#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
re ashmore's paradox | lyndonashmore | Misc | 35 | April 4th 04 07:31 AM |
The Fermi Paradox and Economics | John Ordover | SETI | 126 | November 19th 03 12:05 AM |
Out of the Bubble, the Fermi Paradox | Simon Laub | SETI | 0 | September 19th 03 04:02 PM |
Fondation on Olbers' Paradox | telove | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 28th 03 12:09 AM |
Foundation on Olbers' Paradox | telove | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 26th 03 09:39 PM |