See, you do believe in random results that are mostly not advantageous sometimes leading to positive outcomes!
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Opti: "it would not be to the taste of those who believe in the possibility of "many worlds" (each maybe even with their own laws)"
Multi-verse or Many-worlds? mw is boring, but i think that you meant to say multi-verse? and multiverse? ahh.. that gets my molecules excited : ) and may i say that is just as real as our own existence? i never even heard anyone in their right mind dispute multiverse. not even the most conservative scientists.>>>>
Many worlds, multiverse, whatever .... it isn't meaningful. It isn't evidence based, so it isn't science-based. Since both ideas are meaningless in a scientific context, who's to say there's a difference. It's all just fantasy. Sometimes, physics theoreticians may "support" such ideas because they're having fun. Buzz-words. Escapism. And maybe sometimes they don't know the difference between science and speculative hypotheses.
for a change i like your approach.. you make the standard argumrnt agains multiverse, but the funny part is that if you think about it.. you make an argument against science limitation.. so you are right.
if science could disapproved multi verse.. i would dump it like a.. whatever, lol. baut.. yes, science is limited, and multi verse is pure logic.
like finidng yourself on an island, and thinking that you occupy the only piece of land exist, just because all you can see is water surrounding you. and as the king say... more to follow..
oh, and many worls... that just following the Schrödinger equitation to a T. kinda like spelling boring..
Yes, what you call "science limitation" I might call "fashion". Just like limitations on clothes we might wear tend to come about according to changes in prevailing styles, which we call "fashions", so the same applies to scientific thought although it moves much more slowly. But various factors affect what kinds of things are researched at any time, even up to and including politics. Ten years ago, scientists were being fired certainly in the USA for criticising the Big Bang, because it was thought very similar to questioning other "givens" in our cultures that a majority of people might believe are fundamentals. When you get company chairmen with more money than brains influencing who is fired or taken on in fields they know nothing about, then times are hard. I for one believe that there has been no really significant and influential science theoretician for .... shall we say 40 or 50 years? When there is no really brilliant mind that people can recognise, there's no direction. This isn't understood as much as it should be. A lot of people working in scientific fields tend to believe that scientists and theoreticians don't need leadership. But the right sort of intellectual leader is an internationally renowned expert in a chosen field but ALSO has the ability to think in very human, rational and logical terms about subjects which the run-of-the-mill theoretician tends to believe are "above" such kinds of "simplistic" or even "scientifically naive" thinking. We haven't had anyone like that for a long time and hence the complete lack of direction in some fields, whilst, of course, fields in engineering-related research prosper, because there's real feedback there.
Regarding ideas about "multiverse", what does it mean? Does it mean a series of universes? But what is a universe? If we accept that it is "everything that exists", then we can add "in our continuum" and it wouldn't affect anything. Why? Because, if we can possibly detect other universes in a multiverse in any way whatsoever, then they aren't seperate universes at all, but are parts of THE universe, which has turned out to be larger or more complex than we thought.
On the other hand, if we can't detect them, then they have no scientific validity at all, because not being able to detect them means that we can have no evidence of them and science always demands evidence .... otherwise it isn't science. The world is full of clever theoreticians who make mistakes or incorrectly evaluate critical factors that may not be obvious. That's why there are "theoreticians" who believe in just about everything. Sooner or later one will prove that fairies exist because his or her equations demand it.
Multiverse is just a way of trying to provide credibility to dodgy theoretical work. No more, no less.
I truly enjoy reading what u write Opti. I've learned alot from u. L
Crikey, don't say that loud around here.
<3
Jan 8, 2020
0
#428
Note that there are many different speculative theories of physics that have used the "multiverse" label, mostly independent ideas, so it is necessary to be more specific to discuss their merits. Max Tegmark identified four classes of multiverse hypothesis, which have different characteristics - for example some involve regions where physical laws are different to ours, others do not. Note that the multiverse hypothesis known as the "many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanic"s is a mainstream interpretation due to its mathematical elegance. Like all of the dozens of valid interpretations of quantum mechanics it is indistinguishable from the others by experiment, so is equally valid in that sense.
It is perfectly reasonable to introduce an elegant mathematical model that accounts for the behaviour of reality. This is an essential step in all mathematical physics. It is not the fault of a physicist if their model happens to be untestable - this is just an unfortunate reality. It is also a fact of quantum mechanics in particular that there are many mathematical models (interpretations) which are equally successful at explaining reality. Physicists do not have the luxury of choosing between two models which are indistinguishable by experiment.
With respect to this forum, note that most multiverse theories, including the "many worlds interpretation", remove randomness from the fundamental laws of nature. The randomness that we perceive is because we only see one branch of the multiverse and which branch we see is itself random.
note that most multiverse theories
why donchu knock off using the word 'theory' alongside multiverse. they're suppositions....at best. and u know it. ::/
The randomness that we perceive is because we only see one branch of the multiverse and which branch we see is itself random.
uhh, sorry to pop ur hot air balloon. but there's only one universe. that is, unless u can prove that there's others. so, plz stop the sci-fi nonsense.
what i called 'science limitation' is just that. a physical limitation to 'see' beyond the observable.
in my thought experiment, there are only 2 interesting options for the multiverse logic. one is that each universe is unique and wholly separated from our own, and the other is that they are just an extension to our own. (sharing the same space but emerged at different times)
imo, the multiverse should not be bundled with many-words simply because they share nothing meaningful in common.
lola youre surprising me. what cant be proofed does not exist? how about spirituality than?
Jan 8, 2020
0
#431
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
note that most multiverse theories
why donchu knock off using the word 'theory' alongside multiverse. they're suppositions....at best. and u know it. ::/
I would generally use the word hypothesis, but the word theory is used commonly by scientists. There is a subtle point here. A theory only needs to be successful in its testable predictions, and multiverse theories can satisfy this requirement even though they contain much that cannot be tested.
As I pointed out the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics has the same scientific status as all other valid interpretations of QM. You can't test parts of the model, but the same is true of things about the Schroedinger model: this has not directly observable waves that propagate through space. There is no right answer to whether they really exist because this is untestable.
The randomness that we perceive is because we only see one branch of the multiverse and which branch we see is itself random.
uhh, sorry to pop ur hot air balloon. but there's only one universe. that is, unless u can prove that there's others. so, plz stop the sci-fi nonsense.
No, what you mean is that we can only be certain of the existence of one Universe. Stating "there's only one Universe" is no more reliable than stating "there's only one continent" at a time when only one was known. It would have been invalid to argue that there was definitely only one continent because of the lack of evidence for another.
that last paragraph could be 1a the dummest things uv ever said (tho been many). and thx for believing theres a teapot s/w out there in orbit !...lol !!
Jan 8, 2020
0
#433
Well, I still can’t get to that Depak Chopra I wanted to share. Something a physicist could appreciate I’m sure. I want others to analyze the statement, it goes pretty deep.
Now, back to this universe theme.. Do we really need to be there physically, to confirm what’s actually out there? One would think, and since none of ‘us’ have been, speculation is valid. Human beings will always want the hard proof, it’s in their nature.
Unless your into ‘remote viewing’ and can share something different with us?
Ive got two random speculations about the universe. 1) As vast as it is, space itself eventually runs out of ‘space.’ So what is on the other side of that, that it is pushing up against? 2) Has it been conclusively proven yet as to what is on the other side of the ‘black holes?’ Inquisitive minds..
Elroch wrote:
It is not the fault of a physicist if their model happens to be untestable - this is just an unfortunate reality.>>
It applies more strongly, however, than if I wrote a song ten octaves above the highest notes that can be heard by humans and I then expected you to judge it on its beauty. That would also be "unfortunate". If an hypothesis cannot be tested then its only possible use is to be used to lead towards hypotheses that can be tested.
<<It is also a fact of quantum mechanics in particular that there are many mathematical models (interpretations) which are equally successful at explaining reality.>>
This is only due to lack of knowledge concerning how to differentiate. It's a problem that also persists in comparative religion.
<<Physicists do not have the luxury of choosing between two models which are indistinguishable by experiment.>>
That's certainly true!
<<With respect to this forum, note that most multiverse theories, including the "many worlds interpretation", remove randomness from the fundamental laws of nature.>>
They are an artificial device intended to do just that. I'm not sure it even works though. If every possible permutation of everything exists as a discrete universe amongst a literal infinity of universes, which is a completely preposterous and ridiculous idea in any case, it would still be up for grabs where we are in all of that. But no-one in their right mind invents an infinity of universes to make their equations appear to fit. Such people aren't scientists. "Clever fools" is what they are. Yes, so in another universe you're wearing a bowler hat and you agree with me.
<<The randomness that we perceive is because we only see one branch of the multiverse and which branch we see is itself random.>>
Actually, that's not correct. At least, it's incoherent with what is implied by the idea. Within such a multiverse, containing an infinity of universes, there's an infinity of universes where I exist and I wear a sombrero on Sundays and Thursdays only and on those days you agree with me and on every other day you don't.
KingAxelson wrote:
Well, I still can’t get to that Depak Chopra I wanted to share. Something a physicist could appreciate I’m sure. I want others to analyze the statement, it goes pretty deep.
Now, back to this universe theme.. Do we really need to be there physically, to confirm what’s actually out there? One would think, and since none of ‘us’ have been, speculation is valid. Human beings will always want the hard proof, it’s in their nature.
Unless your into ‘remote viewing’ and can share something different with us?
Ive got two random speculations about the universe. 1) As vast as it is, space itself eventually runs out of ‘space.’ So what is on the other side of that, that it is pushing up against? 2) Has it been conclusively proven yet as to what is on the other side of the ‘black holes?’ Inquisitive minds..>>
One idea is that space itself is an entity and is the fabric of the universe. It has also been called space-time. Outside the universe is nothing. There is no outside since whenever we get there or even see it, something is there so it isn't outside the universe.
Regarding the black hole, I once read an excellent paper on the subject. I think the authors were from Cambridge University. I'm not a mathematician by any means but it wasn't mathematically top-heavy. They described each stage of compression right up to the ultimate that could be imagined due to gravitational force. I think it ended with plasma at extraordinarily high pressures. It was many years ago since I read it and the internet is not what it was, as you've found out. Many things can no longer be found.
After that it's just speculation. According to Reginald Kapp, for instance, the centre of a black hole would be the focus of material dematerialising. The material would simply cease to exist, rather than going anywhere. It would not do so at a rate incompatible with the continued existence of the black hole, which is drawing in material due to its gravitational field. At least, I think so. It would be self-rectifying. Kapp speculated that all matter and space has a half-life, which would explain gravity perfectly.
Jan 9, 2020
0
#436
Optimissed wrote:
KingAxelson wrote:
Well, I still can’t get to that Depak Chopra I wanted to share. Something a physicist could appreciate I’m sure. I want others to analyze the statement, it goes pretty deep.
Now, back to this universe theme.. Do we really need to be there physically, to confirm what’s actually out there? One would think, and since none of ‘us’ have been, speculation is valid. Human beings will always want the hard proof, it’s in their nature.
Unless your into ‘remote viewing’ and can share something different with us?
Ive got two random speculations about the universe. 1) As vast as it is, space itself eventually runs out of ‘space.’ So what is on the other side of that, that it is pushing up against? 2) Has it been conclusively proven yet as to what is on the other side of the ‘black holes?’ Inquisitive minds..>>
One idea is that space itself is an entity and is the fabric of the universe. It has also been called space-time. Outside the universe is nothing. There is no outside since whenever we get there or even see it, something is there so it isn't outside the universe.
Regarding the black hole, I once read an excellent paper on the subject. I think the authors were from Cambridge University. I'm not a mathematician by any means but it wasn't mathematically top-heavy. They described each stage of compression right up to the ultimate that could be imagined due to gravitational force. I think it ended with plasma at extraordinarily high pressures. It was many years ago since I read it and the internet is not what it was, as you've found out. Many things can no longer be found.
After that it's just speculation. According to Reginald Kapp, for instance, the centre of a black hole would be the focus of material dematerialising. The material would simply cease to exist, rather than going anywhere. It would not do so at a rate incompatible with the continued existence of the black hole, which is drawing in material due to its gravitational field. At least, I think so. It would be self-rectifying. Kapp speculated that all matter and space has a half-life, which would explain gravity perfectly.
So, we are in agreement that space has a perimeter? If ‘nothing’ is on the other side side of the dark matter, then why not just blend itself or dissolve naturally instead of this expansion hypothesis?
As to the black holes, I’m still stuck on the idea that eventually there is still an other side to them. Hard to say unless there is some way to send in an indestructible probe to gather the data. Light itself cannot survive in there, that’s a challenge.
Jan 9, 2020
0
#437
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
<<With respect to this forum, note that most multiverse theories, including the "many worlds interpretation", remove randomness from the fundamental laws of nature.>>
They are an artificial device intended to do just that. I'm not sure it even works though. If every possible permutation of everything exists as a discrete universe amongst a literal infinity of universes, which is a completely preposterous and ridiculous idea in any case,
It really is not. It is in a sense the simplest hypothesis. Also it is not quite as you say. It really applies to when interactions take place with uncertain outcomes.
it would still be up for grabs where we are in all of that. But no-one in their right mind invents an infinity of universes to make their equations appear to fit. Such people aren't scientists. "Clever fools" is what they are. Yes, so in another universe you're wearing a bowler hat and you agree with me.
You are talking about people who generally not only have excellent qualifications up to PhD and have had successful research careers but are highly respected by their peers. I disagree that your opinion is more substantial.
<<The randomness that we perceive is because we only see one branch of the multiverse and which branch we see is itself random.>>
Actually, that's not correct. At least, it's incoherent with what is implied by the idea. Within such a multiverse, containing an infinity of universes, there's an infinity of universes where I exist and I wear a sombrero on Sundays and Thursdays only and on those days you agree with me and on every other day you don't.
No, you seem confused. You (to use your absurd example) are _not_ wearing a bowler hat. That is a fact about the Universe you are in whether it is the only reality or whether it is a branch of the multiverse. This is a fact about observations, an empirical fact. From this you can say you are not in a branch of the multiverse where this is not true. The existence of other branches is not the same as being in them yourself.
More close to the science, whenever a quantum mechanical observation is made, this specifies a subset of the branches of the multiverse. While the many worlds hypothesis implies worlds with other results exist, we can be sure we are not in those worlds (or branches).
The many worlds hypothesis is regarded as a good one by a large fraction of physicists who work in areas where it is relevant. Of course, since interpretations cannot be separated empirically, this view must be based on intuitive appeal, mathematical elegance and some version of Occam's razor, but this is how physicists pick hypotheses that are likely to be true, and have a very good track record doing so.
lol. elroch, maybe you want to mellow down with the red penning in these parts.. i mean.. obviously Opti can get under anyone skin with his mixture of conspiracy and polarity. and he admittedly said so himself.
but red penning is globally recognized as an error marking by authorities. and no one like authorities here. especially not a self proclaimed authority..
king, you mentioned the phenomenon of 'gut feeling' earlier. and it reminded me another approach to guts feelings.. they say our "guts" operate kinda like a secondary primordial brain. and not just for digestion. it directly influence a lot of our emotions, feeling and much more, because it has an excessive net of neurons, and even many of the hormones are actually produced there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3Ftj5E90tY
Babber and I went to the casino y-day. I bet $5 cash on 25-26 split in roulette cuz the last 3#'s were 24, 27, 28. it popped in the 25 and i won yay !!....they paid me back $85 ! so. staying w/ the 20's something theme, next spin i bet $40 on the 22-23 split and $40 on the 26-29 split. I took the last $5 and put it on the 26 (I left the original $5 bet on the 25-26 split).
Well, it jumped outta the 22 and landed in its next door neighbor.....the 5. oh well.
if i wooda won, my plan wuz to bet $50 ea ($250) on the remaining 20's #'s that hadnt hit (20, 21, 23, 26, 29). win ?....keep going. lose ?....leave w/ $450. Babber wuz mad at me for not taking the first $90 and blowing it on a saturday nite jump up. but i just felt lucky so i went all-in. and im at peace.