Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the cult of believing in one universe:
#1
or, we can call it logic.

Logic might well be a fetish; just another flavor.

To even entertain such concepts really irks the materialistic pedanticists.
Good thing sparky is on vacation.

because i'm about to promote  an idea that will universally offend almost everyone on the planet.
Reply
#2
[Image: popcorn-and-drink-smiley-emoticon.gif]
Reply
#3
damn.
Just lost a big post. with one stray finger on the keyboard.

i hate that.

I can barely imagine coming up with that enthusiasm again.

Even the idea that science is a religion is intensely offensive to most skeptics.

And i was taking it to the next level.

{Probably pointless)

Without a rudimentary handle on quantum mechanics, the nuts and bolts types will protest mightily.

And I'm bored with that wrestling match.
Reply
#4
On infinite universes (It features a dog):

https://www.gocomics.com/poochcafe/2018/07/11
I like it hot and sticky - Di Wundrin
Reply
#5
(07-11-2018, 02:11 PM)stanky Wrote:  or, we can call it logic.

You'd be stretching to call it logic, because that would require evidence, and right now, there isn't any either way.

We may, at some future point, be able to quantify the concept, but my main issue with it is that it's meaningless.

Like gods, if other universes don't interact with this one, who cares?

(07-11-2018, 02:11 PM)stanky Wrote:  Logic might well be a fetish; just another flavor.

That's a fairly absurd statement. Logic is what it is - it's whether you can apply it correctly that matters.

If you want to promote something illogical, it's probably appropriate to try calling logic a fetish first, but it's nonsense.

(07-11-2018, 02:11 PM)stanky Wrote:  because i'm about to promote  an idea that will universally offend almost everyone on the planet.

I doubt it - let's have a look at this one then.

(07-11-2018, 05:35 PM)stanky Wrote:  Even the idea that science is a religion is intensely offensive to most skeptics.

We've been here before once or twice, and I think "offence" is the wrong word. I don't get offended by it any more than I get offended by religion or homeopathy.

(07-11-2018, 02:11 PM)stanky Wrote:  Without a rudimentary handle on quantum mechanics, the nuts and bolts types will protest mightily.

And I'm bored with that wrestling match.

Odd that you should be bringing it up again.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#6
Love it!

I came upon the multi-verse as a means to comprehend an argument i was having with Mary, a few decades back.
I was stunned that we had seen the same event and had such contrary memories of it.

The initial impulse is to accuse the other person of being dishonest...a troubling proposition....
but perhaps they were perceiving another universe?

The sci-fi of that stuff wants the parallel universes to be radically different....but what if there's so many of them, that they can be amazingly similar. Almost identical. Except in the one, it was a Coke...and in the other, it was a Pepsi.

And this could explain the anomalies in eye-witness reports?
Reply
#7
(07-11-2018, 08:44 PM)stanky Wrote:  The initial impulse is to accuse the other person of being dishonest...a troubling proposition....
but perhaps they were perceiving another universe?

Or, much more likely, hallucinating.

(07-11-2018, 08:44 PM)stanky Wrote:  The sci-fi of that stuff wants the parallel universes to be radically different....but what if there's so many of them, that they can be amazingly similar. Almost identical. Except in the one, it was a Coke...and in the other, it was a Pepsi.

Actually, most sci-fi is where the similar/parallel universes come from. As far as I'm aware, no scientist has posited anything other than their potential existence. If you've seen scientists make claims about something that isn't even proven to exist, I'd say those scientists are full of crap.

Whether they can interact with this one is even more debatable.

(07-11-2018, 08:44 PM)stanky Wrote:  And this could explain the anomalies in eye-witness reports?

No.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#8
Multiverses are, to me, a bit like mental chess pieces.
You can  pick 'em up, eyeball 'em,  juggle  'em,  toss and roll 'em around, assess their intrinsic value, admire the shine on them,  and judge or admire the artistry of their shapes.  
They're just interestingly shaped pieces used to represent the rules of the moves in a particularly complex game.

But the pieces themselves are not the game.

Unless there's a board to put them on,  and rules governing their movements, then they're just baubles to play with, harmlessly.


Individually they're no different, or hold more significance, than picking up a Lego block and imagining if it was once part of a kid's attempt at building a castle or the left eyebrow of an artists attempt at depicting the Lego Venus de Milo.

There is no way of telling, but it could keep the brain entertained for a few minutes wondering about it, whimsically.

What puzzles me is why it's deemed somehow 'scientifically blasphemous' to play with the pieces when there is no board involved, and no game in progress??  

Didn't you kids have toys or something??  
Reply
#9
(07-12-2018, 04:07 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  You can  pick 'em up, eyeball 'em,  juggle  'em,  toss and roll 'em around, assess their intrinsic value, admire the shine on them,  and judge or admire the artistry of their shapes.  
They're just interestingly shaped pieces used to represent the rules of the moves in a particularly complex game.

Except, an analogy would be playing with the pieces blindfolded and without hands, so you have no idea what shape the pieces are, how many there are, or if they fit together or have any similarities or differences. You can't even begin to imagine a shine, intrinsic value or artistry, because you have no idea what they might be.

(07-12-2018, 04:07 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  There is no way of telling, but it could keep the brain entertained for a few minutes wondering about it, whimsically.

Yep, mental floss to play with at night.

(07-12-2018, 04:07 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  What puzzles me is why it's deemed somehow 'scientifically blasphemous' to play with the pieces when there is no board involved, and no game in progress??  

It's not, which is kind of the point. Without imagination, no scientific development would occur. It always starts with a whimsical "what if", so there's nothing anti-science about surmising. Scientists just keep schtum about their "what ifs" until they have some evidence one way or the other, and such evidence is not "When wasted one night, I think I caught a glimpse of a parallel universe."

Giving credence to that kind of statement would be exactly akin to me giving credence to a farmer who talks to Jesus in his paddock every morning. Jesus told the farmer to call him Dad, because Jesus is father to us all.

There's an old axiom which holds perfectly true:

That which is claimed without evidence can safely be dismissed without any.

Didn't you kids have toys or something??  
[/quote]
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#10
The tools at our disposal, including our intellect, are inadequate to explain endless anomalies in our observations.
Hence, theoretical physics and such.
Multi-verse theories are no longer considered odd.

String theory; 13 dimensional spaces; etc...fairly normal stuff these days.

Evidence is something that was used to claim the small brain size of Africans when I was a kid.
It was in the science books.
And it was bullshit.

We should be on guard about 'evidence-based science'. It has sold us endless nonsense in the past.
We've been known to seek the evidence we want in the past.
I'd call that corruption via arrogance.

That inclination is still strong with us.
Most advances in our understanding have had to tackle that inertia in the past.

Even our glorification of logic is quite suspect.

My problem is that I keep reading cutting-edge science books. I stay in tune with math sites on line.
If I site a concept from that, I'm asked for evidence.
I'm happy to site the source material...but I'm not about to rewrite that book for you.

I get the feeling I'm the only one here that actually does any homework.
And then I'm called to task.
(Which is why i lost it with sparky)

Please, turn me onto what you've been learning.
What have you read in the past year?
Or did you simply become satisfied with Newton, and let it go at that?

Quantum mechanics, for instance, is notoriously irritating for materialists.
The results of experiments; though reliable; defy normal logic. The shit makes no sense.
Even Einstein found it disturbing,
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)