Where is "here"?

[raw_thought]

Einstein took the Lorenz equations literally and used them to arrive at E=MC2. A testable equation.

[raw_thought]

Logical positivism= the belief that if a proposition is not EMPIRICAL and/or analytical it is nonsense.
It says nothing about the map being the territory.
Logical positivism by its own definition is nonsense! Its central proposition is neither empirical or analytical.

[raw_thought]

The anthropic principle is crap? So you disagee with math???
1. Fact, our universe is unbelievably suited for life. If just one constant was off by a thousandth life would be impossible.
2. If there are trillions of universes most would be unfit for life.
3. However, a tiny % would be ideal for life.
4. We must live in a universe that is fit for life.
5. It is not a miracle that we live in that universe.
The only alternative is that our universe was fine tuned for life and that implies God.
Therefore, since you reject the anthropic principle you must believe in God!)So you said that if the constants are not fit for life we can just change those constants (like Plank's constant etc)?????

[raw_thought]

My wife's friend is a follower of Abraham Hicks. He believes (The Secret) that if you are 100% convinced of a proposition it becomes true. Are you a believer in The Secret?

[raw_thought]

Actually, it follows that if one does not believe in the multiverse, one must believe in God. It is vastly unlikely that one (and only one) universe has all its constants perfectly suited for creating life.

[raw_thought]

Only time exists? Space does not exist? So I can say," I will arrive at work at 9AM." But I cannot say that work is 5 miles from my home?

[Obvious Leo]

1. Fact, our universe is unbelievably suited for life. If just one constant was off by a thousandth life would be impossible.

Do you find this remarkable? Do you also find it remarkable that of all the human beings your parents may have created in their long ago act of love they actually made you instead of some other bloke. Such is the quality of your logic. Do you assume that all the possible human beings who you are not must also exist just to account for the fact that you are you are?

[Obvious Leo]

Only time exists? Space does not exist?

This is what I claim and this is what I can PROVE. My model of a gravity/time continuum yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify current theory. If you know anything about entanglement you might be able to figure it out.

[raw_thought]

which is why QM can never be made compatible with GR. ck.

[raw_thought]

Quantum mechanics has not yet been reconciled with Relativity.

This is completely untrue. QM is perfectly reconciled with SR because it is predicated on SR. It.

[raw_thought]

1. Fact, our universe is unbelievably suited for life. If just one constant was off by a thousandth life would be impossible.

Do you find this remarkable? Do you also find it remarkable that of all the human beings your parents may have created in their long ago act of love they actually made you instead of some other bloke. Such is the quality of your logic. Do you assume that all the possible human beings who you are not must also exist just to account for the fact that you are you are?

???.
What on earth does that have to do with the fact that the constants (Plank's etc) are outrageously perfect for the creation of life????
Actually, you were just arguing FOR the anthropic principle!!!

[raw_thought]

Only time exists? Space does not exist?

This is what I claim and this is what I can PROVE. My model of a gravity/time continuum yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify current theory. If you know anything about entanglement you might be able to figure it out.

Well good luck! I hope you do become the next Einstein! Bob came up with bobevensoneconomics. How about Leophysics?
I am sure you will recieve a Nobel Prize for such a revolutionary breakthrough!

[raw_thought]

The anthropic principle is crap? So you disagee with math???
1. Fact, our universe is unbelievably suited for life. If just one constant was off by a thousandth life would be impossible.
2. If there are trillions of universes most would be unfit for life.
3. However, a tiny % would be ideal for life.
4. We must live in a universe that is fit for life.
5. It is not a miracle that we live in that universe.
The only alternative is that our universe was fine tuned for life and that implies God.
Therefore, since you reject the anthropic principle you must believe in God!)So you said that if the constants are not fit for life we can just change those constants (like Plank's constant etc)?????

I really do not understand why you don't understand that.

[Obvious Leo]

What on earth does that have to do with the fact that the constants (Plank's etc) are outrageously perfect for the creation of life????

Can't you see the flaw in this argument? All the constants in physics are derived from observation and fed into the mathematical models by hand. ALL of them. NONE of them are mandated by any theory. These are observations made in a universe with life in it so of course the constants must be what they are. This is the simplest imaginable proposition of logic. In fact the constants of the Standard Model, of which there are well over a hundred, are the most inconstant constants imaginable. Some of them barely last a year before they're changed in the light of further observational data.

At least Newton had the decency to realise that his gravitational constant G was in fact cheating and there was no reason whatsoever that it should have the value it does. He simply calculated it from observation and assumed that somebody would come along later and explain why it had to be that way. However nobody ever did. They thought that Isaac was such a clever chap that they've been cheating their way through physics ever since.

Can you name a theoretical physicist who denies this and doesn't know perfectly well that a unification model for physics must necessarily include an explanation for these values. How the fuck can an infinite number of undetectable universes external to our own explain anything?

I'll remind you that this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum. In a philosophy forum making sense is not just a trivial inconvenience but one of the fundamental rules of engagement. Physicists may conclude that if their equations are indicating a universe which makes no sense we must therefore live in a universe which makes no sense but philosophers are obliged to conclude that the equations are not indicating the real universe.

Incidentally if you can name a single physicist who thinks that the current models of physics are correct representations of our universe then please name this person because I know of nobody who would make this claim. To my knowledge the unanimous position is that these models are FALSE.

You don't need to explain the CRAP to me because I've heard it all before. Goldilocks is a fairy tale.

Read this

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

[raw_thought]

Yes, the constants were empirically verified. What is your point?
I am saying that the fact that they are perfect for life is extremely improbable.
The only alternative to fine tuning (which implies a fine tuner,God) is the anthropic principle. If I throw a coin and it lands heads 100 times in a row that is extremely unlikely. However, if I throw a coin 100 billion times, it is not remarkable that somewhere in those 100 billion tosses, there were 100 heads in a row.