I'd suggest that it is far more probable than the idea that life is the result of nothing more than incredibly fortuitous blind processes without an intelligent root. No?
Then one reasonable conclusion is that your estimate of the chances are way off. The processes involved may have a much higher chance of producing life than you think and your understanding of the number of "rolls of the dice" are colossally off.
Also you are obviously wrong if we make some judgements about the nature of unicorns. If they are at all horse like then we know the odds of unicorns on the moon are very, very, extremely, very close to zero.
On the other hand the experiments we have done so far indicate that life arising through reasonable chemical processes is certainly non-zero.
Again, my only nitpick with Stile's position is that I'd say I'm "very confident" that God does not objectively exist (very small error bar), not I "know" that God does not objectively exist.
I think Stile is using "know" in exactly the way that means "very confident". He's tried hard to make it clear that we can never *know* anything in the way that you used the word there but we pretty much *always* use it to mean very (or very, very, very) confident.
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to suggest that there's 11 dimensions. But it's a hypothesis being tested that can probably never be able to be confirmed.
Maybe as far as you're concerned but there are reasons to suggest 11 dimensions. They are powerful reasons if you know the history of physics. They're enough to create an hypothesis. There are even ongoing experiments to try to test the idea. There is nothing to support the hypothesis yet and it could very well be wrong. However, using Stile's definition of "rational" (which seems to be close to what almost everyone uses in regular day-to-day life) the idea of 11 dimensions is "rational".
From that you cannot say that you 'know' that such a thing doesn't exist.
Stile has been careful to define how he uses the word "know". You are not using the same "know".
Stile is attempting to capture how we all use the word in everyday language. You are using another definition that most of us mix up with the everyday usage.
The whole discussion between the two of you is only about which "know" applies or is most useful.
What you can say is that given the state of our current knowledge, it is unlikely to exist.
And that is exactly how most of us, most of the time, apply the word "know". When the likelihood of something is estimated to be low enough we say we "know" that isn't real. We may all have different values on "low enough" and have different values for "low enough" for different things but that is how we mean "know"
We do not get all pedantic (most of the time) and say "While I am not sure about this being non existent I estimate the probability to be 0.0000001." Instead we say "bullshit".
We also (other than in scientific papers) do not say things like "This suggests that the results have a bearing on the discussion at hand." Instead we say "That proves it!" Even you and I who know at some level of chance nothing is proved will still use that shorthand.
Is the article you are referring to the wiki one about measuring time differences between atomic clocks? I couldn't find a mention of the sagana effect in it. Could you point me to a description.
I would note that Vimesey hasn't been very clear and careful in what he's said to you and that may have contributed to your confusion and apparent disagreement. But then you discuss your trip and being 60 when you son is 62 when you meet up again and have that result right at least which was, I think, Vimesey's only point.
Now I'll stick my neck out and talk as if I actually understood relativity well. (Ha!).
A number of people when exposed to the crazy results of relativistic calculations get the idea that somehow the motion or gravitational fields are messing the clocks up. You've hinted at that in your posts.
This is not correct. The clocks in all the various frames of reference are all working fine and measuring time correctly. What is actually happening is that the passage of time being measured is itself changing. But the change can only be perceived by observations from another frame of reference. And there is no "correct" frame.
The results of the calculations have been tested, tested and tested again. They are correct. Our understanding of the universe derived from our local, slow, middle scale observations is wrong. Period.
If you think otherwise and you actually think you can over turn special and general relativity then you are also wrong. Very, very wrong. Period.
An atomic clock sitting at sea level and one sitting in Denver Colorado will not keep the same time unless the one in Denver is adjusted for the elevation of 5k+ feet.
Yes, and the amount is exactly calculated by general relativity.
But what is this time you are measuring? Are they calculations or something physical you can measure. You can't measure duration. You can only measure the duration between events. So how do you measure time?
I don't think I really know what time is other than 1 of the components of spacetime. It appears to be simply one of the dimensions of that 4 dimensional object.
People with a lot more smarts than I have has already done that. Or at least they have very different views.
No, they don't. But to discuss that you will have to name those smart folks and how they support their views. If you mean Sagnac his experiments were shown to be compatible with relativity over a century ago so that doesn't count.