You can't read? Based on precedent: Sock puppets of banned member are also banned. Get the logic 'Nightshift'? IE: the member is banned regardless what they choose to call themself. We all have reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to continue your charade. My number 1 reason is 'utter lack of intellectual honesty'.
Does evidence imply the cosmos was intentionally programmed for conscious beings?
- Thread starter Pious
- Start date
You can't read? Based on precedent: Sock puppets of banned member are also banned. Get the logic 'Nightshift'? IE: the member is banned regardless what they choose to call themself. We all have reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to continue your charade. My number 1 reason is 'utter lack of intellectual honesty'.
If I really am Reiku, do you think the mods don't know that?
And if the mods do know that, then what right do you have to question the decision to allow him back?
I don't think anyone actually knows what this statement means any more today. I've not spoken about my crudentials with anyone openly at the forums. If I want to talk about science, dammit I will. I don't need a PhD in rocket science to have your permission to do so!
Once again you prove that the only thing that matters to you is your delusional troll. Key word: delusional.
Actually I am probably one of the best here who have read up on fine tuning arguments and the early pioneers who asked this question. It's Rpenner who comes across as delusional by downplaying the issue as something ''we should be embarrassed about.''
I'd love to know how Rpenner supports that statement when serious scientists still ask the same questions today.
Pious
And even Hawking would tell you it is pure speculation. The multiverse concept first assumes that the conditions a Universe is "born" with are the result of pure chance. There is no evidence that that is true. It is just as likely that any Universe "born" MUST have the conditions our Universe has. Or that all Universes "born" with different conditions do not survive for more than an instant, collapsing back into the Quantum world from which it came.
Occam's Razor is obviously a concept you simply don't understand. It isn't about simplicity, it is about parsimony.
I don't think anyone is saying it is the simplest, but regressing it to another level of an intelligence is even more of a violation of Occam's Razor than a multiverse is. Where did that intelligence begin and who or what made them? That's not an attempt to answer a question, that is an attempt to avoid the question. The multiverse is man's attempt to understand why our Universe allows us to exist, why is there something instead of nothing. It is in no way anything but speculation about something we will probably never know, one of the limits our Universe imposes. But then you add another, unevidenced level of complication, speculation layered on speculation. That is exactly the kind of stuff Occam's Razor says to shave off of your thinking. The multiverse is speculation, an intelligence is speculation on speculation to infinity and beyond.
Grumpy
And even Hawking would tell you it is pure speculation. The multiverse concept first assumes that the conditions a Universe is "born" with are the result of pure chance. There is no evidence that that is true. It is just as likely that any Universe "born" MUST have the conditions our Universe has. Or that all Universes "born" with different conditions do not survive for more than an instant, collapsing back into the Quantum world from which it came.
Occam's Razor is obviously a concept you simply don't understand. It isn't about simplicity, it is about parsimony.
I don't think anyone is saying it is the simplest, but regressing it to another level of an intelligence is even more of a violation of Occam's Razor than a multiverse is. Where did that intelligence begin and who or what made them? That's not an attempt to answer a question, that is an attempt to avoid the question. The multiverse is man's attempt to understand why our Universe allows us to exist, why is there something instead of nothing. It is in no way anything but speculation about something we will probably never know, one of the limits our Universe imposes. But then you add another, unevidenced level of complication, speculation layered on speculation. That is exactly the kind of stuff Occam's Razor says to shave off of your thinking. The multiverse is speculation, an intelligence is speculation on speculation to infinity and beyond.
Grumpy
Nice. You could just be some know nothing asshole... Oh wait, there is no 'could be' about it.
No doubt it took you some while to think that up.
No I don't. Why don't you log on with Reiku's IP and see if you survive?
If the mods knowingly allowed Reiku to come back from his multiple perma bans I think that would be enough to have me question why I should continue to haunt this forum. I bet it is tempting for you to declare yourself as Reiku and see if you can stay and get rid of me. That sort of places you on the horns of a dilemma, no?
Nope, a computer from the future sent the line back to me, I didn't have to think about it at all.
... I?
I thought you would have learned by now, the place isn't a democracy. Or at least, some mods like to think this way.
... I!
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps by pointing out that an awful lot more serious scientists don't.
Science seldom runs on certainties.
Errr... because galaxies are not sentient?
Look, we're not arguing the creation of life is an exact science, it can't be. What fine tunists are saying, is that there are aspects of the universe which appear to be fine tuned to allow life. Whether or not random cosmic acts desecrate entire lifeforms is another matter. There still exists random acts in the universe. I think this all comes back to stigma surrounding the unwarranted connection of talking about fine tuning and God. No one needs to talk about God, if we find more evidence we are living in a simulation as we have the past years, then we'll be forced to come back to the question of what exactly is programmed.
I see any talk of simulations as fairy tales......
Simply put, if the Universe was not the way it is, we [as we know us] would not be around to comprehend it.
I also don't believe we have any evidence pointing to any type of simulation.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
You have it backwards, life is fine tuned to it's environment.