Philosophy has its uses. Determining the origin of the universe isn't one of them.
Sort of. In a scientific context, Occam's Razor is used to pick between competing theories which are all consistent with the evidence. It's a convenience: the simplest model is the easiest to use. If there's no reason not to use it, then use it. That's not what we're doing here. Occam's Razor states nothing about the correctness of a theory.
I can't explain some of the denser partical physics to me, and I'm almost a doctor of engineering. Those theorys still make predictions tested in experiments. Einstein's relativity, to pick a familiar example, has made provable predictions in a huge number of experiments involving everything from gravitational lensing of starlight around the edge of the sun to atomic clocks running slow at high speeds to really weird shit involving gravity waves detected by huge detectors buried underground. Whether you or your bartender understand it is irrelevant.
String theory and classical physics make the same predictions at relatively low energies. At high energies, they differ. Unfortunately, the energy necessary to test string theory is beyond us for now, so it's thought of by many physicists as a steaming pile of crap. Not because it's necessarily wrong, but because Occam's Razor says just use the classical model because we can't tell the difference and the classical model is simpler.
What probabilty? You've clearly never taken a proper mathematical probabilty course. The probability that anything occurs depends on the variables. Maybe the process that created the universe had only a few stable states. How many times did it run? What process? It's all crap, talking in a vacuum. It's not possible to come to a conclusion without data, and we have none. So you can participate in a philosophical circle jerk if you like, but in the end you'll probably come to the conclusion you expected in the first place. That's why data is king in science. People are really shit at philosophical physics. It's something in our humours.
Yes, the sun is about 5 billion years old. That's the line they've been using since I was a kid anyway.
What argument can be made? It's a new one to me, and I read a fair bit about that sort of thing.
Is this your line of reasoning now? God made the universe, but he just wasn't good enough at this whole universe making deal to make it all unfold like he wanted, so he meddled a bit more and fixed his mistakes to make life? Some omnipotent God he is.
Sort of. In a scientific context, Occam's Razor is used to pick between competing theories which are all consistent with the evidence. It's a convenience: the simplest model is the easiest to use. If there's no reason not to use it, then use it. That's not what we're doing here. Occam's Razor states nothing about the correctness of a theory.
I can't explain some of the denser partical physics to me, and I'm almost a doctor of engineering. Those theorys still make predictions tested in experiments. Einstein's relativity, to pick a familiar example, has made provable predictions in a huge number of experiments involving everything from gravitational lensing of starlight around the edge of the sun to atomic clocks running slow at high speeds to really weird shit involving gravity waves detected by huge detectors buried underground. Whether you or your bartender understand it is irrelevant.
String theory and classical physics make the same predictions at relatively low energies. At high energies, they differ. Unfortunately, the energy necessary to test string theory is beyond us for now, so it's thought of by many physicists as a steaming pile of crap. Not because it's necessarily wrong, but because Occam's Razor says just use the classical model because we can't tell the difference and the classical model is simpler.
What probabilty? You've clearly never taken a proper mathematical probabilty course. The probability that anything occurs depends on the variables. Maybe the process that created the universe had only a few stable states. How many times did it run? What process? It's all crap, talking in a vacuum. It's not possible to come to a conclusion without data, and we have none. So you can participate in a philosophical circle jerk if you like, but in the end you'll probably come to the conclusion you expected in the first place. That's why data is king in science. People are really shit at philosophical physics. It's something in our humours.
Yes, the sun is about 5 billion years old. That's the line they've been using since I was a kid anyway.
What argument can be made? It's a new one to me, and I read a fair bit about that sort of thing.
Is this your line of reasoning now? God made the universe, but he just wasn't good enough at this whole universe making deal to make it all unfold like he wanted, so he meddled a bit more and fixed his mistakes to make life? Some omnipotent God he is.
Buy on AliExpress.com
