Jim Balter

Santa Barbara, CA, United States

Someone is shy

Edit profile

Jim hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jim Balter
Posted 10 days ago
Allan Adams: The discovery that could rewrite physics
The question was whether *we* can reproduce the Big Bang. The answer is that we can't because of the energy required. None of what you wrote -- even if it weren't confused and unsubstantiated -- is germane. And I shouldn't be anymore, but I'm always somewhat shocked at the arrogance of claims that no human can understand what the author purports to know.
Noface
Jim Balter
Posted 10 days ago
Allan Adams: The discovery that could rewrite physics
"Lets wait till we die, maybe then we'll learn something. " I find the idea that we can learn something when our brains cease to function to be offensive to the entire history and findings of science. " Or we'll just rot. ;) " yes, we *know* that happens. "Lets suppose there is a multiverse, so where are all the universes? Are they floating in some kind of cosmic bath? Of course not, so they have to be contained inside something even bigger. " Your "of course"s do not follow and are contrary to our current best understanding. See Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing". "According to the most basic law of physics if there was nothing to begin with, there is nothing now. " There is no such law of physics. Laws of physics are nothing like that. "information (aka. matter)" Information and matter are very different things. " Buddhists are the closest to truth I guess" Only if you reduce them to expressing hollow tautologies.
Noface
Jim Balter
Posted 10 days ago
Allan Adams: The discovery that could rewrite physics
" I think the leap from acknowledging that our known universe is a bubble of expanding matter to the concept of the existence of other adjacent bubbles of matter/reality (i.e. universes) does not necessarily follow." *Concepts* are not propositions; they aren't the sort of thing that might or might not be necessarily so. And Adams didn't say that it necessarily follows that there are other universes, so you're attacking a strawman. And when talking about logical necessity, evidence is completely irrelevant. "I certainly acknowledge that it makes sense that there *could* be other universes" Then you acknowledge the concept. "I see no evidence that there *should be*, or that there *are*, other universes." Not evidence, but logic ... that you don't see it isn't relevant. Here's the thing: *if* our universe arose from background "stuff" (Adams doesn't get technical about what that is; for that, see Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing"), then there is no nomological barrier against such events. Given that, it would take extraordinary special pleading to argue that such an event would be unique.
Noface
Jim Balter
Posted 10 days ago
Allan Adams: The discovery that could rewrite physics
"It would also be arrogant to assume that there are other universes. " When someone says that they think P is the only logical conclusion, they may be wrong, but they clearly aren't *assuming* P. The statement was that it would be arrogant to assume that this is the only universe. That statement is true, and you confirm it. The "would also be" is a tu quoque fallacy -- it is irrelevant to the observation that it is arrogant to assume that this is the only universe ... and that assumption is common and is one in a long line of such assumptions about our uniqueness, with all the others having fallen. *If* in fact this universe is a "bubble" that arose from a sea of "stuff" (technically, we can talk about the "quantum vacuum"), then it follows logically that there are other such universes, because the existence of one means that there's no nomological barrier to the occurrence of such events. No argument is evident that there would be only one, and and it's hard to fathom that there could be such an argument or what it would be like.
Noface
Jim Balter
Posted 10 days ago
Allan Adams: The discovery that could rewrite physics
" But the information relayed by those claiming that they do is constantly changing" So it may seem to those who don't understand enough to grasp the commonalities. "and unproved" Science doesn't do proof. I don't think you understand what Sagan was saying or the context of it. He certainly wasn't claiming that the scientific community is a bunch of prevaricators.
Noface
Jim Balter
Posted 10 days ago
Allan Adams: The discovery that could rewrite physics
"The answer to all of this is not 14 billion light years this way or that way. The answer has already visited us. That is truth, my friends." So much for not blindly taking opinion as truth. The Big Bang has nothing to do with blindness and everything to do with following the evidence where it leads. The idea originated with Belgian priest and physicist Georges LemaƮtre but was met with skepticism -- as science demands. But as the confirming evidence came in, honest opposition fell away. What we get from religion is the opposite of honest opposition -- it is ideology and apologetics, which is just an organized form of intellectual dishonesty.