On 1/31/24 3:46 AM, Abner wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>> QP makes no sense to us only because our everyday experiences are best
>> described by statistical thermodynamics. Not sure why God should
>> limit itself to QP.
>
> God hides in things we don't understand; if we understand it, there is no need
> to shove a god into that particular gap. If people learn to understand quantum
> physics, the god they cultivated there will wither and die just as the rain and
> thunder gods did in the face of meteorology.
>
Don't worry. Quantum mechanics is a black hole (or maybe a rabbit
hole). We'll never get to the bottom of it.

On Wednesday 31 January 2024 at 17:27:56 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 03:46:23 -0800 (PST), Abner
> <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >jillery wrote:
> >> QP makes no sense to us only because our everyday experiences are best
> >> described by statistical thermodynamics. Not sure why God should
> >> limit itself to QP.
> >
> >God hides in things we don't understand; if we understand it, there is no need
> >to shove a god into that particular gap. If people learn to understand quantum
> >physics, the god they cultivated there will wither and die just as the rain and
> >thunder gods did in the face of meteorology.
> Perhaps God hiding in QP would be alive and dead at the same time, a
> quantum version of the Trinity.
> --
----------
God hides in the duality of quantum particles

jillery wrote:
> Perhaps God hiding in QP would be alive and dead at the same time, a
> quantum version of the Trinity.

That would be more appropriate for a binary deific system like Zoroastrianism. We'd
need 3 quantum states for a Trinity - alive, dead, and undead, for example. Well, that
explains the Holy Ghost ...

On 1/30/24 10:23 AM, israel sadovnik wrote:
> Can we say that it is possible to prove the existence of a Creator of our Universe?

It is possible to *disprove* the existence of a Creator of the universe,
given a couple reasonable assumptions and definitions. The assumption
is that cause precedes effect; the definitions are that the universe is
all that exists, and that a creator is a cause of what is created.

These mean that a Creator, if one exists, must be part of the universe.
As such, it cannot cause something which comes before it, or at the very
least is contemporaneous with it. A creator cannot create itself.

For those wanting a creator anyway, the easiest way around this is to
postulate multiple universes (i.e., deny the definition that the
universe is all that is), with the creator existing in a different universe.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Thursday 1 February 2024 at 17:52:57 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 1/30/24 10:23 AM, israel sadovnik wrote:
> > Can we say that it is possible to prove the existence of a Creator of our Universe?
> It is possible to *disprove* the existence of a Creator of the universe,
> given a couple reasonable assumptions and definitions.
-----
Yeah, . . .
" If He (God) understands Math and Physics then He exists."
/ Frank Tipler. /
"GOD is a mathematician of a very high order.
He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."
/Paul M. Dirac/

File under: Non-existent understanding

> " If He (God) understands Math and Physics then He exists."

Jan

I'm wondering: was this his very last post? No clue that he was ailing
at all.

On 1/29/24 6:24 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:02:52 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 1/25/24 7:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The preceding three day stretch was the most hectic in the last two years,
>>> but things have finally calmed down, and tomorrow I will probably have time
>>> to do several posts on t.o. It is only the lateness of time that confines me
>>> to one today.
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 10:37:44 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/24 7:06 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:37:43 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/18/24 7:25 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:17:42 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/24 3:14 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:17:35 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/9/24 7:20 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:32:29 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your conviction of am enormous multiverse arouses my curiosity. How did
>>>>>>>>>>>> you come to such a conclusion? I intend no hostility; just interest.
>
> I sense hostility in several places below. What changed your intentions?
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday was the last day of the Christmas season for us Catholics,
>>>>>>>>>>> but you seem to be receptive to the idea of continuing our truce
>>>>>>>>>>> [see the PS before my first snip for focus] beyond it, and I am happy
>>>>>>>>>>> to go along.
>
> Looks like you didn't want the truce to extend beyond Christmas season after all.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a nutshell: what convinced me was what is commonly called
>>>>>>>>>>> "the fine tuning of the basic physical constants." However, that often produces
>>>>>>>>>>> the Pavlov-style reflex "tuning implies a tuner," so I prefer a more objective
>>>>>>>>>>> expression, "the extremely low tolerance of the basic physical constants
>>>>>>>>>>> to conditions compatible with the existence of intelligent life in the universe."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The basic idea is that these low tolerances make our universe violate
>>>>>>>>>>> the principle of mediocrity to a staggering extent. How could it be the
>>>>>>>>>>> only universe when all it takes is a tiny tweak here or a tiny tweak
>>>>>>>>>>> there to destroy the possibility of intelligent life?
>
> <snip of things to be addressed in reply to Harshman, probably tomorrow>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here are my two favorite examples, because of their simplicity and
>>>>>>>>>>> the low tolerances. One is symbolized by a fancy ornate N, the other
>>>>>>>>>>> by a big Greek epsilon. I've added some details in brackets to what you
>>>>>>>>>>> see in the webpage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody showed any interest in the following data.
>>>>>>> Am I the only talk.origins participant who is interested in cosmology for the sake of
>>>>>>> cosmology?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> N = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [10^36]
>>>>>>>>>>> The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially important huge number in nature. N measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If it had a few less zeros [30 instead of 36], only a short-lived and miniature universe could exist. [Stars would be crowded so much together that stable planetary orbits would be great rarities.] No creatures would be larger than insects, and there would be no time for evolution to lead to intelligent life. [A star the mass of our sun would burn out in about 10,000 years.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll have more to say about this one in my next and final reply to this post of yours.
>>>>>>>>> The bracketed concrete data is in the book by Rees. You won't find it in the webpage I linked:
>>>>>>>>> that only has the unbracketed parts. The same is true of what I wrote about "Epsilon" below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *More* zeros might not be a problem, but my other favorite is severely restricted on both ends.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is related to the ratio of the nuclear force holding atomic nuclei together to the
>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic repulsion tending to blow them apart, but its actual definition
>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit more subtle: it is the [fraction of mass converted into energy] when a helium nucleus
>>>>>>>>>>> results from the fusion of what started out as four protons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The bracketed part up there is new, correcting what I wrote earlier.
>>>>>>>>> More brackets follow in the quote from the website:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> epsilon = 0.007
>>>>>>>>>>> Another number, epsilon, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on Earth were made. The value of epsilon controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and oxygen are common, and gold and uranium are rare, because of what happens in the stars. If epsilon were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist. [If it were .006, no atoms but hydrogen could form; if it were .008, water and carbon would exist in trace amounts because most atomic nuclei would be many times bigger than oxygen nuclei.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even silicon, which I've talked about in my last reply to Öö Tiib on a different thread [2]
>>>>>>>>> might be a great rarity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/q-BiBJubH9w/m/MpG5gmjZAAAJ
>>>>>>>>> Re: Re-Riposte to Fine Tuning - to keep the old one from exceeding 1000 posts
>>>>>>>>> Jan 12, 2024, 8:57:37
>>>
>>> <snip for focus>
>
> <additional snip to get to an unsupported assertion of yours, Erik>
>
>>>>>> I have no problem with the idea of multiverses. At present these are
>>>>>> entirely speculative,
>
> Later, you reveal that you meant that they were "science fiction,"
> but that is inconsistent with there being serious physical theories backing them:
>
>>>>> Not so: there is deep physics behind some of them, including the
>>>>> ones made possible by Guth's highly respected theory of inflation.
>
>>> You said nothing about this in your reply, Erik. Are you as unlettered
>>> in cosmology as Athel is in OOL despite having written a book
>>> on the biochemistry of life?
>
> <crickets>
>
> > > It's no disgrace if you are like that --
>>> I'm unlettered in some of the most active branches of topology, despite being a leading
>>> researcher in set-theoretic topology.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Jillery could tell you about them, but that would involve walking back some insults
>>>>> she made about me in reply to you, and I don't think either you or she want her
>>>>> to do anything that drastic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and if the speculation doesn't lead to some ideas
>>>>>> about how they might affect our universe it seems to me to be a waste of
>>>>>> time.
>
> They affect our *understanding* of our universe by giving a
> concrete meaning to the probability that a given universe of the multiverse
> is hospitable to any kind of life.
>
> There is a potential infinity of them in Linde's "perpetual inflation" hypothesis,
> with no reason to think that *any* of the six "blueprint" constants is the same
> in any but a vanishingly small percentage of them. Ironically, you would add MORE
> to the list of six that anti-ID zealots have to take into account:
>
>>>>>> As I believe I've already mentioned the large number of "fundamental"
>>>>>> variables and possible dimensionless quantities one could construct, and
>>>>>> we have no idea why they they have the values they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't recall a single one of this "large number". Are you sure you got that specific?
>>>>> That isn't your style on this thread, nor on any thread not involving paleontology.
>>>>> You almost always prefer generalities to specifics.
>>>
>>> You *still* don't mention a single one. Looks like your memory of what you "believe" you've
>>> mentioned is as bad as that of John Harshman.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was a professional physicist for about a decade before I went over to
>>>> the Dark Side. I can't believe you aren't aware of the physical
>>>> quantities involved in characterizing the universe. You rail about them
>>>> at length in your esteem of Ree's six numbers book.
>>>
>>> You missed where I criticized him for using the word "recipe"
>>> rather than "blueprint," which still leaves a lot of ingredients out.
>
> Stephen M. Barr adds a few more ingredients in _Modern_Physics_and_Ancient_Faith_.
> But your hostile preceding paragraph suggests that you don't want to hear about them.
>
>>>
>>>> Specific physics
>>>> isn't on topic here.
>>>
>>> What could be more basic than the ratio between the electromagnetic
>>> force and the gravitational? or the ratio between the nuclear and the
>>> electromagnetic?
>
> <crickets>
>
> > > Rees didn't talk about the latter directly, but "epsilon"
>>> depends on it, though not in linear fashion.
>
> Stephen M. Barr does talk about the latter ratio [*op* *cit* pp. 125-126].
> It goes by the name of "the fine structure constant".
>
>>>>>> There are so
>>>>>> many things we don't understand yet, they certainly seem more
>>>>>> interesting subjects than dreaming of universes where there is only one
>>>>>> kin of particle or time runs backward (whatever that might mean).
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin Rees's sober analyses are a far cry from the second topic.
>>>>> As for the first, don't you know that a typical hydrogen atom is made of
>>>>> two kinds of particles in a very complicated interaction? [Atypical atoms add
>>>>> one or two neutrons.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like you *still* haven't absorbed what I said about N and epsilon,
>>>>> summarizing what Rees wrote about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In particular, a universe with hydrogen as the only element follows from
>>>>> some deep physical properties of matter that involve epsilon.
>>>>> A difference of less than .001 takes you from our rich universe
>>>>> to that kind of impoverished universe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> None of these ramblings should be considered disparaging of Sir Rees,
>>>>>> who has contributed so much to our current understanding of the only
>>>>>> universe we know.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ignore his analyses of how some fundamental dimensionless
>>>>> constants contribute to making our universe so rich by sticking
>>>>> to some very narrow intervals, what does that say about the
>>>>> generality "so much"?
>>>
>>>> Dimensional analysis clarifies thinking about physical models, but
>>>> ultimately they are no more fundamental than any other variable we
>>>> choose for modeling. It also is appropriate to remember that
>>>> mathematical descriptions aren't physics.
>>>
>>> Who ever claimed otherwise?
>
> <crickets>
>
>>>> They're just the best
>>>> descriptions we have in our efforts to understand what's really
>>>> happening. Again, multiverses add nothing to our understanding.
>>>
>>> You are now arguing on the level of Ron Dean. That last sentence
>>> of yours is self-referential in adding nothing to our understanding.
>>>
>>>
>> That's a particularly gratuitous insult.
>
> I wasn't insulting YOU, I was insulting the last sentence you had written.
>
> I would have expected you to say something like this in reply
> to the following, but you breezed past it as though it weren't there:
>
> [repeated from above]
>>> Looks like your memory of what you "believe" you've
>>> mentioned is as bad as that of John Harshman.
>
> But thanks for letting everyone know what utter contempt you
> have for Ron Dean. How does it compare with your contempt
> for Glenn -- or me, for that matter?
>
>
> > If you continue in this vein,
>> I'm through with this subject.
>
> What vein? Are you completely ignoring the physics I've been writing about?
>
>
>> As I see it, the ball is firmly in your
>> court. Please explain how a speculative multiverse could explain the
>> origin of life OR provide "richness" in our universe.
>
> Think of how the following scenario sheds light
> on the richness of one of the outcomes.
>
> Suppose that, in a given hour, ten thousand people in the world
> are flipping coins to see how long a "run" of one side they can
> attain. Suppose one of them flips 30 heads in a row.
>
> Before he gets to 30, don't you think anyone watching him would
> become suspicious that he is flipping a 2-headed coin?
>
> After all, the odds against him getting 30 in a row are more than a quadrillion to one.
> In fact, it would be unusual to have even 20 in a row (ca. million to one odds)
> in such a small sample of coin-flippers.
>
> Yet, the odds against a universe bearing intelligent life are far worse
> than quadrillion to one, unless the ranges and distributions are
> tremendously loaded in favor of life. Lacking any evidence of such
> loading, only a huge sample, in the form of a multiverse would take care of Hoyle's
> suspicions that our universe is "a put-up job."
>
>> That would remove
>> said universe from science fiction to something worth talking about.
>
> The ball is in your court to defend this polemical sentence against my analogy.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of So. Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>

On 2/23/24 5:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> I'm wondering: was this his very last post? No clue that he was ailing
> at all.
>
> On 1/29/24 6:24 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:02:52 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 1/25/24 7:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The preceding three day stretch was the most hectic in the last two
>>>> years,
>>>> but things have finally calmed down, and tomorrow I will probably
>>>> have time
>>>> to do several posts on t.o. It is only the lateness of time that
>>>> confines me
>>>> to one today.
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 10:37:44 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/19/24 7:06 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:37:43 PM UTC-5, erik simpson
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/18/24 7:25 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:17:42 PM UTC-5, erik simpson
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/24 3:14 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:17:35 AM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/9/24 7:20 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:32:29 AM UTC-5, erik
>>>>>>>>>>>> simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your conviction of am enormous multiverse arouses my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> curiosity. How did
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you come to such a conclusion? I intend no hostility; just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest.
>>
>> I sense hostility in several places below. What changed your intentions?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday was the last day of the Christmas season for us
>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholics,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but you seem to be receptive to the idea of continuing our
>>>>>>>>>>>> truce
>>>>>>>>>>>> [see the PS before my first snip for focus] beyond it, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am happy
>>>>>>>>>>>> to go along.
>>
>> Looks like you didn't want the truce to extend beyond Christmas season
>> after all.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In a nutshell: what convinced me was what is commonly called
>>>>>>>>>>>> "the fine tuning of the basic physical constants." However,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that often produces
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Pavlov-style reflex "tuning implies a tuner," so I
>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer a more objective
>>>>>>>>>>>> expression, "the extremely low tolerance of the basic
>>>>>>>>>>>> physical constants
>>>>>>>>>>>> to conditions compatible with the existence of intelligent
>>>>>>>>>>>> life in the universe."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The basic idea is that these low tolerances make our
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe violate
>>>>>>>>>>>> the principle of mediocrity to a staggering extent. How
>>>>>>>>>>>> could it be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> only universe when all it takes is a tiny tweak here or a
>>>>>>>>>>>> tiny tweak
>>>>>>>>>>>> there to destroy the possibility of intelligent life?
>>
>> <snip of things to be addressed in reply to Harshman, probably tomorrow>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are my two favorite examples, because of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the low tolerances. One is symbolized by a fancy ornate N,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> by a big Greek epsilon. I've added some details in brackets
>>>>>>>>>>>> to what you
>>>>>>>>>>>> see in the webpage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody showed any interest in the following data.
>>>>>>>> Am I the only talk.origins participant who is interested in
>>>>>>>> cosmology for the sake of
>>>>>>>> cosmology?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> N = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [10^36]
>>>>>>>>>>>> The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially
>>>>>>>>>>>> important huge number in nature. N measures the strength of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the force of gravity between them. If it had a few less
>>>>>>>>>>>> zeros [30 instead of 36], only a short-lived and miniature
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe could exist. [Stars would be crowded so much
>>>>>>>>>>>> together that stable planetary orbits would be great
>>>>>>>>>>>> rarities.] No creatures would be larger than insects, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> there would be no time for evolution to lead to intelligent
>>>>>>>>>>>> life. [A star the mass of our sun would burn out in about
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 years.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll have more to say about this one in my next and final
>>>>>>>>>> reply to this post of yours.
>>>>>>>>>> The bracketed concrete data is in the book by Rees. You won't
>>>>>>>>>> find it in the webpage I linked:
>>>>>>>>>> that only has the unbracketed parts. The same is true of what
>>>>>>>>>> I wrote about "Epsilon" below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *More* zeros might not be a problem, but my other favorite
>>>>>>>>>>>> is severely restricted on both ends.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is related to the ratio of the nuclear force holding
>>>>>>>>>>>> atomic nuclei together to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic repulsion tending to blow them apart, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> its actual definition
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit more subtle: it is the [fraction of mass converted
>>>>>>>>>>>> into energy] when a helium nucleus
>>>>>>>>>>>> results from the fusion of what started out as four protons.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The bracketed part up there is new, correcting what I wrote
>>>>>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>>>>>> More brackets follow in the quote from the website:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> epsilon = 0.007
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another number, epsilon, defines how firmly atomic nuclei
>>>>>>>>>>>> bind together and how all the atoms on Earth were made. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> value of epsilon controls the power from the Sun and, more
>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the periodic table. Carbon and oxygen are common, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> gold and uranium are rare, because of what happens in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> stars. If epsilon were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [If it were .006, no atoms but hydrogen could form; if it
>>>>>>>>>>>> were .008, water and carbon would exist in trace amounts
>>>>>>>>>>>> because most atomic nuclei would be many times bigger than
>>>>>>>>>>>> oxygen nuclei.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even silicon, which I've talked about in my last reply to Öö
>>>>>>>>>> Tiib on a different thread [2]
>>>>>>>>>> might be a great rarity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/q-BiBJubH9w/m/MpG5gmjZAAAJ
>>>>>>>>>> Re: Re-Riposte to Fine Tuning - to keep the old one from
>>>>>>>>>> exceeding 1000 posts
>>>>>>>>>> Jan 12, 2024, 8:57:37
>>>>
>>>> <snip for focus>
>>
>> <additional snip to get to an unsupported assertion of yours, Erik>
>>
>>>>>>> I have no problem with the idea of multiverses. At present these are
>>>>>>> entirely speculative,
>>
>> Later, you reveal that you meant that they were "science fiction,"
>> but that is inconsistent with there being serious physical theories
>> backing them:
>>>>>> Not so: there is deep physics behind some of them, including the
>>>>>> ones made possible by Guth's highly respected theory of inflation.
>>
>>>> You said nothing about this in your reply, Erik. Are you as unlettered
>>>> in cosmology as Athel is in OOL despite having written a book
>>>> on the biochemistry of life?
>>
>> <crickets>
>>
>>   > > It's no disgrace if you are like that --
>>>> I'm unlettered in some of the most active branches of topology,
>>>> despite being a leading
>>>> researcher in set-theoretic topology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Jillery could tell you about them, but that would involve walking
>>>>>> back some insults
>>>>>> she made about me in reply to you, and I don't think either you or
>>>>>> she want her
>>>>>> to do anything that drastic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and if the speculation doesn't lead to some ideas
>>>>>>> about how they might affect our universe it seems to me to be a
>>>>>>> waste of
>>>>>>> time.
>>
>> They affect our *understanding* of our universe by giving a
>> concrete meaning to the probability that a given universe of the
>> multiverse
>> is hospitable to any kind of life.
>>
>> There is a potential infinity of them in Linde's "perpetual inflation"
>> hypothesis,
>> with no reason to think that *any* of the six "blueprint" constants is
>> the same
>> in any but a vanishingly small percentage of them. Ironically, you
>> would add MORE
>> to the list of six that anti-ID zealots have to take into account:
>>
>>>>>>> As I believe I've already mentioned the large number of
>>>>>>> "fundamental"
>>>>>>> variables and possible dimensionless quantities one could
>>>>>>> construct, and
>>>>>>> we have no idea why they they have the values they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't recall a single one of this "large number". Are you sure
>>>>>> you got that specific?
>>>>>> That isn't your style on this thread, nor on any thread not
>>>>>> involving paleontology.
>>>>>> You almost always prefer generalities to specifics.
>>>>
>>>> You *still* don't mention a single one. Looks like your memory of
>>>> what you "believe" you've
>>>> mentioned is as bad as that of John Harshman.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was a professional physicist for about a decade before I went
>>>>> over to
>>>>> the Dark Side. I can't believe you aren't aware of the physical
>>>>> quantities involved in characterizing the universe. You rail about
>>>>> them
>>>>> at length in your esteem of Ree's six numbers book.
>>>>
>>>> You missed where I criticized him for using the word "recipe"
>>>> rather than "blueprint," which still leaves a lot of ingredients out.
>>
>> Stephen M. Barr adds a few more ingredients in
>> _Modern_Physics_and_Ancient_Faith_.
>> But your hostile preceding paragraph suggests that you don't want to
>> hear about  them.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Specific physics
>>>>> isn't on topic here.
>>>>
>>>> What could be more basic than the ratio between the electromagnetic
>>>> force and the gravitational? or the ratio between the nuclear and the
>>>> electromagnetic?
>>
>> <crickets>
>>
>>   > > Rees didn't talk about the latter directly, but "epsilon"
>>>> depends on it, though not in linear fashion.
>>
>> Stephen M. Barr does talk about the latter ratio [*op* *cit* pp.
>> 125-126].
>> It goes by the name of "the fine structure constant".
>>
>>>>>>> There are so
>>>>>>> many things we don't understand yet, they certainly seem more
>>>>>>> interesting subjects than dreaming of universes where there is
>>>>>>> only one
>>>>>>> kin of particle or time runs backward (whatever that might mean).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Rees's sober analyses are a far cry from the second topic.
>>>>>> As for the first, don't you know that a typical hydrogen atom is
>>>>>> made of
>>>>>> two kinds of particles in a very complicated interaction?
>>>>>> [Atypical atoms add
>>>>>> one or two neutrons.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like you *still* haven't absorbed what I said about N and
>>>>>> epsilon,
>>>>>> summarizing what Rees wrote about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In particular, a universe with hydrogen as the only element
>>>>>> follows from
>>>>>> some deep physical properties of matter that involve epsilon.
>>>>>> A difference of less than .001 takes you from our rich universe
>>>>>> to that kind of impoverished universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of these ramblings should be considered disparaging of Sir
>>>>>>> Rees,
>>>>>>> who has contributed so much to our current understanding of the only
>>>>>>> universe we know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you ignore his analyses of how some fundamental dimensionless
>>>>>> constants contribute to making our universe so rich by sticking
>>>>>> to some very narrow intervals, what does that say about the
>>>>>> generality "so much"?
>>>>
>>>>> Dimensional analysis clarifies thinking about physical models, but
>>>>> ultimately they are no more fundamental than any other variable we
>>>>> choose for modeling. It also is appropriate to remember that
>>>>> mathematical descriptions aren't physics.
>>>>
>>>> Who ever claimed otherwise?
>>
>> <crickets>
>>
>>>>> They're just the best
>>>>> descriptions we have in our efforts to understand what's really
>>>>> happening. Again, multiverses add nothing to our understanding.
>>>>
>>>> You are now arguing on the level of Ron Dean. That last sentence
>>>> of yours is self-referential in adding nothing to our understanding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's a particularly gratuitous insult.
>>
>> I wasn't insulting YOU, I was insulting the last sentence you had
>> written.
>>
>> I would have expected you to say something like this in reply
>> to the following, but you breezed past it as though it weren't there:
>>
>> [repeated from above]
>>>> Looks like your memory of what you "believe" you've
>>>> mentioned is as bad as that of John Harshman.
>>
>> But thanks for letting everyone know what utter contempt you
>> have for Ron Dean. How does it compare with your contempt
>> for Glenn -- or me, for that matter?
>>
>>
>>   > If you continue in this vein,
>>> I'm through with this subject.
>>
>> What vein? Are you completely ignoring the physics I've been writing
>> about?
>>
>>
>>> As I see it, the ball is firmly in your
>>> court. Please explain how a speculative multiverse could explain the
>>> origin of life OR provide "richness" in our universe.
>>
>> Think of how the following scenario sheds light
>> on the richness of one of the outcomes.
>>
>> Suppose that, in a given hour, ten thousand people in the world
>> are flipping coins to see how long a "run" of one side they can
>> attain. Suppose one of them flips 30 heads in a row.
>>
>> Before he gets to 30, don't you think anyone watching him would
>> become suspicious that he is flipping a 2-headed coin?
>>
>> After all, the odds against him getting 30 in a row are more than a
>> quadrillion to one.
>> In fact, it would be unusual to have even 20 in a row (ca. million to
>> one odds)
>> in such a small sample of coin-flippers.
>>
>> Yet, the odds against a universe bearing intelligent life are far worse
>> than quadrillion to one, unless the ranges and distributions are
>> tremendously loaded in favor of life. Lacking any evidence of such
>> loading, only a huge sample, in the form of a multiverse would take
>> care of Hoyle's
>> suspicions that our universe is "a put-up job."
>>> That would remove
>>> said universe from science fiction to something worth talking about.
>>
>> The ball is in your court to defend this polemical sentence against my
>> analogy.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of So. Carolina at Columbia
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>
>
This post (one of Peter's last), is interesting the sense of contrast
between it and his last communication with sci.bio.paleontology. In the
latter case he discussed the development of external ears, and the
different trajectories of evolution between synapsids and sauropsids.
He expressed great curiosity of the subject, in which he had no prior
investment in the answers. In the TO case, he had a very strong prior
opinion. In my experience he never (?) changed such an opinion once it
had "crystallized". The tone is very combative and didactic.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:51:14 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm wondering: was this his very last post? No clue that he was ailing
>at all.

It's the last one I see from him in T.O. He may have posted something
later in other froups.

>On 1/29/24 6:24 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:02:52?PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 1/25/24 7:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge