Ghideon Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 12 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: What exactly is the scientific concept of the universe at the moment, that it is a meaningless accident? I do not know an exact answer. But I do not think the consensus at this time include meaning as part of the theory. How does a meaningless vs a meaningful universe look like? 15 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: To have a purpose, to be for life. What if I think life is a meaningless purpose? Is that a counterexample invalidating your idea? How does one test that your definition of meaningful and purpose is the best one?
Strange Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 23 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: About as much as scientists have for dark matter. So you can tell us what its mass, velocity, spatial distribution, electric charge, etc. is? No. So that is a silly thing to say. 24 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: You can look at the problems physics hasn't solved and come up with solutions. But unless your solution is quantitative and testable it isn't science. You can choose to believe the universe is designed for life. Or in the Tooth Fairy. Neither have anything to do with science.
PrimalMinister Posted January 29, 2020 Author Posted January 29, 2020 9 minutes ago, Ghideon said: What if I think life is a meaningless purpose? That is an opinion, an opinion can change. 3 minutes ago, Strange said: But unless your solution is quantitative and testable it isn't science. The idea that the universe is a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines is not unscientific and its solves some of the problems with physics, namely the most important, why it is mathemathical or how the universe gets reality to conform to mathematics. This is the theory of everything scientists are looking for, except its only half the story, the other half is the story of life.
Strange Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said: That is an opinion So is your belief in "design". 1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said: The idea that the universe is a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines is not unscientific If you could show us the math and the experimental tests, it might not be. But until then it is. 1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said: and its solves some of the problems with physics, namely the most important, why it is mathemathical So you are solving the question of "why is it mathematical" by basing it on a mathematical construct? Which is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. And it doesn't solve the problem at all. It just shifts the question to "why is the universe a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines?" 1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said: This is the theory of everything scientists are looking for It is not a theory until you have a model and it has been rigorously shown to be consistent with the evidence.
Ghideon Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 58 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: That is an opinion, an opinion can change. Yes. Which confirms point. What measurement do you propose that can verify that my opinion about "design" and "purpose" is failed and need to change and your opinion is the correct one? Edited January 29, 2020 by Ghideon clarification 1
studiot Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: What would happen if the theory of everything that physicts are looking for proved the universe had a design (but no designer). How do you think scientists would react? Haven't we been through this at least once before ? But in the light of your claim about mathematics, I would say their eyebrows would not twitch half as far as they did when Godel introduced his incompletedness theorems. 4 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: In his book A universe from nothing Laurance Krauss admits he doesn't why it is mathemathical, and you have not explained it with that sentence. You are welcome to expand. Are you aware of how far Godel, Turing and others subsequently limit the scope of Mathematics? Edited January 29, 2020 by studiot
Strange Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 13 minutes ago, studiot said: Are you aware of how far Godel, Turing and others subsequently limit the scope of Mathematics? Nice point. So if the universe were mathematical (in the sense that Tegmark and others seem to say) then it would be undecidable (non-deterministic?) or incomplete. Which, of course, it might be.
studiot Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Strange said: Nice point. So if the universe were mathematical (in the sense that Tegmark and others seem to say) then it would be undecidable (non-deterministic?) or incomplete. Which, of course, it might be. A simple way of putting this is "There will always remain something else to discover"
Strange Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: The idea that the universe is a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines is not unscientific and its solves some of the problems with physics Even if true, this has nothing to do with "design" in any sense that I can see. Also, it has nothing to do with the universe being suitable for life. A universe that had "design" (whatever that means) could be hostile to life. A universe that was "a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines" could be unsuitable for life. Either could have different laws of physics, and therefore chemistry, and so be suitable for life completely different from ours. So you seem to have three completely different ideas, that have no obvious connection or dependency: The universe "has design". It is not clear what this means or how it could be tested. The universe is a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines. Not really clear how one could test this. Unless someone actually found one of the machines. What are the machines made of by the way? Smaller machines? The universe is suitable for life as we know it. This one is easily answered by evolution: Quote This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' Douglas Adams
swansont Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 5 hours ago, pzkpfw said: So, another speculative theory framed (hidden) as a question. ! Moderator Note Indeed. 6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: I have a framework for a theory of everything , it solves unanswered questions about physics, namely 'why' reality is mathematical. ! Moderator Note You've brought this up before and it was closed because you brought no support — no model, no evidence. You were told not to bring the topic up again without that support. Now you have, and with a bait-and-switch tactic.
Recommended Posts