__Ben__

I'm here so you can do the math for me. But I can do basic math and I just checked. You're out by a factor of 10. I get 257 parts per million. Ok so that part of the Copernican principle seems to be OK. What about the part that says we don't occupy a special place in the universe. How many places are there that support life to ask the question?

Yeah, "from the average cmb temperature", again using statistics in a way to dismiss the anisotropy. What is that in a percentage difference from the average? After all the CMB is extremely cold isn't it?

"Due to isotropy, there is no `place' where the Big Bang occurred, there is no center point." @swansont Quote from the lecture you linked. Is it wise to teach this concept in this manner? This is separating space from time. This becomes obvious once the concept of space-time is understood and counter to this there is very much a centre point in the past.

From what we currently know, the best evidence is that there's a finite point in the past (the big bang) and the Universe is open, so there's an infinite future. Therefore a typical place in the universe will be somewhere in the distant future. A human and a tree aren't homogeneous and isotropic, but a value of how isotropic and homogeneous could be given to them. A forest and a population would undoubtedly have a higher value for both. Aren't we just forcing homogeneity and isotropy to fit with what we wish to be true by manipulating statistics? How do you explain the cold spot in the wmap cmb? It just averages out over the whole so can be ignored? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot#:~:text=One possible explanation of the,us and the primordial CMB.&text=A 2015 study shows the,likely being associated with it.

Why do we assume we're in a normal place in the universe, when we're on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy that supports life? Isn't the vast majority of the universe the space between things? Why is it we ignore the small scales when concluding the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. When anything that is applied to is true. A billard ball is apparently more uneven than the planet earth when enlarged to the same scale. Isn't a typical place in the universe somewhere in a void between galaxies. Isn't it also a place in the extreme distant future?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Interestingly enough it doesn't mention in that article my idea of an evolved universe from a multiverse. Stable universes which allow for other universes to come into existence from them, with slightly varied laws of physics, will allow for a type of natural selection. Those universes that don't live as long and don't produce so much offspring aren't as succesful. Therefore this hypothesis is testable by testing the age of our universe compared to other hypothetical ones and the ability of our universe to produce others. We happen to be in this one to observe it because it has been naturally selected to allow for life to occur. Contemplate this, our universe began in a minimal entropy state. The big bang at its moment of being was 1 thing within a universe, That is minimal entropy, nothing is more ordered that 1 thing in a system. There is only 1 direction entropy can go from here, up. As entropy increases, with inflation, and dark energy driven expansion, the universe heads towards a state of maximum entropy. Now here's where something weird happens. We are left with 1 quanta of energy in it's own hubble volume, a practically infinite quantity of such. Where we have 1 entity in it's own universe we have minimum entropy. Therefore at this universes maximum entropy, we have a nearly infinite ammount of universes with minimum entropy. There is only one direction for these universes to go. Some of them are bound to increase in entropy, this is how the universe gives birth, that is a successful universe.

The concept of nothing exists I agree. But isn't a concept something?

It's either an awesome fluke we had abiogenesis here, or being ~10 billion years into this universe was the right time for life to get here. If life could have started here in less than a billion years. How many times could abiogenesis have happened and already be a part of our solar system when it was forming? Ok, life as we know it, account for iron.

It's a different animal with a sense we don't have, you'd be anthropomorphising if you tried to compare it. No they don't "see" but obviously they "sense" somehow. They use those images in movies because how else would you express something uncomprehenable to a human through thier senses.

Multiverses allow for selection of universes for one in which we can live. Entropy is conditional of the state of the universe we see. We see the most efficient one. The one that exists, With us in it. If you were going to make a universe wouldn't you try out alot of combinations till you found the right one?

Well I know they're trying to unify the theories, I just thought maybe quantum mechanics could describe sound better. "The equations in this section either do not use axioms of quantum mechanics or use relations for which there exists a direct correspondence in classical mechanics"

Go!

If you were going to make something efficient, wouldn't you just make sure it worked when it wasn't being looked at? Rather than worrying about all the little details? No it doesn't "know" anything. We only "know" what we perceive. And this is the wave/partical duality. It seems to be both, when we measure it.

What we hear as sound is a pressure wave moving through the air, sound is the energy from an action being propagated through the atmosphere. That works basically the same in any medium. So, is there any kind of science that tries to explain this macro effect of sound, via quantum theory?