what if paradox

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"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

I have always found this perspective to be interesting, if a bit misleading,
Double-A.

Have you considered that this label is indicative of an intelligent human's
inferiority complex?
Why just blindly accept the label?
Why not question it?
Maybe you can even bring yourself to believe that a qualified and passionate
psychologist would "expand" your mind rather "shrink your head"?

The only pills I push are those which promote balance, memory and
comprehension skills.
The only thing I really like to shrink is ignorance.

But if in the end, you would still like your head shrunk, then yes, I am
qualified to do that, too.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"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.

For the purpose of getting your ideas across, Mr. Caselli, "small" and
"unlikely" mean the same thing.
And your English is not so bad.
Your problem with the English language is indeed a small one.
You are encouraged to continue defeating it.

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...

Many people these days talk about the observable universe, the universe that
can be seen or sensed.
Are you able to see that the usage of the term "observable universe" leads
to the acceptance of an infinite universe?
Can you see that there is little difference between one infinite universe
and an infinite set of universes (multverse)?
Can you understand that the ultrafine tuning is the natural result of
vibrational balance over a periond of time?
Learn from Earth's natural satellite.

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.

You are not insane, Mr. Caselli, although your humor is not lost on me.

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

Luigi Caselli



One such as yourself never "needs" a psychologist.
One such as yourself needs to continue to expand his mind, beyond
engineering, beyond chess, beyond multiversing.
I suspect you will have little or no trouble doing this.

You mentioned the "Great Architect(s)".
The people of your planet did not begin believing in these until long AFTER
your science was established.
But since your ancient science was unable to make people feel small enough,
the GAs were needed to give them a sense of humility and a sense of
morality.

There is no more need for them, and their continued presence is vestigial.
Your science today does quite well making people feel that their presence
here is . . .

unlikely.

This is at one and the same time your science's main endearing quality, and
also its main fault and weakness.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"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...

Yes, Mr. Caselli, we are aware of the theory, its creator and all its
believers.
Dr. Bostrum is enjoying his talent, and his influence is spreading, albeit
slowly.
He should be commended for his work, as some of it is quite genius.
But the simulation argument is easily refuted and will be soundly put to
rest very soon.

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.

I have already explained why you like it more.
Accepting this reason is your next step toward balance and enlightenment.

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



Always doubt, be ever the skeptic.
For this is one jumping board to great knowledge and wisdom.

The universe actually appears so wrong for us--for all of us--all of life.
Yet life manages to exist virtually everywhere in the galaxy and probably
the entire universe.
It is so difficult to accept and believe that you are "larger than life".
Yet you must, and you will.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
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


You are an instigator, Mr. Glazier.
This is your great asset and, at the same time, your greatest fault.
You know little of Aristotle and Plato, as well as Plato's teacher,
Socrates.
It all began with Socrates, you know--even the acceptance of suicide as an
honorable choice began with him.

Socrates could have saved himself and did not.
Can humans think beyond Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?
Can you rise above even Descartes, Newton and Einstein?

Of course you can, and you must.
And you will, eventually.
Do continue in your faulty instigation, Mr. Glazier.
It does less harm than good, and more good than you know.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

"Twittering One" wrote in message
...
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


It is an aspect of maturity to deal rationally with inconsistencies, so--

Rage! Rage, rage against the dying of the NIGHT!

You also are cute, Ms. Z., but then, you were projecting, weren't you?

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

You are an instigator, Mr. Glazier.
This is your great asset and, at the same time, your greatest fault.
You know little of Aristotle and Plato, as well as Plato's teacher,
Socrates.
It all began with Socrates, you know--even the acceptance of suicide as an
honorable choice began with him.

Socrates could have saved himself and did not.
Can humans think beyond Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?
Can you rise above even Descartes, Newton and Einstein?

Of course you can, and you must.
And you will, eventually.
Do continue in your faulty instigation, Mr. Glazier.
It does less harm than good, and more good than you know.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

An honrable choice?
A last resort.
A sure sign, all's awry,
Wrong. A song de Misery.
Mr. Glazier, no, not wrong ~
Just Dunkin, my Boston's
Creme de la creme.
My lost and found.

_______
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

It is an aspect of maturity to deal rationally with inconsistencies, so--

Rage! Rage, rage against the dying of the NIGHT!

You also are cute, Ms. Z., but then, you were projecting, weren't you?

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.


Not. I saw.
I record, I responded.
I heard.

_______
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

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:19:07 GMT, "Dr. Yubiwan"
wrote:

Hi, kookers -- here's some work for you.
HTH.C

You are at one and the same time, Mr. Bohne, a Janus-faced "stotting
tommie", and a confounded, blithering idiot.

Yet, you do have a few redeeming negative traits as well.
If you would like me to address these, just ask.

You are a boon to the skeptics of your species.
Keep up the great needlework!

D. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

Hi Dr. Yubiwan,PhD. Don't know what you posted was a compliment(but
I'll take it as one.) Came up with Plato and Aristotal to be a wise
guy with a little "humor" Could have mentioned "Claudius Ptolemy" He
after all lived in Alexandria,and that was a center of "intellectual"
life in his spacetime. His philosophy(thinking) was challenged by
Copernicus. My posting was to show thinking evolves,and the Google of
today is not the same Google of tomorrow. Glad you mentioned
Newton,Einstien and others to bring my evolving thinking post up to
almost up to "now" Bert

"Twittering One" wrote in message
...
You are an instigator, Mr. Glazier.
This is your great asset and, at the same time, your greatest fault.
You know little of Aristotle and Plato, as well as Plato's teacher,
Socrates.
It all began with Socrates, you know--even the acceptance of suicide as an
honorable choice began with him.

Socrates could have saved himself and did not.
Can humans think beyond Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?
Can you rise above even Descartes, Newton and Einstein?

Of course you can, and you must.
And you will, eventually.
Do continue in your faulty instigation, Mr. Glazier.
It does less harm than good, and more good than you know.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.

An honrable choice?
A last resort.
A sure sign, all's awry,
Wrong. A song de Misery.
Mr. Glazier, no, not wrong ~
Just Dunkin, my Boston's
Creme de la creme.
My lost and found.

_______
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


To quote one of your colleagues, Ms. Z.--

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

And from the same writing a few lines down--

"We that have free souls, it touches us not: let the galled jade wince, our
withers are unwrung."

So, may I boldly add--

"And our chimes? . . . Unwringable."

There is nothing wrong with dreams and dreaming.
The fault lies in one's choice to remain asleep.

Waking up is so very hard to do.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.