Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

Because the Boltzmann brain is very similar to your extreme "what ifs". It is rather pointless. When your what ifs are two far out of the norm you might as well be saying "What if we were just Boltzmann brains?'

I don’t know how is your reply related to my comment… but ok

The point with BB is that any model that concludes that we are likely a BB should be rejected …in other words if a given model of the universe/multiverse, says that you are probably a BB you shouldn´t conclude that you are a BB, but rather you should drop the model

 

[leroy]

Ok, I will play by your rules,

One of the claims that I have made is that the Boltzmann brain paradox (BB Paradox) refutes any “chance did it” hypothesis, as an explanation of the FT of the universe. (Including the multiverse hypothesis and anthropic principle refutations)

This is the FT argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity
3. it is not due to chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

my claim is that the BB paradox refutes premise 3 , I am not claiming that the BB paradox alone shows that the conclusion is true, my intent is to show that premise 3 is true. (more arguments are needed to show that the other premises are ture)


Do you agree with me on that particular claim yes or no?

if not I will provide my justification.


Definitions, just for the sake of this post and related replies

Observer: in this context an observer is someone who observe himself living in a FT universe ether because he really lives in a FT universe, or because he is having a hallucination or a dream of him living in a FT universe



My justification:

The most probable type of observer is a Boltzmann Brain, in other words for every “normal observer” there would be trillions upon trillions of Boltzmann Brains that “imagine” themselves living in a FT universe, with planets, stars, people etc. when in reality they are just a brain floating in an nearly empty “none FT universe”

In other words there are much, much, much, more simple observers (BB) that live in a simple universe and that they are imagining themselves being complex creatures living in in a complex FT universe. than real complex observers (people) living in a real FT universe

As an analogy, if you observe yourself winning an improbable lottery 100 times in a row, chances say that you rare just dreaming or hallucinating, this hypothesis will always be more likelly to be true than.

The math

That BB are statistically more likelly than whole FT universes is not controvertial, while the exact maths are obviously impossible to determine with 100% accurecy, many estimates have been done, showing that BB are much, much, much more likelly that FT universes,

The probability of a FT universe: according to Roger Penrose

this is a number with 1123 ceros after the decimal point

the probability of a BB

this is a number with 500 ceros.


so while both numbers are very, very very small, the first is much much more smaller, for every FT universe we would have more than 10^600
BB ... so under that basis I am supporting my clam tha BB are more likely than FT universes.

The implicatios:

well there are 2 implications:
1 that you are a BB is a Reductio ad absurdum which means that we most reject any hypothesis that leads to that conclusion which means that you should reject chance

2 that you are a BB is demosntrably a better hypotheis than chance, so in any case, chance is discarted as the best explanatin, because there is alteast one that is better than chance. which means that premise 3 in the argument is correct.



soooo....
Do you agree in that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypotheiss? if not why not, please select your specific point of disagreement and explain why you disagree.

If you agree, then please let me know and I will provide justification for the other premises.

@TagliatelliMonster are you planning to make a reply?

do you grant this conclusion?

the BB paradox refutes any chance hypotheiss?

 

[YoursTrue]

Because the Boltzmann brain is very similar to your extreme "what ifs". It is rather pointless. When your what ifs are two far out of the norm you might as well be saying "What if we were just Boltzmann brains?'

Here's a question. Did the universe have a beginning? Did it come about by natural circumstances, whatever they would be? If there was no universe, would you and I be alive?

This appears to be you trying to change the subject because you know what was asked for can not be provided.

I am saying that what is taken as evidence by some for the supposedly very slow process of mutations leading from fish to land animals is obviously not substantiated by any type of real time observations, only suppositions which hitherto cannot be supported by actual showing of fish, for example, slowly, very slowly developing (or evolving) to landlubbers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Does not work that way.
If I make a claim that you want a source for, just ask.

Unless of course YOU are going to do the same thing.....

Why?

 

[McBell]

Here's a question. Did the universe have a beginning?

I do not know

Did it come about by natural circumstances, whatever they would be?

I do not know

If there was no universe, would you and I be alive?

I will go with "no"

I am saying that what is taken as evidence by some for the supposedly very slow process of mutations leading from fish to land animals is obviously not substantiated by any type of real time observations,

And?
I mean, neither was any of the creations from all the creation stories.

only suppositions which hitherto cannot be supported by actual showing of fish, for example, slowly, very slowly developing (or evolving) to landlubbers.

Which is backed by evidence...
Is it 100% complete?
Nope.
Does that make it wrong?
Nope

 

[McBell]

Why?

Because if you are going to ask me to support every claim when the claim is made than you should also support every claim when the claim is made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whenever you say something to refute. Produce evidence for your refutation.

For this to even be a genuine demand you need to learn what is and what is not evidence first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t know how is your reply related to my comment… but ok

The point with BB is that any model that concludes that we are likely a BB should be rejected …in other words if a given model of the universe/multiverse, says that you are probably a BB you shouldn´t conclude that you are a BB, but rather you should drop the model

Okay, when you have been talking about both the Boltzmann Brain and the Big Bang theory then you should spell them out.

And I am not surprised that you do not see how it applies. The Boltzmann Brain example is not a hypothesis. Neither is Fine Tuna argument. They are both unsupported and to date unsupportable suppositions.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not even the science that is the problem. LOL

Meaning discussion? Like when Dr. Hawking said the universe could have come from nothing because that's what appears to men, maybe??

Grasping at straws

Maybe Dr. Hawking felt that way when he said it only appears that way. Wonderful! It only APPEARS THAT WAY--thank you, Dr. Hawking -- even though he can't hear or read now.

Incorrect. It is a fact that I don't believe you understand or support science. You have offered no evidence to support any such position. In fact, all that is available evidence supports the conclusion that you don't understand or support science. It is sad that people in this day and age can live in such ignorance of fairly common and easily understandable material, but it is fact that many do and willfully I have seen.

I also made no reference to supporting pseudoscience. I'm not a follower of Comfy Ray and his crocoduck.

Seems the evidence continues to be against you.

I don't recognize that you recognize science and have provided nothing of credibility at all.

I don't even see the point of trying to engage you. All that you have done is assert without evidence and make posts that are laughable projection.

I think further attempts to get you to support your position would be a waste of time given the evidence of today.

Nothing than your own opinion, pal.

 

[YoursTrue]

For this to even be a genuine demand you need to learn what is and what is not evidence first.

Yeah? How about this?
Stephen Hawking said: "One can regard imaginary and real time beginning at the South Pole ... There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang."
See? There's nothing "south of the South Pole," therefore that means (to him and others) there was NOTHING AROUND before the Big Bang. But yet he goes on to say -- there never was a "Big Bang" that produced something from nothing. And guess what? He said it just SEEMED THAT WAY ... from "mankind's perspective," of course. Sounds kind of like many like you who argue here. Take care. Keep arguing... refuting ... insulting ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a question. Did the universe have a beginning? Did it come about by natural circumstances, whatever they would be? If there was no universe, would you and I be alive?

Right now it appears that the universe had a beginning. If you understood the model you would also understand that it say that the universe is eternal as well.

If the universe did not exist then the Boltzmann Brain does seem a bit more probably. But we probably would not be alive.

I am saying that what is taken as evidence by some for the supposedly very slow process of mutations leading from fish to land animals is obviously not substantiated by any type of real time observations, only suppositions which hitherto cannot be supported by actual showing of fish, for example, slowly, very slowly developing (or evolving) to landlubbers.

But it is. Creationists just have to lie to themselves. That they run away from discussing that information tells us that they know this as well.

And remember, the rate of evolution is not constant.

 

[YoursTrue]

For this to even be a genuine demand you need to learn what is and what is not evidence first.

uh huh -- like Tiktaalik was "genuine evidence" of evolution. (not) Like you're genuine evidence that you're an animal. Well, maybe...

 

[YoursTrue]

Right now it appears that the universe had a beginning. If you understood the model you would also understand that it say that the universe is eternal as well.

If the universe did not exist then the Boltzmann Brain does seem a bit more probably. But we probably would not be alive.

But it is. Creationists just have to lie to themselves. That they run away from discussing that information tells us that they know this as well.

And remember, the rate of evolution is not constant.

You gotta be kidding. The rate from fish to Tiktaalik? lolol...
The universe can wait...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah? How about this?
Stephen Hawking said: "One can regard imaginary and real time beginning at the South Pole ... There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang."
See? There's nothing "south of the South Pole," therefore that means (to him and others) there was NOTHING AROUND before the Big Bang. But yet he goes on to say -- there never was a "Big Bang" that produced something from nothing. And guess what? He said it just SEEMED THAT WAY ... from "mankind's perspective," of course. Sounds kind of like many like you who argue here. Take care. Keep arguing... refuting ... insulting ...

No, it does not mean that at all. Now you are trying to go south of the South Pole. If people did not care about being banned you would be insulted continuously. If you want respect do not make false claims about others.

You screwed up a bit on the South Pole analogy. There is no way to go South of the South pole. That place is nonexistent. In the same way time, which is a dimension like distance from the South Pole is. tells us that there does not appear to be a "before the Big Bang either.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right now it appears that the universe had a beginning. If you understood the model you would also understand that it say that the universe is eternal as well.

If the universe did not exist then the Boltzmann Brain does seem a bit more probably. But we probably would not be alive.

But it is. Creationists just have to lie to themselves. That they run away from discussing that information tells us that they know this as well.

And remember, the rate of evolution is not constant.

One more comment before I go now -- and it's been interesting chatting with you--

Warm water lured landlubber animals back to sea

Vertebrates moved out of the sea and onto land once, 365 million years ago, but many animals later went back – only when the water was warm, though

www.newscientist.com

See? Could be that "landlubbers" that came from water went back TO water after a while... Now if you believe that -- all I can say now is have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it does not mean that at all. Now you are trying to go south of the South Pole. If people did not care about being banned you would be insulted continuously. If you want respect do not make false claims about others.

You screwed up a bit on the South Pole analogy. There is no way to go South of the South pole. That place is nonexistent. In the same way time, which is a dimension like distance from the South Pole is. tells us that there does not appear to be a "before the Big Bang either.

Dr. Hawking said it. Used it as an analogy. That's it. Bye for now...

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, and p.s. @Subduction Zone thank you for harnessing your insults. (lol...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more comment before I go now -- and it's been interesting chatting with you--

Warm water lured landlubber animals back to sea

Vertebrates moved out of the sea and onto land once, 365 million years ago, but many animals later went back – only when the water was warm, though

www.newscientist.com

See? Could be that "landlubbers" that came from water went back TO water after a while... Now if you believe that -- all I can say now is have a good day.

Why do you think that is a problem. You know how everyone keeps pointing out that you have no understanding of the theory of evolution? You just demonstrated that you have no understanding once again.

It looks as if you are making the mistake of assuming a goal to evolution. Now think about that and see if you can apply that to why would a species evolve back for sea life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dr. Hawking said it. Used it as an analogy. That's it. Bye for now...

Yes, and you do not understand analogies. If you did you would realize that "Before the Big Bang" makes no sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and p.s. @Subduction Zone thank you for harnessing your insults. (lol...)

Wow! You are being incredibly hypocritical again. Corrections are not insults. You make tons of errors. That is not an insult. That is an observation. As a result everyone is always correcting you. Corrections are only insults if some adds "You idiot" or other such lines. No one has done that to you here.