On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:26 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:35 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:01 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:18 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:34 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 4:21 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 12:59, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dynamics is the study of matter in motion. There are no clocks in >>>>>> arithmetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course there is clock. The successor function implements it out of >>>>>> time and space. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The fact that you can use one ordered sequence to index another >>>>> ordered sequence does not constitute a clock. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing exists out of time and space, not even time and space >>>>> themselves. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Accordingly, you must reject: >>>> >>>> - Membranes >>>> - String theory landscape >>>> - Eternal inflation >>>> - The inside of black holes (yet another observer-dependent >>>> phenomenon) >>>> - Other universes with different physics (it's amazing that our >>>> universe allows for life, assuming it's the only universe that exists) >>>> >>>> All of these ideas have at least some motivation/support. Why reject >>>> them out of hand? >>>> >>> >>> This is a very mixed list! Some of these have no evidential support, >>> some are mere speculation, and other universes with different physics is a >>> long stretch, not at all in accordance with present knowledge. I do not >>> reject all these possibilities, but we do need more data on some of them. >>> None of them exist outside of space-time, however. >>> >> >> What do you think about the apparent fine-tuning of the universe? e.g. >> https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe-ebook/dp/B00CW0H6JY >> >> Isn't this a very strong statistical argument that other universes with >> different physical laws must exist? >> > > No. there is no evidence for that at all. Why should the constants of > nature be a random selection from some distribution? > > 1. It is a prediction of eternal inflation and string theory. 2. There is no known principal that prohibits other systems ruled by different laws. 3. The digits of the dimensionless constants at significance levels not important to life appear to be randomly distributed 4. It is highly surprising that the dimensionless constants hold the values they do as if they were even slightly different, the universe would be too simple for any life to exist Why do you believe there is only one inevitable possibility for the laws of physics? I've never heard any justification for that idea. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
