Jump to content
IGNORED

One idea explains all the weird coincidences in the universe


nebula

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

One idea explains all the weird coincidences in the universe
Don’t believe in coincidences but stuck for an explanation? Time to call up the anthropic principle and the multiverse

By Gilead Amit

PHYSICISTS dislike coincidences such as those set out on these pages, suspecting them of covering up some new principle they don’t yet grasp. But when they run out of theories, there’s a one-size-fits-all explanation that can answer everything without really answering much at all: the universe is as it is because we’re here to see it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230971-100-cosmic-copout-certain-ideas-can-make-all-the-implausibility-vanish/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

On 10/26/2016 at 11:27 PM, nebula said:

One idea explains all the weird coincidences in the universe

Long time nebula, hope you and yours are doing well.

 

Quote

Don’t believe in coincidences but stuck for an explanation? Time to call up the anthropic principle and the multiverse

Yea, well they have no other recourse.

Since the Majority of 'Scientists' --- (which they're not) have an "a priori" adherence to their fairytale religion "Materialism/Realism" (Atheism)... the irrefutable Experimental Evidence in the Literal Thousands Without Exception (!!) --- of Quantum Mechanics (The most successful branch of Physics in History) stands in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to " IT ".

That puts them in a very Uncomfortable Position ("VISE like")...you can either RECKON with The Scientific Evidence and adjust your World-View accordingly OR....Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and Say La La La over and over and let Cognitive Dissonance Rule the Roost!!
Then start "Labeling" it as Quantum: "Weirdness", 'Spooky", "Strangeness", "Paradoxical" ect that denotes a "Fringe Science" which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it Actually IS.

Then float mind-numbing 'Interpretations'-- Many Worlds ('Multiverses') as a 'get of Incoherent Jail Free Card' to cloak their mind numbing adherence to Fairytales with the facade of 'science' (which are merely poorly contrived "Just-So" Stories) to obfuscate having to give coherent account for their ludicrous Scientifically Falsified stance.  They're BUSTED, and they know it!!!

Moreover, 'Multiverses' is a Textbook Argument from Complete Ignorance (Fallacy) from the Black Lagoon and the most **EGREGIOUS** Violation of Occam's Razor ever CONJURED then Foisted --- on the generally incoherent and scientifically challenged public--- in the history of ground squirrel level reasoning...by introducing untold number of entities that can neither be confirmed or falsified!!

 

And :D...

Concerning The Multiverse: Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize, Physics (Video Interview with Richard Dawkins)...

"No One has constructed a theory in which that's true. It's not only a speculation, the theory would be speculative ---- but we don't even have a theory where that speculation is mathematically realized."

 

As explained above, He's ALSO using the term "theory" colloquially --- "ABJECT SPECULATION" (they must teach this Equivocation Fallacy as VALID in the hallowed halls of academia, lol); Because "Scientific Theories" are Validated/Confirmed Hypotheses. So let's translate what he's actually saying here...

"No One has constructed a ABJECT SPECULATION in which that's true. It's not only a speculation, the ABJECT SPECULATION would be speculative --- but we don't even have ABJECT SPECULATION where that speculation is mathematically realized."  rotflol

 

Quote

 

By Gilead Amit

PHYSICISTS dislike coincidences such as those set out on these pages, suspecting them of covering up some new principle they don’t yet grasp. But when they run out of theories...

 

Well, they never had any REAL "Scientific Theories" to begin with...

They're using 'theories' here in a Colloquial Sense, which is  ---ABJECT SPECULATIONS.  So this should read:

"PHYSICISTS dislike coincidences such as those set out on these pages, suspecting them of covering up some new principle they don’t yet grasp. But when they run out of ABJECT SPECULATIONS..."

 

Real "Scientific Theories"...

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...
 
A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Since they (The Three Bind Mice---astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology) can't construct Formal Scientific Hypotheses --- because they lack VIABLE "Independent Variables" ---INDISPENSABLE in ACTUAL "Scientific Hypotheses"; Ergo...Crocheting is more Scientific than these clowns, COMBINED!!!

 

Quote

the universe is as it is because we’re here to see it.

This is a Logical Fallacy --- 

The Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis arguing a point that's irrelevant to the subject at hand. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/20/1085153/-A-Series-On-Logic-Informal-Fallacies-Part-7-Irrelevant-Thesis-False-Analogy
 
Ex. You're a reporter and you asked a sole survivor of a plane crash HOW/WHY is it that he was able to survive, and he answered: "Because, if I hadn't survived, you wouldn't have been able to ask me the question".  This is a Fallacy, a Type of Red Herring...What he said is very true; however, he didn't answer the question: HOW/Why he survived?? ....not How/Why he is able to answer the question.  :rolleyes:
 
So How/Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned?? , NOT....How/Why you observe the Universe is Fine-Tuned?  Too funny, Mind Numbing !!

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  162
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/28/1971

Quote

Since the Majority of 'Scientists' --- (which they're not) have an "a priori" adherence to their fairytale religion "Materialism/Realism" (Atheism)... the irrefutable Experimental Evidence in the Literal Thousands Without Exception (!!) --- of Quantum Mechanics (The most successful branch of Physics in History) stands in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to " IT ".

Hi, I couldn't agree you with you more.   I am not a metaphysical materialist, I'm a metaphysical idealist.   I am into this theory called Quantum Realism by mathematics professor Brian Whitworth: www.thephysicalworldisvirtual.com
Here is what he says about Multiverse (this is number 6 on his listverse):  

Quote

 

Physical Realism: In quantum theory, quantum collapse is random, so a radioactive atom can emit a photon whenever it wants to. A random event is one that no prior physical story explains. Quantum theory also holds that a physical event requires a random “collapse of the wave function,” so every physical event has a random element!

To meet this threat to the primacy of physical causation, in 1957 Hugh Everett proposed the many-worlds theory, the untestable idea that every quantum choice spawns a new universe, so every option actually occurs somewhere in a new “multiverse.” For example, if you chose toast for breakfast, nature makes another universe where you had peaches and cream. It was initially seen as ridiculous, which it is, but physicists today prefer this physics fairytale over other options because it dispels the nightmare of randomness.

Yet if quantum choices create new universes, it isn’t hard to see that “universes would be piling up at rates that transcend all concepts of infinitude.” The many-worlds fantasy doesn’t just offend Occam’s razor, it outrages it. Actually, the multiverse is just a reincarnation of the old perfectly predictable clockwork universe, which quantum theory disposed of last century. False theories don’t die, they just become zombie theories.

Quantum Realism: The processor in an online game can generate a value random to it, and our world could be the same. So quantum events are random to us because they involve client-server acts we have no access to. Quantum randomness seems pointless, but it plays the same role in the evolution of matter as genetic randomness does in biological evolution.

 

 

Edited by noone
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

1 hour ago, noone said:

Hi, I couldn't agree you with you more.   

Hello.  Don't take this the wrong way, but since we're dealing with Empirical Evidence (Validated Experiments) 'agree/disagree' have absolutely nothing to do with this subject.

 

Quote

I am into this theory called Quantum Realism by mathematics professor Brian Whitworth: www.thephysicalworldisvirtual.com
Here is what he says about Multiverse (this is number 6 on his listverse):

Remember Mathematics only 'Describes' events it doesn't and can't 'EXPLAIN' them.  Even more so in Quantum Mechanics, nothing is Mathematically derived from QM... it's merely a construct that is used to describe the results of Experiments.  And you don't need any 'Math' to pummel 'Realism'--Materialism (aka: Atheism).  There's roughly 1875 Experiments that put the nail in the coffin quite Abruptly, here's a taste...

The Magnificent 7:
 
1. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. 
The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information solely collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005. 
http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf

2. Richard Conn Henry (2005): The Mental Universe, Nature; Vol 436, 7 July 2005
Pummels "decoherence" and asserts Wave Function Collapse is initiated by human minds ["KNOWERS"] and that the Universe is a mental construct. 
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/mentaluniverse.pdf

3. Gröblacher, S. et al. (2007): An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, pp. 871-875. ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html )
In this Landmark Paper, the authors violate both Bell's Inequality (again) and Leggett's Inequality revealing that the concept of locality is not consistent with Quantum Experiments and that intuitive features of Realism should be abandoned. Physicsworld April 20 2007, speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’( http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality ) New Scientist 'Reality Check' 23 June 2007..."There is no objective reality beyond what we observe".


4. Lapkiewicz, R. et al. (2011): Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system. Nature 474, pp. 490–493. 
The authors show that, unlike what one would expect if reality were independent of mind "Realism", the properties of a quantum system DO NOT EXIST prior to Measurement; via validating the Kochen-Specker Theorem. Renowned QM Physicist Anton Zeilinger, in a related New Scientist article June 2011 suitably titled “Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it,” is quoted as saying that “there is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality.”
5. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again). 

"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."

[**Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
 
 
6. Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343.
"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".
 
 
7. Hensen, B et al. (2015): Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686, doi:10.1038/nature15759
"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism.

 

I'm familiar with Brian and he has many strong arguments (his: "Virtual Construct" and "Multiverses" points are Spot On); However, he is in error with some fundamentals. e.g., ...

 

Quote

Physical Realism: In quantum theory, quantum collapse is random

Factually Incorrect.

1) every double-slit experiment, 2) every delayed choice experiment, 3) every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3 show exactly the same results - if the 'which-path information' is known or can be known, no interference; if the 'which-path information' is not known and can't be known, there is interference.

Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again). 

"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."

[**Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."

 

"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser "---Yoon Ho Kim et al; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf ) ...

This Experiment unequivocally demonstrates that:
1.  Knowledge existing of or Knowing the "which-path information" alone causes Wave Function Collapse.
2.  Decoherence (physical interaction of quanta with a measuring device) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse.
3.  QM Phenomena transcend 
(1.) Time and (2.) Space.

 

Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 

Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of/or the "Which-Path Information" EXISTING...... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.  Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

So Wave Function Collapse is not "Random" it is the Consequent of the 'Necessary' Condition (Antecedent) --- A "KNOWER"...

Sir Rudolph Peierls, PhD Nuclear Physics....
 
"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {emphasis mine}
The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 

A Great Example (Ponder this)...

A group of people with telescopes in a building discover a quasar @ coordinates xyz.  They all write it down and 5 minutes later the building explodes sadly killing all inside and destroying all their notes.  i.e., Knowledge of the quasar and the "Path Information" is destroyed (No Information of the quasar exists in our reality).  @ Any point later, if someone else arbitrarily looks @ that exact location...that quasar, doesn't have to be there!!  :o

 

Quote

so a radioactive atom can emit a photon whenever it wants to, . A random event is one that no prior physical story explains

Factually Incorrect.  Randomness doesn't = Probabilistic.  And Probability in Quantum Mechanics is not the same as Probability in Classical Mechanics. SEE: Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II, for a comprehensive discussion.

Moreover, where'd he get the Radioactive Isotope ?? ;)

 

Quote

Quantum theory also holds that a physical event requires a random “collapse of the wave function,” so every physical event has a random element!

This is False; SEE Above.  The Collapse of The Wave Function isn't 'random', and the results aren't either...they're 'Probabilistic'.

 

Quote

Quantum Realism: The processor in an online game can generate a value random to it, and our world could be the same.

The Processor/Program cannot generate something 'randomly' of which it is not already programmed to generate. 

 

Quote

So quantum events are random to us because they involve client-server acts we have no access to.

False, they are "Probabilistic".  And that Probability is reduced to ZERO in the presence of the "Which-Path Information" Existing.

 

Quote

Quantum randomness seems pointless, but it plays the same role in the evolution of matter as genetic randomness does in biological evolution.

1.  There is no such animal as "Quantum Randomness". (SEE above)

2.  Matter doesn't "evolve" or are you using "evolve" as just mere "change"?

3.  There is no such animal as "Genetic Randomness", it's Probabilistic and limited by the Inherent Code.  SEE above "Processor/Program".

4.  biological evolution ?? :huh: What's that?  Please define evolution, then post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

 

regards

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  162
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/28/1971

On 11/6/2016 at 2:35 PM, Enoch2021 said:

The Processor/Program cannot generate something 'randomly' of which it is not already programmed to generate. 

He said “(t)he processor in an online game can generate a value random to it,..” meaning that there is nothing in the game world that causally determines that value from the perspective of an avatar.

Quote

1.  There is no such animal as "Quantum Randomness". (SEE above)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy#Logical_Independence_and_Quantum_Randomness

 

Quote

Quantum indeterminacy is information (or lack of it) whose existence we infer, occurring in individual quantum systems, prior to measurement. Quantum randomness is the statistical manifestation of that indeterminacy, witnessable in results of experiments repeated many times.

 

Edited by noone
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

10 hours ago, noone said:

He said “(t)he processor in an online game can generate a value random to it,..”

And I said it's not Random...since the game was "PROGRAMMED".  And you're conflating (as mentioned previously) 'randomness' and 'probabilistic' then...in different contexts --- i.e., Wave Function Collapse and Results.

 

Quote

meaning that there is nothing in the game world that causally determines that value from the perspective of an avatar.

What Value, be specific...??

Unless that 'avatar' is aware of the Game/Virtual Construct.   :brightidea:  Ya see, "Knowers" collapse Wave Functions; so, we "Knowers" --- are The CAUSE.  

 

Quote

Posting just a 'link' as a response strains credulity well past the breaking point and on most "Science Forums", is a BANNING offense. Just fyi.

 

And...

Harvard Guide to Using Sources:

"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. 

 
(Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays."

 

 

Quote

1.  Quantum indeterminacy is information (or lack of it) whose existence we infer, occurring in individual quantum systems, prior to measurement.

2.  Quantum randomness is the statistical manifestation of that indeterminacy, witnessable in results of experiments repeated many times.

Is this from YOU ??  If not, please CITE Reference...?

1.  How do we 'infer' Information?  Where is the 'Information' prior to measurement...?

2.  Statistics don't manifest...they're conjured --- it's a human "abstract' construct to establish a framework for an attempt at understanding/explanations.

If it was "RANDOM" then you wouldn't have a Statistical Explanation  duh.gif  i.e., there would be no way to set 'statistical' limits.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,743
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 27/10/2016 at 6:27 AM, nebula said:

One idea explains all the weird coincidences in the universe
Don’t believe in coincidences but stuck for an explanation? Time to call up the anthropic principle and the multiverse

By Gilead Amit

PHYSICISTS dislike coincidences such as those set out on these pages, suspecting them of covering up some new principle they don’t yet grasp. But when they run out of theories, there’s a one-size-fits-all explanation that can answer everything without really answering much at all: the universe is as it is because we’re here to see it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230971-100-cosmic-copout-certain-ideas-can-make-all-the-implausibility-vanish/

 

I think that this is a sobering reminder of the dangers of finding one-size-fits-all explanations, amid insufficient data, if even scientist do that.

 

:) sieglinde :)

 

Edited by siegi91
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

On 11/26/2016 at 8:45 AM, siegi91 said:

I think that this is a sobering reminder of the dangers of finding one-size-fits-all explanations, amid insufficient data, if even scientist do that.

:) sieglinde :)

 

Well, actual REAL 'Scientists' don't do that; Metaphysical Priests with a penchant to 'Stage 5 Cling' onto Scientifically Falsified 'Beliefs', do.

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...