Okay, 1 straight question arises, You do not have to answer it, i will not hold it against you.
Is the bible the highest pattern of value?(in your expirience)-is it a pattern of value? If it is , for you, i will still have respect for you,but we will not discuss religion itself, i will always remain my position as agnoticus. Pff, Krimels kreed, we use the word credo, i will never make it my credo,"shit happens" or "chaos rules", i tend to derive my credo's from reality itself.From the books , the works, science, art. The word randomness gaught my attention, i think its better to stay carefull with words like that, before you know it, we will be using words as notingness,wholeness, randomness,ending up in sillyness, like with Ham's homebrew-crap. Hamptiness?...djeezz.Loch ness? valueless? Can you pay attention to the first question? greetz, Adrie 2010/10/11 John Carl <[email protected]> > Well fine, Adrie. If you insist... > > > > > > > > > Hawking, quote on fine tuning,.. > > > > Along with Thomas Hertog at CERN, in 2006 Hawking proposed a theory of > > "top-down cosmology," which says that the universe had no unique initial > > state, and therefore it is inappropriate for physicists to attempt to > > formulate a theory that predicts the universe's current configuration > from > > one particular initial state.[20] > > > > John: Ok, very interesting, yes. My problem? The same I have always with > authoritative expertise. I'm sure the man himself would be thoughtful and > careful in his formulation, offering his theories as just those - theories. > But so often the expert's theories became the body politic's dogma. > Hawking's ideas are interesting in contributing to a certain dialogue. > They > are not interesting when they bring the dialogue to a close. Like there > is > no philosophy anymore because it's all been figured out by the experts who > are most quoted on tv, and we have no need for it. Thanks. We don't need > to think, all we need to do is believe what they say on the discover > history > channel. Or in my ma's case, 3abn - the adventist broadcasting network. > Lord save us. > > > > > [[[[ Top-down cosmology posits that in > > some sense, the present "selects" the past from a superposition of many > > possible histories. > > > Which makes no difference at all, since all it tells us is what we already > know - this is the universe we're stuck with. What possible pragmatic > reality can "unrealized choices" offer? What possible difference can such > speculations make to me? A man living in the realizable cosmos and asking > simple questions? Lemme know about this one I'm in. Unrealized > possibilites sounds like angels and pins to my ears. > > I don't care about possible histories. I want to know about real ones. I > want the real story, not the blind alleys. > > > In doing so, the theory suggests a possible resolution > > of the fine-tuning question: It is inevitable that we find our universe's > > present physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those > > past histories that led to the present conditions. ]]]]]]In this way, > > > > > I've heard tautologies before. I know what the solipsistic cosmos looks > like. I've had it described to me many times. I ain't buyin'. Here's > why. It's facile. Reality is the way it is because it just is... I admit > it has a certain attraction to it, in its kindergarten way. But > personally, > I like my metaphysical formulation with just a bit more meat. For of > course, one could reason that in a cosmos of infinite choice, and this (who > we are) obvious outcome, then we only need postulate infinity going > backwards, with just the slightest chance (probability rules!) and that > postulated probability becomes well nigh inevitable. I've heard it before. > I remember Krimel's Kreed. I know what the metaphysics of arising > randomness gets you. For some people it's like a security blanket, > protecting their tender little psyche from the cold. For others, a > straitjacket, a prison, a downward spiraling hell of no return. > > shivers. > > I'm for sunnier climes, me. Give Steven H. my regards. > > > > > > top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find > > ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking an > > ensemble of multiple universes. > > > > > > I'm still quite fond of the biocentrism cosmology, which ties many of these > loose ends together and makes sense in a practical and empirically sound > way > - that deep down, matter is tied to life - the whole universe is in fact, > based upon a life principle or directional force. Space and time are > animal > constructs - meaningful in narrative relations. Value really is the > whole > story. > > > > > > the fine-tuning question, Answer by Hawking stephen. > > TOTAL HARMONY WITH THE ANTROPIC PRINCIPLE, (not entropic) > > > > ISOLATED BETWEEN HOOKS > > > > > > > > Adrie, one has no obligation to accept it , but if you think of it , the > > briljance in the line is just incredible. > > and i have to give him credit for his black hole evaporation work. > > > > Greetz, Adrie > > > > > Well, I've been wheeling my ma around. I admire him for his snazzy chair. > And I'm glad he agrees with the total harmony with the anthropic principle. > I also agree completely. I just hope they keep the story straight, is all. > > > John > 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/md/archives.html > -- parser 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/md/archives.html
