I'd imagine so.
Does evidence imply the cosmos was intentionally programmed for conscious beings?
- Thread starter Pious
- Start date
I'd imagine so.
If we are concentrating on the Hoyle conjecture, we are our own Gods. Somehow we will be involved in sending messages back to the early universe shaping it. No worries about causal dynamics here, because in relativity there are no such chronological order of events. And in the Cramer interpretation of the wave function, time is symmetric and there is no preferred directionality.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
And what a preposterous and contorted conjecture it seems to be. I bet you don't believe that for an instant, do you?
No, I'm sorry, but this whole argument strikes me as exactly what we have all learned to watch out for from the "Intelligent Design" fraternity. A trojan horse argument, trying to shoehorn either God, or something that would be compatible with God, into science.
However, regardless of who or what the designer, or "tuner" of the "fine-tuning", is or isn't insinuated to be, the argument seems to me specious, for the reasons I've given earlier.
It is not a scientific argument, it is a metaphysical one. The existence or not of God, or a "tuner", or a supercomputer in the future hahaha, is a matter solely of faith, that is not amenable to any objective test of falsifiability.
Hoyle would have disagreed, he said there was a way to maybe ''look for signals'' like a ''quantum morse code.''
Look, he was a pretty avid thinker, and no, I don't accept his version of the events. Though, he might be partially correct about the future effecting the past, since we could be hologram projected from our future cone.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
He also went a bit bonkers towards the end…..
Regarding holograms projected from our future cone, I think I am going to invoke Occam's Razor.
And, as I heartily despise the intellectual dishonesty of ID, I am going to remain very alert to arguments that look to me potentially ID-related.
Why do people invoke Occam's Razor, the idealism of simplicity when, in reality, quantum mechanics is far from simple.
You can't use Occam's Razor in physics, physics is anything but logical. Almost any scientist would agree with that statement.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That, my friend, shows a lack of understanding of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor has no argument with QM, because without QM you cannot account for the observational facts. All Occam's Razor says is you go with the simplest explanation that accounts for the observational facts. It is nothing to do with simplicity per se.
Now, postulating a hologram projected backwards in time is NOT the simplest explanation consistent with the facts.
And what is the simplest explanation?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I've effectively given it you already, in my criticism of the fine-tuning argument.
Chance.
Currently, the mulitiverse theory is the most favored explanation supported by those who assume the creation of physical laws which enable our cosmos to exist happened by pure chance. It is also favored by Stephen Hawking.
But this theory is an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor. In the words of Paul Davies: Can the multiverse provide a complete and closed account of all physical existence? Not quite. The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping "meta-laws" that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained – eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.
I think it is a lie to say that the multiverse theory is the simplest explanation consistent with facts. If we use Occam's razor, then a programmed universe where someone creates our physical laws and programs our cosmos, or a biocentric universe where life creates the cosmos and not the other way around, are by far simpler than pure chance theories. The multiverse theory does assume creation of physical laws by pure chance, but it also assumes an infinite number of advanced technological civilizations capable of creating simulations like our universe. How can any honest person favor it? It is anything but simple.
Fine this lets completely ignore the multiverse theory. Since there is absolutely no evidence of a programer (if you will) we are again led to the conclusion that it is just chance that the laws of the universe are what they are. If the laws were different then the universe would be different. It is like saying that the earth must have been made for us by a creator because it is perfect for us, when in actuality it is just chance that the earth is as it is and we are a result of the chance conditions of the earth.
There's absolutely no evidence of you either. You could be just some retarded monkey, randomly typing away. I wonder what the chances that we could have such high level of bullshit?
Seconded.
It's embarrassing to be on the same forum as someone who would raise non-scientific issues repeatedly on a science forum. To prevent any further feelings of awkwardness, I think Nightshift should agree to leave forever.
Illogical assertion when Nightshift's reply citing the above post is clear evidence of existence of a "you" (origin).
For a third reason to ban Nightshift would be the abuse of the laws of probability. If not permanently banned, Nightshift should be required to support this statement with detailed demonstration of how such calculation could be made before being allowed to continue posting on other topics.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Is this a response to me? If it is, I'd make two observations. First, I did not anywhere imply I'm a supporter of any multiverse theory. I don't see a need for it.
Secondly, it looks as if you do not understand the difference between a lie and an incorrect statement. It is fairly elementary.
See here is what I find interesting.... you seem to be one of the more intelligent posters here... and you seem to be sticking up for the likes of origin... who by the by, is one of the worst trolls here who can't even perform a square root sign...
...and we are stuck on... me? I think you have your priorities in the wrong hand Rpenner.
I never started the thread Rpenner. And ... as far as I can tell, you are not a physicist.
Physicists have taken this question seriously for a long time. Whatever makes you think inherent questions concerning our origin and how science reflects that is .... embarrassing then whatever. These are not embarrassing questions and ... you are actually a bit of a douche aren't you? These people are part of the public, has every right to be here as you do. The last thing they want to hear is negative posts telling them their questions are embarrassing.
What's embarrassing is the intellectuals talking about subjects they know next to nothing about.
The 1st Calvary, rpenner and Aqueous Id. The voices of reason. I'm in complete agreement with 'The 1st Calvary' on this matter.
Reason?
LOL! Rpenners post was far from jeweled in reasonable thought. And Aqueous? ...
Do you think we are all fucking stupid here or something? That none of us can see that you, Origin and Aqeuous are constantly supporting each other in a flurry of trolling everyday?
I mean... everyone see's you have formed a clique. So trust me when I say I don't trust you in saying he is the voice of reason - not when you kiss his ass every day.
I'll tell you what would be reasonable behaviour from Rpenner...
... She should... actually take notice of who the trolls are and who can actually do physics or even simple math like a square root sign. Then he or she should take time not to involve themselves in threads they have absolutely no interest for, instead of trying to slag it off.
That would have been a reasonable discourse.