Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:16:55 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:13:00 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

Ray
Well my idea of sci fi is the Hollywood type sci fi, ie unreal and
largely fantasy based. Which is why I said I don't like to link this
with sci fi. I do think there are merits in what Bostrom and the
rest put forward even if I find them strange or odd. This is not
what I would call sci fi but I accept others may disagree.

If and when I ever see the matrix Hollywood film I am sure I would
call it sci fi.

Sorry for any confusion.

nightbat

No confusion Ray, for I understand exactly that you would
prefer
sci fi being left out of real science based presentations but they are
now actually theoretically incorporating part of them and Hollywood
non distinguishing. The movie " The Matrix " was actually based on the
no evidence multiverse sci fi super string and M theory implying
parallel universe premise.

the nightbat


Ray
Maybe I misunderstand you, or maybe we misunderstand each other. I still
don't see that super string and or M theory are or were sci fi. If there
is one thing I can feel very confident about is that whatever comes out
of Hollywood, or any other film making studio for that matter will have
very little fact or reality about it, it is just not science. the
trouble is people watch it and sadly all too often believe what they
see. I could go to town in the morning and rent out the Matrix, I could
have done that at any time since the film became available, but I have
not simply because I'm not really interested, oh I'm sure it's mildly
entertaining and so forth but well you know.....

nightbat

The key word here is evidence, science needs it and is based on
it. While on the other hand sci fi is based on purely theoretical
speculation, mathematical or otherwise. Hollywood is based on make
believe entertaining fantasy so multiverse premise extension was right
up their ally.


Ray
The multiverse idea didn't come about through sci fi, it is a serious
attempt to explain what we cannot yet explain, the same for string and
M theory. It is not surprising these ideas seem weird, they are weird,
yet what is more weird than quantum theory/mechanics yet no one says
that is sci fi.

nightbat

Quantum theory/mechanics is effects evidence based on the
Einstein working applied relativistic mathematical formulations and the
photo electric effect. The only thing using your terminology " weird "
is that its particles reside in the sub micro invisible quantum and
Heisenberg uncertainty realm states. Multiverse premise is no evidence
theory originating therefore fantasy sci fi based.

Ray
Whether there are multiverses or not I don't know and
no one does for sure but is it not wrong to dismiss it outright.

nightbat

No one in the serious science research disciplines dismisses
anything out right, the multiverse premise however negates itself via
the absence of any observationally confirmed or co peer substantiated
evidence. Multi string 10 and M theory's 11 dimension+ basis to date has
no correlating basis in real world reality or observation. It is all
purely mathematical hypothetical mixed-up overlapping value based
speculation, therefore, purely evidence absence and mentally derived sci
fi based. If a researcher has nothing to base his derived or
mathematical deduced " non proofed " or frame concept in the absence of
any observational, mathematical proofed formulations, or co peer
affirmed evidence, it is pure fantasy, make believe, and therefore sci
fi.



Ray
Once
our ancestors thought we were so special that the earth was the be all
and end all of the universe, then over time it dawned on us that the
universe was slightly more than that, and then again the universe got
even bigger and we got ever smaller within it, why should we now think
that this universe is the be all and end all?, it would seem rather
naive of us to assume outright that this is indeed the only universe
and dismiss the possibility that there are others or indeed an infinite
number of others.

nightbat

Again Ray, key word is need for evidence. No one assumes
anything, that I'm aware of, in the serious science research discipline
arenas. In the fun sci fi world, on the other hand, everything and
anything can and is assumed.


Ray
And if it turns out that the best explanation or theory that best
describes our universe turns out to rely on the existence of other
universes existing then thats the way it will be.

nightbat

The best theory which describes the working Universe (Presently
the Standard Model ) is the one most applicable and useful to real world
application. One that is supported by confirmed co peer observation,
evidence, and factual applied results not pseudo assumed non working
fantasy make-up. Without confirmed observation or co peer acknowledged
and supported evidence everything else remains pure speculation and sci
fi hype.

Look Ray, you can take this to the bank, there is only one
observed confirmed Universe, anyone tells you otherwise, in the absence
of some supporting observation or co peer accepted evidence is simply
spouting attention grabbing and entertaining mental fantasy based sci
fi.


the nightbat