Black holes are supernatural phenomena the same way that alien code monkeys are gods.

(April 12, 2025 at 6:47 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Black holes are supernatural phenomena the same way that alien code monkeys are gods.

How did you get an advanced copy of my next best seller: 'Alien Monkey Code; Learn the simian secrets they don't want you to know' ?

If God is omnipotent, then he must have the ability to non-exist, and if he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist.

(April 12, 2025 at 4:22 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

Quote:My hypothesis our universe was intentionally caused to produce life is based (in part) on the same knowledge and observations these people of science base multiverse on. They're allowed to have their hypothesis and I'm allowed to have mine. Some day you folks might attempt cough up some better explanation so far you're not succeeding which is why people don't believe you. 

By all means be sure you submit your thesis for publication...I'm sure they need a good belly laugh.

1. Except you don't have a hypothesis  or an explanation it's just ......"Magic somehow " 

2. We don't require an explanation and your is still not an explanation

3. The number of people you convince of something is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it's true    

Quote:This post exemplifies why atheists can't convince anyone (except themselves) we owe our existence to happenstance. So they resort to stupidity like this.

This statement exemplifies your weird obsession with truth being a popularity contest

1.  I am plagiarising that at some point, made me larf...
2. I know weird right, no one ever says, how the fuck do explain a universe that enables intelligent life, when you don't believe in unicorns, or astrology, or garden fairies, or anything really. 
3. Woah! Are you sure, because Drew has been using that stupid ass fallacy, like, forever?

(April 7, 2025 at 9:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Read Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers'. Highly respected scientist and an atheist. He thoroughly details the fine-tuning of the universe and it leads him to claim we live in a multiverse. Its not circular reasoning, scientists could just as well have discovered a wide range of properties and constants could have produced life...but they didn't.

In this video Rees details that while his speculations about the constants preceded the theorems of inflation, it wasn't the work on the constants but rather the ideas and theorems concerning inflation that led to the supposition that there might be multiple universes, and that these universes might have different constants and laws. He makes the point that inflation and string theory both play a role in the suggestion of a multiverse. It was not his work on fine-tuning that led to it. He says as much in the book that Drew cites, Just Six Numbers, which I will quote as well.

"[B]ack in the 1970s we speculated about this [fine tuning] and I wrote a paper with Bernard Carr ... I don't think at that stage we had any partcular view as to whether these counterfactual universes might be a consequence of a real physical theory but the development of the idea of inflation and the realization that our universe might go far beyond the observational horizon did lead one to speculate that may actually be places ... the inflationary idea was developed in 1980s and that led to the possibilities that there could be domains and at the same time the realization came about that perhaps different big bangs might as it were cool down differently, it was the idea that the laws of low energy physics in the world we inhabit may be the outcome of so-called phase transitions as a universe cools down and these may have happened differently in different universes and this leads to the idea that what we call universal laws might be as it were environmental accidents in our cosmic patch and not the deepest level of universal laws. So I think the idea that there might be other big bangs became discussed widely after the development of inflation, and there have since then been other ideas involving other space times."





"This ‘multiverse’ concept, though speculative, is a natural extension of current cosmological theories, which gain credence because they account for things that we do observe. The physical laws and geometry could be different in other universes, and this offers a new perspective on the seemingly special values that the six numbers take in ours."

Martin Rees. Just Six Numbers.

(April 12, 2025 at 12:35 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 11, 2025 at 8:41 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Emergent behaviors that lead from a simple set of basic rules to complex behaviors are favoured by thermodynamics because they're a more efficient mechanism for achieving stable low-energy, high-entropy states more rapidly. These emergent behaviors favour the emergence of life and sentience. The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

3. Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. This means that heat spontaneously flows from a hot object to a cold object, not the other way around.
The rules of thermodynamics leads to more disorder, not more complexity.

It's hilarious that you're asking Google to make your arguments for you AND you're too lazy or dumb to strip the code from your post.

Quote:

Quote:The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

Have you written a thesis on this to straighten out actual scientists who make a living doing science? 

No, have you? I note that you don't list all of the scientists that don't support your peculiar little worldview.

Quote:Where or when did the simple set of basic rules come into play?

Every fundamental force that you've blathered about. What do you think these very simple numbers are?!? Look up emergent behaviours.

Quote:Is E=MC^2 a simple rule or the dozens of formulas and equations we extracted from mindless natural forces?

Yes, it's a simplification of the more complete equation made for public consumption. It also isn't a fundamental force.

Quote:The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself?

Thank you for making my argument for me? Really not sure what you're trying to achieve with this. Let me simplify for you:

Step 1: Start with some very simple rules, aka fundamental forces.
Step 2: Repeat those rules over and over again.
Step 3: More complex behaviours arise from the system. That's called "emergence".
Step 4: Emergent behaviours are favoured by thermodynamics because they leads to more stable low-energy, high-entropy states more efficiently.
Step 5: Go back to Step 2 with the new emergent rules and do the Rinse, Lather, Repeat thing again.
Step 6: Yet more rules emerge from the emergent rules. Cool! Look at how these really simple fundamental constants give rise to mind-numbingly complex behaviours like relativity and quantum mechanics.
Step 7: If you let the system run for long enough then it gets complex enough to start asking pesky questions. Sentience is just an emergent property of biology, biology an emergent property of chemistry, and chemistry an emergent property of physics.

Conclusion: Regardless of the starting parameters, so long as you have sufficient time and a few basic rules you'll end up with a system that questions its own existence. Your "narrow parameters" are only necessary for our particular variety of sentience. Your argument is entirely anthropocentric and lacking of a broader view. This explains why you needed a universe 93 billion lightyears in diameter to produce one simpleton that couldn't get the joke.

(April 12, 2025 at 11:01 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Black holes are supernatural.

Black holes are not supernatural you infinitely dense motherfucker. 

Human descriptions of conditional consistencies do do not help  Drew in his quest to personnel credulity into an argument

To my knowledge no ones arguing non biological matter figured out how to be biological the product of chemistry not conscious thought. Also the fact human replicate something isn't evidence of magic

(April 12, 2025 at 11:13 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(April 12, 2025 at 12:35 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: 3. Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. This means that heat spontaneously flows from a hot object to a cold object, not the other way around.
The rules of thermodynamics leads to more disorder, not more complexity.

It's hilarious that you're asking Google to make your arguments for you AND you're too lazy or dumb to strip the code from your post.

Quote:Have you written a thesis on this to straighten out actual scientists who make a living doing science? 

No, have you? I note that you don't list all of the scientists that don't support your peculiar little worldview.

Quote:Where or when did the simple set of basic rules come into play?

Every fundamental force that you've blathered about. What do you think these very simple numbers are?!? Look up emergent behaviours.

Quote:Is E=MC^2 a simple rule or the dozens of formulas and equations we extracted from mindless natural forces?

Yes, it's a simplification of the more complete equation made for public consumption. It also isn't a fundamental force.

Quote:The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself?

Thank you for making my argument for me? Really not sure what you're trying to achieve with this. Let me simplify for you:

Step 1: Start with some very simple rules, aka fundamental forces.
Step 2: Repeat those rules over and over again.
Step 3: More complex behaviours arise from the system. That's called "emergence".
Step 4: Emergent behaviours are favoured by thermodynamics because they leads to more stable low-energy, high-entropy states more efficiently.
Step 5: Go back to Step 2 with the new emergent rules and do the Rinse, Lather, Repeat thing again.
Step 6: Yet more rules emerge from the emergent rules. Cool! Look at how these really simple fundamental constants give rise to mind-numbingly complex behaviours like relativity and quantum mechanics.
Step 7: If you let the system run for long enough then it gets complex enough to start asking pesky questions. Sentience is just an emergent property of biology, biology an emergent property of chemistry, and chemistry an emergent property of physics.

Conclusion: Regardless of the starting parameters, so long as you have sufficient time and a few basic rules you'll end up with a system that questions its own existence. Your "narrow parameters" are only necessary for our particular variety of sentience. Your argument is entirely anthropocentric and lacking of a broader view. This explains why you needed a universe 93 billion lightyears in diameter to produce one simpleton that couldn't get the joke.

I love when he tries to list off stuff he's bamboozled by then shove personal credulity into to advocate for magic