Posted on 02/23/2012 7:32:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
What seems to be missing is good predictive value ~ like it is precluded as a rule.
Waiting on the Higgs boson.
After all, there were no English rock bands!
Sometimes there's stuff and sometimes there's not.
"Model" is an unfortunate choice of language ~ the "meteor kills dinos" THESIS, not MODEL, is derived from OBSERVATION ~ to wit, a thin deposit of iridium all over the world at the same depth that suggests strongly something big happened. Little micro diamonds typical of meteors, that are also found associated with the iridium layer, suggest something HUGH and SERIES!
A more understandable meme would be a CRT ~ at the edge where the phosphors are painted by the electron beam. We're on one side. They are on the other side. The reality is the image.
The screen is grounded.
That’s an interesting conclusion to the landscape problem — that it means we can’t predict the future.
Are you the first to connect the landscape problem with the idea of predicting the future?
Are you a mathematician or physicist? (Not that it matters, just curious.)
Anyway, interesting conclusion you’ve got there. I never thought of it that way.
Sometime long after I ran into that one (which, of course, justified my not being more adept in topology) I realized that when you look out on the Universe and take a good look at the galaxies there you find big empty zones as well. That emptiness may simply be chunks of a different universe that is invisible to us because the fundamental laws there prohibit light (as we know it), or the existence of the the same forms of matter we know, and even those other visible galaxies might well differ from our own in terms of fundamentals that we don't yet know about.
Rather than that vast array of galaxies being part of a single universe, they may instead be the very frothiness described by the multiverse equations.
On my reading list:
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/product-reviews/0802863833
In addition to understanding the science, Fr. Spitzer knows Thomist philosophy, and can detect logical errors that natural scientists often make.
I heard him on Catholic Answers. Listen for free:
http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/proofs-for-gods-existence-part-i-6821
The same problems occur there that occur with math of any kind. You can say just anything you want, but that doesn't matter ~ rather, does the guy on the other end understand those words in some manner ~ and how will he react.
A finely crafted regulation put together just so and accurately describing every act that does or can occur within its scope of authority can be ignored by the smartest guy in the world ~ and no one will notice.
That's another way of saying the predictive value of regulatory excess is ZERO!
Interesting. Or perhaps the universe folds back on itself if you look outward or inward far enough, like a mobius strip. If we could look inward enough, we'd see the whole universe itself.
I know this goes against secular, contemporary, conventional wisdom —which is why this thesis is so much fun— but It’s also true.
The Origin of Science:
How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise
only in the Christian West?
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
For truly “free thinkers,” I.e., those who can evaluate evidence objectively, outside of contemporary culturally-determined presuppositions.
The larger brained non-religious Neanderthals were killed off by the smaller brained religious Cro-Magnons so he's got a point. But a numbers man might run the numbers one time. From a statistical point of view the religious do better in school, sports, business, and war. They have more children, more successful marriages, are healthier, happier, and they live longer. Atheists cannot dispute that. The religious are only a danger to those that attack them. Then the religious can be very dangerous indeed.
“Maybe in the true eternal multiverse there are truly no laws,” Dr. Krauss said in an e-mail. “Maybe indeed randomness is all there is and everything that can happen happens somewhere.”Not even a law regarding the formation of an individual universe, for example, that each universe, no matter what it's particular physical laws, must start out with a big bang?
Even a multiverse would require underlying principles, such as inflation and a infinite series of big bangs.
I have Seven Guitars so I know it's true.
My wife says when I play, sometimes it sounds like I'm in an another dimension :-)
Fender© ROCKS!
You do know I was kidding...right? I couldn’t tell from your reply if you were as well.
Sir Issac Newton was both the father of modern physics and the best theologian in England.
” Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”
................
That said Issac Newton was a passionate advocate of the arian heresy which all but murdered Christianity in Europe and led to significant Christian decline—especially among mainline protestants— in the USA in the following 200 years.
With a 100 billion galaxies each with a 100 billion stars, why would anyone think the odds are against evolution appearing even once?
We have discovered complex organic molecules in space. To think life hasn’t formed at least once in 13 billion years seems farfetched.
Whatever happened 13 billion years ago would perhaps explain that.
Microevolution appears all over the place. Macroevolution has never appeared once, here, there, or anywhere, and macroevolution is what the theory of evolution is basically about.
Well, there goes time travel. You'd always be travelling into somebody's future, no matter which way you go.
The only way around the problem is to find another universe like our own in almost all respects except it's not locked out of time travel. Then you'd travel back and forth from different times, then bop back into this one.
Should be possible to create a small universe to travel in.
One problem I see right off hand is keeping in touch with home! The inertial discontinuity is probably pretty heady ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.