requires an extra assumption, Occam's razor says otherwise. We know what they are, we see they're unchanging now, why should I assume they changed then?
I default to Occam unless you have some evidence.
Religionfags are rarded.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:35:30 UTC No. 16283299

>>16283295
Occam’s razor is favor of random quantum noise over a specific machinery that produces a set of structures.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:36:49 UTC No. 16283300

>>16283299
Why must you multiply entities beyond necessity then claim Occam's razor? You're literally as bad as creationists.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:42:14 UTC No. 16283301

>>16283300
A noise generating program is less complex than one that generates all physical fields and laws. You’re maning the most assumptions here.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:47:30 UTC No. 16283304

>>16283301
>assume this thing you don't believe
>now you're breaking Occam's razor!
Do I have to call you a creationist retard again?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:52:33 UTC No. 16283308

>>16283304
What do you think gave rise to our physical laws
>We can’t know
Is a non-answer, I’m asking what you think is most LIKELY. I guarantee that any answer you come up with is more complex than random noise.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:55:37 UTC No. 16283311

>>16283308
I believe they are constant. I don't think they could have been otherwise.
The evidence is that they are currently constant, as in we've never seen them fluctuate, and equations using them show we have the numbers at least mostly correct f nto dead-on.
Why, despite these two facts, do you think they are not constant?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:59:18 UTC No. 16283314

>>16283311
Them being constant and never created implies eternal past. How would you pass an infinite amount of time to get here?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:00:48 UTC No. 16283315

>>16283314
Time is not constant, and may not have existed prior to this instantiation of spacetime. Could you rephrase the question in a way that matches with reality and observations?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:04:28 UTC No. 16283317

>>16283315
Right so there was a first instant of time. So the constants did not exist before this and so they had a point of creation.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:06:45 UTC No. 16283318

>>16283317
Time did not exist before then. A first moment in time, not in everything. So you still have no proof? I've asked for evidence how many times now?
Go back to >>>/his/ with your religious drivel.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:11:53 UTC No. 16283320

>>16283318
I don’t care about before time. If you travel far back enough in history you eventually encounter the creation of these constants. And here the machinery that birthed them was most likely just a random noise background buzzing.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:13:37 UTC No. 16283321

>>16283320
>if you do thin thing (impossible) and assume thins thing (schizophrenic) then I might be correct
If you're so unconfident in your own baseless speculation then why should I believe you?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:20:12 UTC No. 16283323

>>16283321
Ok whatever, if you don’t understand that a quantum vacuum with random buzzing is the least specific thing possible there is no convincing you.

Current inflation models also predict multiverses and is pretty much consensus among physicists which further corroborates the multiverse idea. But I don’t feel like arguing more. ”We can know nuffin!!!” won today.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:23:42 UTC No. 16283324

>>16283323
>there's randomness in this specific field!
One which is constrained by the physical constants, not the cause of them.
You understand nothing. You have no evidence.
Provide evidence. You cannot and will not.
>physicists agree with me!
No, not really. Not to the extent of it being a scientific theory like relativity on evolution.
It's more like saying some physicists have a head canon but you treat it like a religion.

Still. No. Evidence.
Fucking loser.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:28:28 UTC No. 16283326

>>16283324
Inflation theory being accepted is standard among physicists.
>Labile outburst
Lol

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:31:31 UTC No. 16283327

>>16283326
I don't know if you realize but inflation applies to thin universe. Not to many. Funny that. It doesn't predict wore than one, it explains thin one and predicts what we should see within it.
I know it's confusing for you to have your religion challenged.
Still no evidence. Moron.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:33:48 UTC No. 16283328

>>16283327
Inflation predicts many bubble universes as the inflation decays slower than it expands.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:40:52 UTC No. 16283331

>>16283328
Even Hawking, pop-sci king who's infinitely smarter than you, disagrees. Your pet hypothesis has no wide support. It has no evidence. It's only your hopes and dreams. Feel free to actually cite anything.
God you're stupid. Has anyone ever told you that before? I can't be the first.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:47:35 UTC No. 16283332

>>16283331
Hawking is old gen. And inflation has made massive predictions. Feel free to read what they have been: https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/pdf/inflation_excerpt.pdf

You’re stuck in the 1970’s

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:54:55 UTC No. 16283337

>>16283332
The last paper he published right before he died disagrees exactly with you.
You have no evidence, so you appeal to authority. The authorities disagree with you, so you cope and seethe.
You have no evince, so you post a PDF, not published or cited, that doesn't even mention multi verses or changed physical constants.
Literally you are only getting information from pop-sci youtubers and you've still NEVER ANSWERED MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.
Go preach elsewhere, /sci/ is beyond you.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:08:28 UTC No. 16283355

>>16283337
>Inflation is not published
Bruh just stop running your mouth already. The book chapter describes how inflation came to be and what things it predicted correctly.

Inflation is published, corroborated by data and correct predictions and by being accepted by most physicists. You just have 0 idea about the current landscape physics.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:02:21 UTC No. 16283722

>>16283355
Cool strawman. Answer my first question.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:30:02 UTC No. 16283758

>>16283273
>>16283269
>>16283286
>>16283295
>>16283300
>>16283304
>>16283311
>>16283318
>>16283321
>>16283324
>>16283327
>>16283331
Holy fucking shit ure the blackest gorilla nigger i had the bad luck of reading today. Is it actually impossible for people like you to engage in an intelectual discussion without stirring the pot and being an obnoxious, disingenuous contrarian? Your entire argument is "HE IS WRONG SEE?" while providing close to 0 proof against some dude that was actually trying to get you to understand some shit. You're just a fucking midwit trying to use the socratic method and dialectics, you disingenuous, dishonest fuck.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:35:49 UTC No. 16283768

>>16283758
There is both no positive proof, and not a consensus of physicists believe it. Why should I? Multiverse belief is a new-age religion for the pop-sci retards, which I am skeptical of.
I ask why I should, and he has nothing, and still never answered my first question.