what if paradox

"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote in message
...
"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in some
of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000
possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20
times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in
terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend
going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly
feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to
take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.



And may I add that a belief that you are a simulation is also related to
your feelings of smallness, of helplessness, of inferiority.

The only reason you choose rather to believe in an infinite multiverse is
simply because this makes you feel even smaller than you would feel if you
accepted the simulation hypothesis.

You are encouraged to begin a study of the small.

When you have studied down into the Planck area for awhile, then see where
your imagination takes you.

If you think simulation and multiversing is humbling, just wait until you
envision the constituent makeup of subatomic "particles".

Only then will you experience--and exhibit--behavioral humility.

Only then will you begin to sense true balance.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

nightbat wrote

"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote:

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in some of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000 possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20 times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

nightbat

So a welcomed voice of reason in the present projected Earth
theoretical sci fi mental darkness of multiverse reasoning. Hmmmmm, and
with Darla's and the Pere's net address to boot, are you, Dr. Yubiwan, a
purported former Earth person now alien crew member, Earth based
friendly observer, or out in space present alien mission left behind net
observer? I don't remember your ever making your presence known before
on this science newsgroup. Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm
nightbat at your humble service. Please don't be so hard on some of the
book promoting and theory liking earth folks for their propensity for
multiverse for it is more because it apparently has such large gullible
commercial monetary producing value interest then actual reality
anchored one.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote:

"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote in message
...
"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in some
of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000
possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20
times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in
terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend
going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly
feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to
take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.



And may I add that a belief that you are a simulation is also related to
your feelings of smallness, of helplessness, of inferiority.

The only reason you choose rather to believe in an infinite multiverse is
simply because this makes you feel even smaller than you would feel if you
accepted the simulation hypothesis.

You are encouraged to begin a study of the small.

When you have studied down into the Planck area for awhile, then see where
your imagination takes you.

If you think simulation and multiversing is humbling, just wait until you
envision the constituent makeup of subatomic "particles".

Only then will you experience--and exhibit--behavioral humility.

Only then will you begin to sense true balance.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

nightbat

Wait a minute, respectfully mystery strange Dr. Yubiwan, are you
saying by indicating awareness of micro Planck sub quantum states that
you have means to actually observe all of them? By what means are you
able to not only detect them but actually ascertain their particular
existence? And human reality sim theory is also non evidence based ad
hoc theory, not taken Earth seriously except perhaps by certain hype
promoting theorists and the sci fi loving crowd. Ha, ha, ha, ha,
nightbat is one of the most humble logic balanced and science passion
driven Earthman you'll ever meet.


the nightbat

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in some of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000 possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20 times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.


Ah, all those shrinks are just pill pushing quacks and charlatans!

Wait a minite!

Are you a shrink?

Double-A

"Dr. Yubiwan" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in some
of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000
possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20
times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in
terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend
going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly
feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to
take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

I'm italian so I have some problem to explain my ideas in english language.
Maybe "small" wasn't the right term, probably "unlikely" is the right one.
Do you really think that with only one universe you can justify the
incredible ultrafine tuning that allows us to live?
I don't like multiverse theory so much but I don't see any other way to
explain that.
Unless you believe in one or more Great Architets...

About the psychologist you're completely right, being an electronic engineer
and having a chess international title it's sure that I'm totally insane.

Anyway the multiverse theory is not my theory... so maybe there's a lot of
people that need a psychologist

Luigi Caselli

"Dr. Yubiwan" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote in message
...
"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are
limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in
this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in
some
of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely
lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000
possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20
times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a
discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in
terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend
going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly
feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to
take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.



And may I add that a belief that you are a simulation is also related to
your feelings of smallness, of helplessness, of inferiority.

The only reason you choose rather to believe in an infinite multiverse is
simply because this makes you feel even smaller than you would feel if you
accepted the simulation hypothesis.

You are encouraged to begin a study of the small.

When you have studied down into the Planck area for awhile, then see where
your imagination takes you.

If you think simulation and multiversing is humbling, just wait until you
envision the constituent makeup of subatomic "particles".

Only then will you experience--and exhibit--behavioral humility.

Only then will you begin to sense true balance.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

Again, simulation theory is not my theory, you can read about it at
http://www.simulation-argument.com
Why don't you talk about it with Nick Bostrom? I think it would be
interesting...

Or you can read at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...358588,00.html that some other
people are talking about it.

Anyway I think multiverse theory is more scientific and less weird (and
maybe scaring) than simulation theory.
So I like it more.

But if you're sure that by chance we're wonderfully leaving in a universe so
right for us, well for you...
It's so good living without doubts...

Luigi Caselli

Hi Dr. Yubiwan Alias "Darla"Pere" You remind me of Aristotle(and me)
Just in reality thinkers. nightbat likes actuate measurements,and
ideas that are proven in lab. experiments. He has not come to the
realization our universe is to big for us to measure. He has a finite
based mind,and lives with a hope a yard stick might come along to
measure the universe with.(never can happen) Aristotal was an inside
out thinker(that's all he did was think period) Good or bad his thinking
caused others to think too. His thinking told the intelligent world at
that time that heavy objects fall faster than light ones,and that lasted
for 2,000 years. Still with this very bad knowledge it created a
thought in Gallileo's mind to test this,and he proved Aristotle was
wrong. Common sense that Aristotle had a lot of kind of tells you heavy
stuff should fall faster(nature did not think so). Back 2500 years ago
philosophy(thinking out loud) and Plato,and Aristotal were the great
philosophers and people for thousands of years were brain washed with
some of their bad ideas. Plato or Aristotle never" tested their ideas.
Here is a good example. According to Aristotle a projectile does not
fallow a curved path. He stated that it proceeds in a straight line for
a certain distance,and then drops straight down.Hmmmm To bad Plato and
Aristotle did not play a little catch together,instead of sitting in the
hot tub,and telling each other how smart they both were,and playing
hands finding body parts.(balls) Bert

o bad Plato and
Aristotle did not play a little catch together,instead of sitting in the
hot tub,and telling each other how smart they both were,and playing
hands finding body parts.(balls) Bert

you're cute bert

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote:

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are
limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in
this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in
some of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely
lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000
possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20
times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a
discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in
terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend
going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly
feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to
take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

nightbat

So a welcomed voice of reason in the present projected Earth
theoretical sci fi mental darkness of multiverse reasoning. Hmmmmm, and
with Darla's and the Pere's net address to boot, are you, Dr. Yubiwan, a
purported former Earth person now alien crew member, Earth based
friendly observer, or out in space present alien mission left behind net
observer?

If your school were to bestow on me the highest title for my qualifications,
I would be your world's first "astropsychologist".
I study the behavior of the species which we encounter and, if needed, I try
to help where I can.
No, Nightbat, I am not of your species, but I have lived on your planet and
studied human behavior for a long time.

Another of my functions is to assess the readiness (A.R.) of a species for
contact.
We use two main factors in this assessment: the mean (average) AR itself,
and the AR RANGE.
The AR is a ratio of individuals whom we perceive as ready to the number of
individuals not yet ready.
RANGE goes from the lowest assessed AR to the highest.

Say a species has an AR ranging from 0.378 to 0.540.
The mean AR would be 0.459, and the RANGE would be the difference, 0.162.
This represents a species that is very close to being ready overall for
contact (the higher the AR, and the lower the RANGE, the closer to
readiness).

And these figures represent where humans presently find yourselves.
This level of readiness is what prompted Pere and Darla to approve
unnofficial contacts such as those made in this newsgroup.

I don't remember your ever making your presence known before
on this science newsgroup. Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm
nightbat at your humble service. Please don't be so hard on some of the
book promoting and theory liking earth folks for their propensity for
multiverse for it is more because it apparently has such large gullible
commercial monetary producing value interest then actual reality
anchored one.


the nightbat


I understand how my assessment of the Italian poster might be perceived as
"hard."
Rest assured that these are not meant to be "hard" nor "soft" or "easy".
Objectivity is the byword, and when sensed as the Italian has sensed it, is
rarely challenged violently and usually at least accepted as a possibility.

The Italian is a thinker and is an important part of the list of individual
humans who are ready for contact.
In point of fact, nearly all the people who post to this newsgroup, as well
as sci.astro and the many other science groups, are on our "ready list".

And thank you for your introduction, though it is hardly needed.
Silouen is safe and sound, and you may never be fully aware of all that this
means to us.
And your action was critical to Silouen's rescue.

The smart astronomy "money" will always create ideas which promote astronomy
to the public.
The savviest scientists know the general psyche, the "pulse" of the people,
and will use this to further their research.
This is the value of "simulation" and "multiversing".

And it is the value of your so called "Big Bang" theory of the beginning of
the universe.
Have you ever considered how this may be linked to a general underlying
human desire to die peacefully in bed?
(what comes in like a lion goes out like a lamb)

Only those like Mr. Sheppard, who find a slow "heat death" distastefully
boring, will seriously argue against your present-day physics and cosmology.
And they are in the minority, as most humans like the idea of an explosive
beginning and a peaceful, "everything is right", "no loose ends", "all bases
are covered" ending.

The closer humans get to the ability to handle reality and the farther from
believing your fantasies are indeed true, the closer you come to being
mentally stable and ready.

D. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote:

"Dr. Yubiwan" wrote in message
...
"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are
limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in
this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in
some
of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely
lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000
possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20
times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation
nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for
the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a
discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in
terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend
going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly
feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense
of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like
to
take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.



And may I add that a belief that you are a simulation is also related to
your feelings of smallness, of helplessness, of inferiority.

The only reason you choose rather to believe in an infinite multiverse
is
simply because this makes you feel even smaller than you would feel if
you
accepted the simulation hypothesis.

You are encouraged to begin a study of the small.

When you have studied down into the Planck area for awhile, then see
where
your imagination takes you.

If you think simulation and multiversing is humbling, just wait until
you
envision the constituent makeup of subatomic "particles".

Only then will you experience--and exhibit--behavioral humility.

Only then will you begin to sense true balance.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

nightbat

Wait a minute, respectfully mystery strange Dr. Yubiwan, are you
saying by indicating awareness of micro Planck sub quantum states that
you have means to actually observe all of them? By what means are you
able to not only detect them but actually ascertain their particular
existence? And human reality sim theory is also non evidence based ad
hoc theory, not taken Earth seriously except perhaps by certain hype
promoting theorists and the sci fi loving crowd. Ha, ha, ha, ha,
nightbat is one of the most humble logic balanced and science passion
driven Earthman you'll ever meet.


the nightbat


Yes, Nightbat.
The small is as observable as your instruments will allow.
Our instruments can detect the tiniest (and the greatest) energies, so yes
we can observe all of them.

To use one of your phrases, please don't be too hard on your "hype promoting
theorists".
As long as they base their ideas upon observational/empirical facts, nobody
can disprove their ideas.
And as long as the lay public remains interested--even fascinated--by these
ideas, your scientists will be able to continue their great work.

The downside, of course, is when these ideas promote higher rather than
lower levels of fantasy in people's minds.
This tends to lower the human level of readiness for contact.
However, the changes, the "vibrations", are a necessary "evil".
Many times an AR dip is soon followed by a dramatic jump in the level.
Your last dramatic jump was the discovery and increasing awareness of NEOs
and their devastating potential.

We expect your next jump to come very soon, and at that time there will be
no question as to human readiness for contact.

Nightbat, your passion, and your readiness, are noted and applauded!

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.