[Ian] Yes, the conjecture is a hypothesis - nothing more, nothing less. [Arlo] Okay, well I guess we are on the same page here.
[Ian] But it's a hypothesis (a whole series of hypotheses) arrived at after a lot of "the best thinking available"... [Arlo] I have no doubt. [Ian] The value in the hypothesis is this. ... Ok, so it has no knowledge value until supported by some empirical evidence, which is going to be negative, or highly indirect inference, until it's "proven" positive - which for a hypothesis on this scale is going to be a very long time... [Arlo] Of course. And not that we can know anything with certainty, this is one where its evident upfront there are some things we will never be able to experience (like the unfolding of two different cosmoses (is that a word? cosmi? cosmii?) with differing variables... unless we can figure out how to get through a black hole, if Hawking and others are correct). This is why I was saying I have trouble with the language of certainty here, sometimes I can excuse it as "almost certain" or "as certain as we can be... or need to be". But this overarching statement (in my humble opinion) can't by its very nature approach this. Try this, instead of "the cosmos is perfectly balanced to support life" say "the cosmos appears perfectly balanced to support life". I can buy that. Does the distinction make sense to you? Do you reject it? [Ian] So, like any hypotheses, it's value to science and knowledge is to ask, and how could we design some tests or observations to validate it ? This creative thinking is what 99% of science (and any kind of research) is about. [Arlo] Kinda like a mind exercise. I can buy this too. And along the way who knows what else will "pop up". [Ian] ... but if this does turn out to be true, as our best thinking seems to suggest it is,.... why is this the case ? [Arlo] For many, this is already evidence of that "sentient teleology". I just Googled "perfectly balanced cosmos life" and nearly EVERY site that came up uses this "perfect alignment" to SHOUT "we have proof God exists!" But that danger aside, yes, I find notions like anti-time causation (where quarks moving backwards in time actually order our past based on their interactions with our present and future) quite intriguing. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
