Where is "here"?

[raw_thought]

Actually, there are many philosophical papers that delve into nothing. There is even paraconsistent logic that shatters traditional logic. Paraconsistent logic.says that it is not true that from a contradiction everything follows.
There is a great book called "why does the world exist?" True there is a bit of physics in it but most of it explains the philosophical idea that something can come from nothing.

[raw_thought]

Hmmm so Plank's constant is just made up and does not apply to the universe. I am sorry, but that is obviously silly.

[raw_thought]

Actually, thanks for the goldilocks metaphor.
Yes, it is not a miricle that Goldilocks found the bowl at the perfect temperature for her. Similarly, it is not a miracle that we inhabit one of the tiny minority of universes suited for life.
Thanks!
However, it would be unlikely that the temperature was perfect for Goldilocks if there was only one bowl.

You actually dont understand that? How it shows that if there is only one universe the odds that its constants would be so outrageously.suitable for life is VERY unlikely. However, if there are trillions of universes it is likely that at least one would be suitable for life.

[PoeticUniverse]

Raw, this not is the multiverse thread, but Leo has said how his model might effectively be considering all the paths that can be gone down that build to something that can keep on going, especially if his model is akin to a quantum computer, and so this would be as a kind of multiverse.

Victor Stenger, in his book on whether there is fine tuning, notes that, yes, our kind of life, is able to tune itself to the universe, but other kinds could be if the parameters were changed (not just one parameter, for why just one); however, true that some constants appear very precise.

But you're right, at large, that there has to be something behind what works so well (Leo's model perhaps), and that it's unlikely that a 'God' Person set things up, this whether or not there is an effective multiverse, but moreso unlikely if a multiverse or a brute force or even an informationally building logic that forms realities by going through all paths, finding the workable ones for sure, over trying to foresee the whole shebang ahead of time.

[PoeticUniverse]

Reminds me of a trick question I ask my class.
What was the highest mountain before Everest was discovered?
Mt. Everest!

Um, no, since there is a higher one on Mars. (just a joke)

[PoeticUniverse]

Interestingly, modern physics has discovered how something can come from nothing. Particles emerge from nothing and exist for extremely short time period.
0=1-1
An anti Particle and a Particle can rationally come from nothing!
As strange as it sounds the study of nothing is an exciting new branch of physics!

It's not Nothing, for there is, with the proposal, a substrate that they come out of and go back into. As such, it's only a physicist's nothing, not one devoid of all properties, such as that property that makes for virtual particles to come and go.

[Obvious Leo]

Interestingly, modern physics has discovered how something can come from nothing. Particles emerge from nothing and exist for extremely short time period.
0=1-1
An anti Particle and a Particle can rationally come from nothing!
As strange as it sounds the study of nothing is an exciting new branch of physics!

It's not Nothing, for there is, with the proposal, a substrate that they come out of and go back into. As such, it's only a physicist's nothing, not one devoid of all properties, such as that property that makes for virtual particles to come and go.

Precisely. Much as I loathe and abhor the term the vacuum energy of empty space is NOT nothing. It is a mathematical something rather than a real something just as a virtual particle is a mathematical something rather than a real something.

an informationally building logic that forms realities by going through all paths, finding the workable ones for sure, over trying to foresee the whole shebang ahead of time.

In non-linear determinism we consider an infinite index of possibilities but only one is actually realised. However the non-linear nature of this realisation means that the same Amazonian butterfly can cause the hurricane in North America, the birth of a child in outer Mongolia and the extinction of a spider in Australia. Shit happens is unpredictable but it isn't indeterminate.

[raw_thought]

Victor Stenger, in his book on whether there is fine tuning, notes that, yes, our kind of life, is able to tune itself to the universe, but other kinds could be if the parameters were changed (not just one parameter, for why just one); however, true that some constants appear very precise.

.

It is true that life adjusts itself to survive. That is evolution. However, the universe does not adjust its constants to facilitate life.

[raw_thought]

Leo is actually saying that planks constant was not 6.62607004X10(-34) m(2) Kg/s until the universe changed it!!! That is outrageously silly.
That is like saying that the universe changed the size of every atom in the universe to facilitate life.

[Obvious Leo]

Leo is actually saying that planks constant was not 6.62607004X10(-34) m(2) Kg/s until the universe changed it!!! That is outrageously silly.
That is like saying that the universe changed the size of every atom in the universe to facilitate life.

You do not have the right to translate my words for me, particularly since you so clearly don't understand them. I will say what I am saying and you will either respond to them or not as you see fit but you will not continue to interpret my words for me. I am saying that Planck's constant is an epistemic derivation of a particular mathematical model and that it has no ontological provenance whatsoever. In other words Planck's constant Is NOT a property of the universe but a property of one particular human narrative of the universe. This is what I am saying and if you wish to refute it then this is the statement you will address.

[Obvious Leo]

In other words Planck's constant Is NOT a property of the universe but a property of one particular human narrative of the universe.

By the way if you could name a single physicist in the world who would contradict this statement please do so.

[raw_thought]

Every physicist agrees that planks constant applies to our universe. It is the shortest possible distance.

[raw_thought]

It is a property of the universe that nothing can be smaller then planks constant.

[raw_thought]

You are obviously confused. Suppose I say that my house is 5 miles from work. You will say that that is only a mathematical construct that has nothing to do with reality because "miles" is a human invention. That is absurd. I agree that we decide the units but that does not mean that we cannot use them to describe reality. Similarly, humans created the English language. However, that does not mean that books cannot describe reality.

[raw_thought]

One of your arguments is that planks constant has changed over the years. That is silly. That is like saying that the earth grew when we realized how big it really is. Actually, your comments are even more silly then that. Planks constant has never budged from 6.62607004 X10(-34) m(2) Kg/s