On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 1:05:54 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:45 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:26 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:35 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:01 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:18 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:34 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 4:21 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On 19 Dec 2018, at 12:59, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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. > > > String theory and its "landscape" are very speculative, and unlikely to > have any relation to the real world -- there is no evidence that string > theory is even a coherent theory! Eternal inflation, although popular, is > only one possibility for inflation, and even inflationary theory itself is > not well-established science. >
*Given the temperature uniformity of the CBMR, wouldn't you agree that there's strong evidence for inflation? AG * > > > 2. There is no known principal that prohibits other systems ruled by > different laws. > > > The idea that everything that is not forbidden must exist is a silly > metaphysical notion. > > ... -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
