Will science prove the existence of parallel universes!?

[Valmy]

That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science.  If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.

Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.

[LaCroix]

how would alternate universes that couldn't support life hurt the argument that a being created the multiverse? it might hurt the argument that this universe with its rules was created specifically so humans could one day emerge, but that's already an egotistical and flawed argument.

[Razgovory]

That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science.  If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.

Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.

Simply coherent.

[grumbler]

That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science.  If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.

Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.

I really don't think you are wise to even engage the troll.  You know this will only end in tears or gunfire.

[crazy canuck]

Its days like this that I really wish Hamilcar was still amongst us.

[Razgovory]

That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science.  If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.

Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.

I really don't think you are wise to even engage the troll.  You know this will only end in tears or gunfire.

He's trying to marry me!  Jesus Christ!

[lustindarkness]

Comic books have solved all of this a long time ago, why get real science involved and risk ruining all those good comic book stories?

[Valmy]

Simply coherent.

It seems more simply throwing out babies because of racist bathwater.

[grumbler]

how would alternate universes that couldn't support life hurt the argument that a being created the multiverse? it might hurt the argument that this universe with its rules was created specifically so humans could one day emerge, but that's already an egotistical and flawed argument.

The idea that multiple universes make the known universe "more natural" is a philosophical argument, not a scientific or logical one.  It gets its power from the intuitive but erroneous idea that holds that highly unlikely results are only possible if many results occur and you can search and find the unlikely one. 

I suppose the creator theory that includes a bunch of "useless' universes leads to the question of why a creator would create useless universes.  Its much like the "theory" of "Unintelligent Design" which notes all the things about the universe that no intelligent designer would possibly have included (like blood vessels in the human eye that are placed to block vision, or the fact that the optic nerve connects to the retina on the light-receiving side, blocking part of the retina).  None of this is logically necessary; the burden of proof is on those who propose supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

[Razgovory]

Simply coherent.

It seems more simply throwing out babies because of racist bathwater.

How much bad bathwater is required in your opinion to throw out a baby?  Does it differ if the water is provided by an eminent philosopher, some nobody or someone you agree with?

[Valmy]

Does it differ if the water is provided by an eminent philosopher, some nobody or someone you agree with?

It is the context more than the who, obviously. I would be far less tolerant of somebody alive today in my own culture having those kinds of views than I would Scottish people living hundreds of years ago. But even then hey I still listen to what Lettow says. When/if Lettow says something else that is brilliant I will not refuse to listen just because I disagree with him elsewhere.

[crazy canuck]

how would alternate universes that couldn't support life hurt the argument that a being created the multiverse? it might hurt the argument that this universe with its rules was created specifically so humans could one day emerge, but that's already an egotistical and flawed argument.

The important change is that physicists had once believed that theoretical models could explain how everything in the Universe worked because most everything seemed to follow what appeared to be a universal constant for life to exist.  The challenge was to find the right theoretical models.  However, when the Higgs Boson particle was discovered it turned out to have a mass which was different then that predicted by the single universe "naturalness" theory.  But on the other hand it didn't have the mass which was predicted by the multiverse theory either.  The mass was something in between.  And so since that discovery physicists have been eagerly awaiting the re-opening of CERN so that higher energy collisions can be created and perhaps other particles can be detected which may be consistent with the single naturalness universe.  If they are not found then the multi universe theory will be more likely.  It that is the case then that would be discouraging for many physicists, not to mention theologians, because it would mean that everything, our universe and every other universe, including the physical properties of those countless universes, are entirely random.

[The Brain]

People think a lot about useless things.

[The Brain]

Yeah, I'm not buying the "unnatural" argument here.  There seems to be a presumption that our current understanding of the universe is close to complete, and that the mysteries that are unexplained can be described by assuming multiple universes.  It reminds me too much of Lord Kelvin's support for a youngish (20-40 million years) earth driven by the mistaken understanding of the source of the Sun's energy as well as the earth's internal temperature.  It wasn't until radioactive decay and fusion were discovered that his (perfectly correct based on what he knew) reasoning was shown conclusively false.  Sometimes the smartest man in the room comes to the wrong conclusion.

Jazz or cuisine?

[Razgovory]

Does it differ if the water is provided by an eminent philosopher, some nobody or someone you agree with?

It is the context more than the who, obviously. I would be far less tolerant of somebody alive today in my own culture having those kinds of views than I would Scottish people living hundreds of years ago. But even then hey I still listen to what Lettow says. When/if Lettow says something else that is brilliant I will not refuse to listen just because I disagree with him elsewhere.

I actually listen to Lettow quite abit.  He is brilliant.  Mad but brilliant.  I brought up the racism thing because it undermines his carrot argument.  He can't even identify a human being, his expertise on the complexity of carrots is questionable.