|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Water As An Element of Fine-Tuning | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, hooray for bismuth.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-01-2004 03:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No......it's amazing that there's JUST one.......which means we got in just under the wire. It means there were JUST enough elements present and JUST enough potential compounds......and THAT is fine-tuning. Tell me, when a guy wins the lottery, do you immediately assume that he cheated, or that God had a direct hand in his winning? Because your argument applies there. Since only one ticket in a million won, clearly he got in under the wire, and the lottery was fine-tuned for him to win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If he was the ONLY guy who ever won the lottery? So, the first guy to win the lottery cheated?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash, since when are "first" and "only" synonyms? Before the second, first and only are the same thing. This isn't Zen, Jason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
you know the first guy to win was not the only one? He was before the second guy. Think, people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So you're moving the goalposts. Gotcha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
.likewise, since there's ONE universal solvent which expands when frozen, regardless of the varying laws of phyisics We don't know that, though. There's only one set of laws of physics we're aware of; we have no idea what things would be like in any others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
but it can't be DIFFERENT....... Because then it wouldn't be matter? Rather circular, don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No, because relativity and the laws of physics don't effect quantum processes Huh? Quantum processes are the laws of physics. That's why quantum mechanics is a theory of physics. You've left all bounds of sense, now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Oh, I get it. You think the theory of relativity constitutes all laws of physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Nope......but defying relativity is proof that many if not all of the laws of physics don't apply to quanta. That's idiotic. I see that it's even worse than I suspected - you can't tell the difference between the laws of physics and our models of them. The model is not the reality, Jason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's simple fact that many of the laws of physics don't apply to quanta. Oh, certainly our models of relativity don't describe quantum behavior. But to take that fact and proclaim that quanta don't obey the laws of physics is simply idiotic. You've confused the laws of physics with our understanding of them. You've confused the map with the territory. And now that I point this out, you're so embarrased that you accuse me of "babbling." Typical. Either that, or you're simply unable to understand the distinction between the model and the reality. Your loss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The Copenhagen (I.E. vast majority) interpretation is that we know all of quantum function that is knowable Not according to my sources:
quote: I don't see anything like what you say the interpretation is. Feel free to cite your own source, please. Of course, there's every possibility that the Copenhagen Interpretation is outright wrong, according to recent experiments by Shahriar Afshar:
quote: mm, cookies. Out of curiosity, does this constitute evidence that Bohr was wrong for the other thread? Lessee...
quote: Why, I do believe it does. I must apologize; I was aware of this experiment the whole time, and I could have saved us all a great deal of time by bringing it up before, but I was having no success finding the literature on the experiment until I literally stumbled across it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024