(November 4, 2014 at 10:04 am)robvalue Wrote: As far as I am aware, "multiverse" is just a hypothesis at this stage. Although I would not find it at all surprising if there were other self contained "universes" like ours, and ours started as an offshoot of another somehow. For example, you can stack any number of infinite 3-D planes in 4D space without them intersecting so they may appear distinct.

Another nice hypothesis I have heard, which is actually quite similar to one I came up with ages ago, is that our 3D space is the surface of a 4D black hole.

Trying to think in 4D space is guaranteed to drive you mad after a while. It's just... at right angles to all three... where is it?

Yeah, multiverses either of the Inflation type or of the many worlds qm type are of course speculation. They are suggested by the equations, but it's something that is hard to test... What gets me is that many worlds qm is actually simpler than having no many worlds.

I've done my phd on collider tests of the so called warped extra dimension scenarios. For many applications it is a good strategy to ignore the four usual spacetime dimensions(or better, not ignore their presence but leave them implicit) and to working only with the extra dimensions if there are just one or two. Symmetries of the problem can often be used to reduce the number of dimensions that need to be looked at explicitely. For example, without strong gravity, spacetime translation invariance, if present, can help because the laws of physics do not depend on the position inordinary space . If one is lucky, the geometry more or less factorizes such that one can for example picture the six extra dimensions of the superstring as three pairs of dimensions on paper. Whenever true higher-dimensional phenomena are analyzed which have no lower dimensional analog at all, one is basically forced to let the maths do the talking and do without a concrete mental picture of the space. Often it is nevertheless possible to have a kind of intuition about the behavior of , say, fields in 4 or more dimensions which is directly informed by the equations, without using a mental picture of the higher dimensional space itself.

Cool. Yeah I love maths, but people get carried away with it. I think people sometimes forget that all (applied) mathematics can do is model the world. It can't prescribe what happens in the world. It's easily possible to use methods to solve equations based on a real situation, and end up with one or more solution that fit the mathematical model but make no sense in reality.

(November 1, 2014 at 3:16 am)Rob216 Wrote: *Note: This is not a religious debate. This is a scientific debate about my opinion of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Most reasonable people agree on a few principles:
1. That everything has a beginning and an end.
2. That by observing repeatable occurrences the laws of physics are true.
3. That "universal logic" is applicable to determining facts (Example: I cannot exist and not exist simultaneously)

I hope that we can all agree that evolution and adaptation do exist in nature. All living creatures (animals and plants alike) can adapt to conditions over time. My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species. Bacteria evolves into bacteria, fish evolve into fish, primates evolve into primates, etc.

Ok, I'll argue against my own statement above and say that species can evolve into other species. I'll say that humans evolved from an ape-like creature that evolved from a mammal that evolved from a reptile-like or amphibian-like creature (depending on if you believe that our origins are ocean based or land based) that evolved from bacteria that evolved from a single-cell organism. My issue with this is that 1. The single-cell organism would have had to have the ability to create itself. or 2. That organic life was created from inorganic materials. Both of these statements sound illogical because in order for something to be scientifically proven the conditions have to be tested and repeatable to be agreed upon as fact. As far as we know there is and has never been a new organism that created itself because that organism would first have to have the conscience to know that it is, in fact, creating itself. There has also never been any successful experiments that have proven that organic life can be created from inorganic materials.

[/font][/size]I look forward to everybody's opinion on this. Please don't use religion bashing or science bashing as the basis for your opinion because, honestly, you'll just come off as stupid.

Of course, I'm really worried I will come off as stupid.

MM

(November 4, 2014 at 10:11 am)robvalue Wrote: Cool. Yeah I love maths, but people get carried away with it. I think people sometimes forget that all (applied) mathematics can do is model the world. It can't prescribe what happens in the world. It's easily possible to use methods to solve equations based on a real situation, and end up with one or more solution that fit the mathematical model but make no sense in reality.

Oh, I've dealt with tons of perfectly mathematically consistent models. And then came the LHC and boom

But you know, you undersell the maths. So often, the equations have told us somehing, and it turned out to be realized in nature. Antimatter, a fourth family of fermions, the Higgs, and hundreds of things more. There is some element of truth in mathematics, a correspondence to structures in reality, even if it is only a representation, or such predictions of phenomena would not work.

(November 3, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Rob216 Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Chas Wrote: The point is that you know fuck all about evolution, yet claim it is wrong.

So don't get all pissy that you are not shown respect.

Haha what? So stating an opinion or making a claim is worthy of not being given respect on a personal level? So if you, me, and minimalist were sitting at your kitchen table having a debate and AFTER I admitted that my original claimed was flawed and that I needed to do more research you would defend minimalist for calling me a fuckhead? That's an acceptable way of addressing someone?

I wasn't defending Minimalist. I was explaining why you got a less than respectful reaction.

---

(November 4, 2014 at 7:59 am)Rob216 Wrote: "Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system. The MWO (Ed.: "many worlds in one"[118]) version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation could suggest a way out of this conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of distinct macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible but inevitable."

Eugene Koonin, computational biologist

So is he saying that we'd have to believe in infinite universes in order to substantiate abiogenesis? Or did I misinterpret that?

You misinterpreted it. He is saying the MWO is one possible way to support it, not the only way.

I wrote this guy off in Post #2, Chas. Just a chew toy for when I get bored.

(November 4, 2014 at 12:30 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Do you really think your magnificent god is skulking and hiding from scientists in the form of theoretical energy, when he could be shining in glory?

Strange god you got going on there, hiding from the children you allege he loves.

Whoa there partner....before we change the subject lets finish discussing the prediction you made.

You claimed that if God exists, who creates and maintains this universe....and these are your exact words: "Such a being, by all experience, ought to be radiating copious amounts of energy far exceeding the radiation of stars or even supernovæ; after all, this potentiality can create entire universes."

You never answered my question. Does the new found existence of Dark Energy satisfy your prediction?

(November 4, 2014 at 1:10 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 4, 2014 at 12:30 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Do you really think your magnificent god is skulking and hiding from scientists in the form of theoretical energy, when he could be shining in glory?

Strange god you got going on there, hiding from the children you allege he loves.

Whoa there partner....before we change the subject lets finish discussing the prediction you made.

You claimed that if God exists, who creates and maintains this universe....and these are your exact words: "Such a being, by all experience, ought to be radiating copious amounts of energy far exceeding the radiation of stars or even supernovæ; after all, this potentiality can create entire universes."

You never answered my question. Does the new found existence of Dark Energy satisfy your prediction?

So in the beginning of the universe when the universe was radiation dominate, was that god radiating? Or when the universe transition to matter dominated, was that god radiating? Now that the universe is dark energy dominated, is this god's radiation?

Do you see how vacuous your claim would be? You're putting the cart before the horse.

(November 4, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(November 4, 2014 at 1:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: Whoa there partner....before we change the subject lets finish discussing the prediction you made.

You claimed that if God exists, who creates and maintains this universe....and these are your exact words: "Such a being, by all experience, ought to be radiating copious amounts of energy far exceeding the radiation of stars or even supernovæ; after all, this potentiality can create entire universes."

You never answered my question. Does the new found existence of Dark Energy satisfy your prediction?

So in the beginning of the universe when the universe was radiation dominate, was that god radiating? Or when the universe transition to matter dominated, was that god radiating? Now that the universe is dark energy dominated, is this god's radiation?

Do you see how vacuous your claim would be? You're putting the cart before the horse.

This isn't any claim of mine. This is his prediction we are talking about.

(November 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 4, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Surgenator Wrote: So in the beginning of the universe when the universe was radiation dominate, was that god radiating? Or when the universe transition to matter dominated, was that god radiating? Now that the universe is dark energy dominated, is this god's radiation?

Do you see how vacuous your claim would be? You're putting the cart before the horse.

This isn't any claim of mine. This is his prediction we are talking about.

You are the one that suggested dark energy is god's radiation.