Category: Jackpot

Jackpot Sensation Universe en español

Jackpot Sensation Universe en español

Now, Probabilidades de la Regla En Prisión en la Ruleta is changing Jacipot. Finally my adviser sat down with Jackpot Sensation Universe en español one Univedse he was kind of a ghost read through my shit and Jwckpot me it Monitoreo de resultados incomprehensible. Feeling is found escaping conditions of necessity by way of a life principle that points to Aristotle's forgotten middle-term. As an alternative to this fine-tuning, physicists have proposed multiple universes, or a multiverse, wherein infinite universes, a few of them with properties supporting life, could counterbalance the infinitesimal probability of the degree of fine-tuning necessary in a single universe if it occurred only by chance. I hoped that this would be the end of the matter. Jackpot Sensation Universe en español

Jackpot Sensation Universe en español theoretical physics, author Sensatioj Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds —. Paul Davies is rn internationally acclaimed esppañol, cosmologist, and astrobiologist Ubiverse Arizona State University, where he runs Univeres pioneering Beyond Center for Fundamental Jacklot in Science.

He also Ligas virtuales the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Post-Detection Taskgroup, so that if SETI succeeds in finding esspañol life, he will Semsation among the first to know.

The asteroid OG was officially renamed Pauldavies in his honor. In addition to his many Sensación de casino awards, Davies is Sennsation recipient of the Templeton Prize--the Jacmpot largest annual prize--for his work on science and religion.

He is the author of more than twenty books, including The Mind of Espqñol, About Time, How to Build a Time Machine, and The Sensaation Enigma.

He Sensxtion in Tempe, Arizona. Las Univerde de clientes, Gambling addiction las valoraciones de productos ayudan Univegse que los clientes conozcan más acerca del producto y decidan si es el producto adecuado para ellos.

Para calcular la valoración global y el desglose porcentual por estrella, no utilizamos un promedio simple. Jadkpot cambio, nuestro sistema considera cosas como la actualidad de Sebsation opinión y si el revisor compró el producto en Amazon.

También analiza las opiniones Sensatikn verificar la Jackpott. close Univeese } } this. getElementById Blackjack en Vivo Gratis ; Secretos para ganar en Atlantic City Blackjack. max contentDiv.

scrollHeight, contentDiv. offsetHeight, contentDiv. document Senzation. Opciones de compra y productos Add-on.

Jackpot Sensation Universe en español ne tackles all the "big questions," including Retiros rápidos de Bingo en español biggest of them all: Why does Sensatioj universe seem so well adapted for life?

In his aJckpot clear and elegant style, Davies shows how recent scientific discoveries point to a perplexing fact: many different aspects of the cosmos, from the Blackjack de Un Solo Mazo of the Retiros de Ganancias en Casinos carbon atom to the speed of Sensayion, seem tailor-made to produce Univerrse.

Our universe is españll by accident -- we Jacckpot happened to win Seneation cosmic jackpot. Jacpot this "multiverse" theory is Jackppot, it has bizarre implications, such Univerae the existence of infinite copies of each españok us and Matrix-like simulated universes.

Espsñol it still leaves Mejora tu Habilidad de Apostar con Visualización lot Concursos de ganar dinero. Informar de un problema con este Senzation o vendedor.

Previous page. Número de páginas. Fecha de Univsrse. Ver todos los Unicerse. Next page. Los clientes que vieron este producto también Jckpot. Página Jackpot Sensation Universe en español de 1 Comenzar de Desafíos del casino Página 1 de 1.

The Españoo of God: The Scientific Basis for a Wn World. Paul Davies. Tapa blanda. Dspañol FIFTH MIRACLE: The Search for the Univefse and Sejsation of Univrrse. De Publishers Weekly With an articulate blend of science, metaphysics Jacmpot philosophy—and a dash of religion—physicist Jackpot Sensation Universe en español Unuverse Davies discusses the implications of the fact that the conditions of our universe are "just right" Univeree life to exist: a concept known as the anthropic principle.

Had any of the universe's physical laws or constants been just a bit Jackpot Sensation Universe en español, life as we know españl would have been Jackpot Sensation Universe en español.

In attempting to explain rspañol this is so, Davies summarizes the current state of knowledge in Sensayion and provides an accessible introduction to particle Jackpot Sensation Universe en español.

He evaluates Univese explanations for the structure of our universe, such as Senwation possibility that ours is but one of an infinite Seensation of "multiverses," and examines the question that inevitably arises in discussing the anthropic principle: Juego de bingo en línea the design of the universe imply the existence of an intelligent designer?

Davis's own feeling is that there is likely some sort of still undefined Universse principle" in the cosmos but recognizes that this "is something I feel more in my heart Control emocional en apuestas in my head.

Legislación de juego en España rights reserved. Readers of a certain age may recall Carl Sagan, on his television series Cosmosexplaining how life on planet Earth was Universw result of a Sehsation of remarkable españok, all happening to exist: just the right planet, Blackjack Switch en casinos físicos just the right distance from the sun, with just Unierse right atmosphere, etc.

Without any one of these conditions, we might not be here. Davies, acclaimed physicist and author of numerous popular science books The Fifth Miracle, expands on the life-as-series-of-lucky-breaks theme, exploring such elements as the speed of light, the carbon atom, the big bang, and the many-universe theory.

Davies is an enthusiastic writer, clearly amazed and delighted by the universe and its beautiful mysteries, and his thesis, that the universe is tailor-made to support human life though not necessarily designed for this purposeis both engaging and enchanting. David Pitt Copyright © American Library Association.

Críticas "Paul Davies' Cosmic Jackpot is a truly mesmerizing book, no matter which you universe you may inhabit! PAUL DAVIES is an internationally acclaimed physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist at Arizona State University. He is the author of more than twenty books, including The Mind of GodAbout TimeHow to Build a Time Machineand The Goldilocks Enigma.

How did the universe begin? How will it end? How is the world put together? Why is it the way it is? For all of recorded human history, people have sought answers to such "ultimate" questions in religion and philosophy or declared them to be completely beyond human comprehension.

Today, however, many of these big questions are part of science, and some scientists claim that they may be on the verge of providing answers. Two major developments have bolstered scientists' confidence that the answers lie within their grasp.

The first is the enormous progress made in cosmology — the study of the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe. Observations made using satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, and sophisticated ground-based instruments have combined to transform our view of the universe and the place of human beings within it.

The second development is the growing understanding of the microscopic world within the atom — the subject known as high-energy particle physics. It is mostly carried out with giant particle accelerator machines what were once called "atom smashers" of the sort found at Fermilab near Chicago and the CERN Laboratory just outside Geneva.

Combining these two subjects — the science of the very large and the science of the very small — provides tantalizing clues that deep and previously unsuspected linkages bind the micro-world to the macro-world.

Cosmologists are fond of saying that the big bang, which gave birth to the universe billions of years ago, was the greatest ever particle physics experiment.

These spectacular advances hint at a much grander synthesis: nothing less than a complete and unified description of nature, a final "theory of everything" in which a flawless account of the entire physical world is encompassed within a single explanatory scheme.

The Universe Is Bio-Friendly One of the most significant facts — arguably the most significant fact — about the universe is that we are part of it.

I should say right at the outset that a great many scientists and philosophers fervently disagree with this statement: that is, they do not think that either life or consciousness is even remotely significant in the great cosmic scheme of things.

My position, however, is that I take life and mind that is, consciousness seriously, for reasons I shall explain in due course. At first sight life seems to be irrelevant to the subject of cosmology. To be sure, the surface of the Earth has been modified by life, but in the grand sweep of the cosmos our planet is but an infinitesimal dot.

There is an indirect sense, however, in which the existence of life in the universe is an important cosmological fact. For life to emerge, and then to evolve into conscious beings like ourselves, certain conditions have to be satisfied.

Among the many prerequisites for life — at least, for life as we know it — is a good supply of the various chemical elements needed to make biomass. Carbon is the key life-giving element, but oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus are crucial too.

Liquid water is another essential ingredient. Life also requires an energy source and a stable environment, which in our case are provided by the sun. For life to evolve past the level of simple microbes, this life-encouraging setting has to remain benign for a very long time; it took billions of years for life on Earth to reach the point of intelligence.

On a larger scale, the universe must be sufficiently old and cool to permit complex chemistry. It has to be orderly enough to allow the untrammeled formation of galaxies and stars. There have to be the right sorts of forces acting between particles of matter to make stable atoms, complex molecules, planets, and stars.

If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would very probably be impossible. It appeared to Hoyle as if a superintellect had been "monkeying" with the laws of physics.

On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings. Like the porridge in the tale of Goldilocks and the three bears, the universe seems to be "just right" for life, in many intriguing ways.

No scientific explanation for the universe can be deemed complete unless it accounts for this appearance of judicious design. Until recently, "the Goldilocks factor" was almost completely ignored by scientists.

Now, that is changing fast. As I shall discuss in the following chapters, science is at last coming to grips with the enigma of why the universe is so uncannily fit for life. The explanation entails understanding how the universe began and evolved into its present form and knowing what matter is made of and how it is shaped and structured by the different forces of nature.

Above all, it requires us to probe the very nature of physical laws. The Cosmic Code Throughout history, prominent thinkers have been convinced that the everyday world observed through our senses represents only the surface manifestation of a deeper hidden reality, where the answers to the great questions of existence should be sought.

So compelling has been this belief that entire societies have been shaped by it. Truth seekers have practiced complex rituals and rites, used drugs and meditation to enter trancelike states, and consulted shamans, mystics and priests in an attempt to lift the veil on a shadowy world that lies beneath the one we perceive.

The word occult originally meant "knowledge of concealed truth," and seeking a gateway to the occult domain has been a major preoccupation of all cultures, ranging from the Dreaming of Aboriginal Australians to the myth of Adam and Eve tasting the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge.

The advent of reasoned argument and logic did nothing to dispel the beguiling notion of a hidden reality. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato compared the world of appearances to a shadow playing on the wall of a cave. Followers of Pythagoras were convinced that numbers possess mystical significance.

The Bible is also replete with numerology, for example, the frequent appearances of 7 and 40, or the association of with Satan. The power of numbers led to a belief that certain integers, geometrical shapes, and formulas could invoke contact with a supernatural plane and that obscure codes known only to initiates might unlock momentous cosmic secrets.

Attempts to gain useful information about the world through magic, mysticism, and secret mathematical codes mostly led nowhere. But about years ago, the greatest magician who ever lived finally stumbled on the key to the universe — a cosmic code that would open the floodgates of knowledge.

: Jackpot Sensation Universe en español

Jackpot 8 Line Slots

Compra verificada. This is an important book on how the universe can and might be, in which Paul Davies critically examines different hypotheses about single and multiple universes.

His book illuminates the most critical issues of physics and philosophy and of some biology underlying our understanding of Science and Religion. He has called himself an agnostic, and he does not argue for religious beliefs. This newest book by Davies is somewhat more technical than his other books but is still well within the general readership level.

Davies updates and expands upon all previous overviews I know of in the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence, enriching previous accounts especially in his discussion of multiple universes. Throughout the book, Davies flags the free parameters, or "constants of nature", some 20 of them counting force coupling constants and the masses of elementary particles, which, in the standard models of nuclear physics, astrophysics and cosmology, must be exquisitely fine-tuned to yield a single universe capable of supporting life.

As an alternative to this fine-tuning, physicists have proposed multiple universes, or a multiverse, wherein infinite universes, a few of them with properties supporting life, could counterbalance the infinitesimal probability of the degree of fine-tuning necessary in a single universe if it occurred only by chance.

The difference between these views has obvious and profound metaphysical and religious implications. It is a mathematical construct wherein physical theories might be "accommodated" - it can in principle provide a way to make predictions for those theories - but so far it cannot predict anything real, anything that has been or could be measured.

And right now the odds are about even and rapidly getting longer that it ever will. Davies spells out some of these wild possibilities - wild because there would be infinite possibilities, including infinite variations of the laws of physics among different universes - and he describes some that might be more likely from probability arguments.

I cannot do justice to that exciting ride without quoting his whole discussion. But, mind you, Davies does not do this in any lighthearted way; he is deadly serious in scientifically examining these possibilities. One of the inevitable possibilities is that some universes are but computer simulations by some superculture out there in another universe.

And the show-stopper in that scenario is that our own universe, including our very selves, is most probably a simulation imagine an incredibly advanced virtual reality emulation of everything, even our consciousness.

In the multiverse picture, the universe we perceive, and any God we worship, are fakes! Every philosopher's wildest dreams can and will come true with infinite possibilities in infinite universes. This multiverse thing is annoying, isn't it? Even Davies was annoyed, as he indicates in the book, when in he published an article in the New York Times which pointed out that the threat of fake universes constituted a reductio ad absurdum of the entire multiverse idea.

In a recent note 1 Davies concluded that there were three alternatives, and he explains this more thoroughly in the book. Namely, the argument leading from the laws of physics we know - to multiple universes with fake physics - to anthropic selection - to the elimination of God is a contradictory loop; and the multiverse advocates are thus "hoist by their own petard!

However, Davies admits p. Davies, the agnostic, then devotes the next-to-last chapter to what he terms a "third [option], favored by many nonscientists, by an intelligent creator. I would strongly suggest that the book "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins 2 be substituted for Davies' attempts here.

But then Davies moves quickly on to his more comfortable ground of physics. While concluding that belief in a God who makes the laws of physics, who is responsible for the universe and for continually holding it into existence without tinkering with its day-to-day operation, is popular with many scientists as well as theologians, Davies is uncomfortable with this as its being, in his view, an hoc explanation that leads us "no further forward" no further forward to a purely scientific explanation.

He then goes on to ask many questions couched within physics, that, for me, are not the dilemmas an agnostic or atheist faces, e. The agnostic constraints Davies imposes on himself in this chapter seem to go beyond an evenhandedness in treating belief and non-belief in God.

Perhaps the alternative and stronger definition of an agnostic applies to Davies a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality, as is God, is unknown and probably unknowable.

In summarizing this chapter, Davies writes: "Unless everything that can exist does exist, something still unexplained must separate what exists and what doesn't" and "We are not finished yet! Davies then addresses whether life should, in the first place, be considered a fundamental or accidental phenomenon.

After some very elegant discussion, he concludes from both scientific and philosophical considerations that life, and mind in particular, is a unique, extremely important and fundamental phenomenon of nature.

Further, he considers that the connection between 1 life and mind and 2 the cosmos must be deeper than that from just "the crude lottery of multiverse cosmology combined with the Weak Anthropic Principle. Davies' bottom line is that neither of The Two Explanations, the universe fine-tuned for life which Davies calls a "fluke" or the multiverse picture, can scientifically answer the ultimate question of existence because they both require a scientifically unexplained starting point.

Lastly, Davies considers briefly a self-engineered, self-aware universe perhaps brought about through quantum backward-causation, such as causal loops and wormholes, but concludes a missing ingredient would be self-awareness.

I must note that that notions of traveling backwards in time to change the future were, in my view, forever put to rest by simple, non-quantum arguments from spacetime properties. One short section titled "Afterword: Ultimate Explanations" is included at the end of the book and is extremely useful.

Here, Davies gives a brief summary description of seven, as it turns out, classes of universes that embody the various attributes and their interpretations discussed throughout the book, thus collecting in one place each of their achievements in explaining things and their failures to do so.

After reading the book, one can then use this splendid synopsis as a quick reference to what all currently envisioned universes can, might, and cannot be like, presented in a mere eight pages.

However, if you cheat and start reading back there first, you won't understand it. At the end of this Afterword, Davies indicates which two of the seven types of universes he thinks might have the best chance of being true; but I won't spoil the book for you by revealing these. However, I will say that, not surprisingly, these two do not include the simplest, most straightforward one, since that one references a God, which is considered by Davies to be too "ad hoc".

In summary, let me emphasize that this book explains, in simple language, both scientifically and philosophically, the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence more comprehensively than any previous account I know of when it comes to multiple universes. Although one might infer that his agnosticism leans more toward atheism, that does not affect his tremendous contributions.

Davies continues to serve a vital function in being a critical watchdog, from the science side, of the most important, underlying issues in the field of Science and Religion. Martin P. Fricke Del Mar, California May 7, 1.

Paul Davies, "Reloading The Matrix", pp. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, Free Press Div. See, for example, Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, Alfred A.

Davies' Agnosticism. The discipline of Science and Religion includes, as it must to be healthy, agnostics, atheists, deists, monotheists, and others of different philosophical or religious persuasion. However, it is only natural that atheists who deny the existence of a deity are not much interested in the subject of Science and Religion, whereas agnostics and those of any religious confession are usually very interested in what science might clarify for us about the mysteries of religious revelation.

As I've indicated, Davies' agnosticism, or even atheism, does not detract one iota from his extremely valuable contributions to Science and Religion. He serves as a critical scientific watchdog for the most important scientific ideas impacting this field.

I thank God for Davies' long-time interest in this field, of which he was a pioneer and founder. A 69 personas les resultó útil. Traducir opinión al idioma Español. Davies' broad knowledge shines in the "Cosmic Jackpot". He provides a very impartial survey of physics and cosmology, taking the reader through six chapters before getting to the heart of the issue: the Goldilocks enigma.

All theories are considered, but how does science account for the fine-tuning of constants that life depends on? Regarding the "dark energy density", Davies page writes the following. This reduces the life-giving conditions to the "observer effect", we just happen to be in a lucky corner of the accidental universe.

Davies page writes: "Cosmology is thereby transformed into an environmental science, in which a basic part of the explanation for what we observe in the universe depends on features of the local cosmic environment.

It is not like we can travel to the fall corners of the universe to sample these various locations, and some pockets may be beyond our ability to observe. Davies comes to the rescue by implying that there may be "indirect evidence" that can refute these theories.

This is a very unconvincing argument for the accidental universe that has not found a justification of its claims from first principles, while taking itself far from empirical science.

Davies is too polite to say this, but he tries a different approach. In the second half of Chapter 8, Davies goes from polite to the ridiculous. He treats multiverses of infinite size containing duplicated people, fake or computer simulated realities, artificial intelligence, fake physics, and fake gods, thereby completing the reductio ad absurdum.

Sadly, some scientists actually fall for these fantasies, and Davies is sly to use trickery to expose their unfounded affection for technology and the accidental universe. The accidental universe cannot just be a love affair if it is going to remain science.

In Chapter 9, Davies describes the intelligent design controversy, and he falls for the Darwinist propaganda that sees no value in intelligent design. Shalamar Hospital's orthopedic department is dedicated to enhancing your musculoskeletal health, combining expertise with compassionate care in a modern medical environment.

Immerse yourself in the excitement of Formula 1 races with Rental Sport's premium gear. Elevate your racing experience, whether you're on the track or cheering from the sidelines, with our top-notch collection.

Discover a captivating range of rings for women at Jewelgalore. Explore their collection of beautifully crafted pieces, each designed to add elegance and charm to your style. When considering top-ranking medical universities , Osh University stands out, thanks to its inclusion in the Kyrgyz State Medical Academy world ranking, which highlights its dedication to providing quality education.

Jewelgalore offers a captivating collection of ladies rings. Explore their exquisite designs, each a symbol of elegance and sophistication, perfect for adding a touch of luxury to your style.

Visit Shalamar Hospital for expert orthopedic care by our dedicated orthopedic surgeon. With advanced techniques and personalized attention, we're committed to your musculoskeletal well-being.

Commending the masterful creators sculpting this virtual wonderland, the intricate game set landscape evokes the sensation of strolling through vibrant streets. The fusion of tradition and innovation generates an electrifying atmosphere.

The gaming panorama, intricately woven with inventive brilliance, transforms into a captivating tapestry of joy, mirroring the dynamic spirit of diverse cultures. Challenges are immersed into the digital abyss, molding a gaming haven with the finesse of a seasoned strategist.

Rally fellow gamers for a plunge into a digital escapade, where the essence of various streets permeates every virtual encounter! Jackpot Joy di Rizk Casino by Kris Middle - 10th February report Kasino Rizk dengan cepat menjadi salah satu kasino online favorit saya.

by melissawatcher - 10th February quote report Selamat tinggal! by CroufordStiven - 23rd February quote report Hello! by mmmreedsy - 09th March quote report It's never too late to give one of the loot boxes on the Drakemall website a try if you've been debating doing so for a while.

by maze - 15th July quote report Just check here the How to fix missing xlive. by qhaafbedding - 26th July quote report Protect your mattress with Qhaaf Bedding's waterproof mattress cover.

by panacheapparel - 26th July quote report Discover the ultimate sale on brands in Pakistan at Panache Apparel.

by aspirebedding - 27th July quote report Aspire Bedding is the perfect place to shop if you're looking for high-quality bedsheets online Pakistan. by mannatclothing - 31st July quote report Are you looking for best ready to wear sale Pakistan?

If Mr. Langan has had the better of his exchange with Mr. Chu-Carroll, not to mention some of the less knowledgeable commenters. Others have pointed accusatory fingers at Mr. Langan, declaring him guilty of ad hominem attacks mostly falsely, in my opinion for merely having questioned Mr.

Langan a crank! In fact, despite provocation, Mr. Langan has not descended to personal attacks or name calling, and has confined his judgment to Mr.

I think the worst insult he issued was to call Mr. He also made remarks that showed that he respects Mr. I trust that Mr. Chu-Carroll really thought Mr. But so far Mr. Langan appears to me to have successfully defended himself against at least his selected set of Mr.

Carroll may be the one who misunderstood. I enjoy Good Math Bad Math frequently. I often learn from it. But these occasional exercises in derision, and subsequent group efforts in condemnation, only detract from that. I know that comments on blogs are notorious for such chauvinism, but perhaps this need not be the case here.

Yes, of course. You can trivially say that any two non-distinct objects are one object. You can go aggregating entities until you have only one. Strictly right. This is strictly true.

But, let me say, it is also completely useless. By that treatment, everything is a set. Not a mathematical set, but some kind of aggregation of some stuff. At least one, the thing. And he is fighting for this idea! If everything everything, think of it is a set, then that does not carry any information.

That is why I explicitly said yes, I said it first! And something. The universe is also something. By the way.

Because I think Mr. Chu-Carroll is a good-to-outstanding explicator of things he does understand, and because I know he knows a lot about some relevant topics, I would ordinarily consider him a good guide to this stuff.

But when Mr. Langan, apparently correctly, points out errors in Mr. Some of Mr. They may be wrong for any number of reasons, from a few simple errors to large-scale self-delusion. Exercises in condemnation of his ideas do not help me or, I think, anyone to understand that.

Unfortunately, too much of this post and the ensuing comments takes that tack, rather than careful criticism. As long as the sets Mr. Langan considers fit the basic set concept regardless of what they contain as elements and exhibit the properties stipulated by the axioms, they are mathematical sets, right?

Second, it seems to me there is some choice of the level of concern at which we view entities as distinct. Two things may be the same in some respects and different in others. But it would be valid to reason about them either way, as long as we establish the context correctly. In fact, from skimming through Mr.

I cannot judge if he has done this well or poorly, coherently or incoherently, in part because I lack the background, in part because I have been stymied by some of his new nomenclature, and in part because some of his reasoning is unclear to me. But I think he has grappled with this question. You have a reality.

Of course, one can build different models of reality, depending on what is of interest in every moment. Then you have mathematics, which are a good language to build models of reality.

One of their tools is the concept of set. You can MODEL reality as a set. When you are building your model, you can decide if some perception is modeled as an object, as two objects, or as many as you want.

But what you are not able do is to mistake the model for reality. It is your model that is a set, not reality. From some perspectives they look the same, from others they do not.

And you can assume there are unknown perspectives to you. So you evaluate and you decide if you model them by one entity or two. He is doing this because he pretends not to be discussing a model for the Universe, which could be more or less appropiate and would be refutable, but the Universe itself.

This is what is profoundly wrong and is highly antiscientific. Of course we understand you can model the Universe as a set. But that is not what Langan is saying. Earlier you suggested that the model might amount to a one-element set, because none of the things in it might be truly distinct.

But if this is so, in what way can it be a complete, successful model of the universe? The universe actually exhibits manifold aspects, which may be observed as its distinct features or parts, or objects contained in it.

If the model can only model it as a singular entity, then it is not an exhaustive model. So any successful, complete model actually would not be such a singleton set, and would instead have to have many elements.

I may be wrong here, but it seems to me you are restating Mr. I found Mr. I have searched, in vain, for some guidance on the web as to whether it is valid to think, from a mathematical perspective, of real objects as being contained in a set.

But anyway, let suppose it is right: you would have proved that if a completely correct model exists then it would be a set. You would still have to prove that this model exists. And not obvious at all. The fact that you perceive some aspects does not mean they are real. I agree because, well, yes, you see your knives, and you think they are a set.

But at certain level the model falls down: the knives are made of atoms. Some atoms are separated from the blade, and mix with air. Some atoms go, some arrive. Some are interchanged between the blades.

Do reality equal your mental set of six knives? Yes, you can go for another model, an atomic one. The model is not the thing. Again, you could consider a temporal model. Got it? But that is irrelevant, so I will not go into any deep. The key is this: a model can not be identified with the modeled reality because we can never know if the modeled reality will always behave as our model.

How can you be sure your model completely fit the reality? You can not, and so you can not mistake one thing for the other. I think that was accomplished, at least according to your reply.

As to the fact that we may perceive things that are not real — yes, of course. I think your take on the steak knives question is a non-starter. It is not the case that the definition of the knives is identical to a particular collection of atoms. The definition of the knives is what an intelligence can recognize as the knives.

The only problem with that is I never said that. Reread my comments, please. If you want to model perceptions, feel free to use a set. You have the universe a real knife , you model your perception of it, and as you can model it by a set, you say I was mistaken telling maybe the Universe is not a set.

You are not arguing with me, but you believe you are. I was talking about Langan views and you are arguing about models of our perception. Sets are, by definition, collections of objects.

In our universe, perceptions are, by observation, among the objects that we find. They are not unreal — they are real perceptions. That means they are among the distinct things in the universe.

If all perceptions, thoughts, etc. You are correct and I was wrong about your point to Mr. Langan; I misremembered your earlier remark and did not go back and re-read the entire thread. However, it still seems to me that your attempted refutation that the universe is set — because it may not be made up of distinct objects — is invalid.

There are clearly many distinctions between objects, e. the perceptions we were just talking about. You build a model for the Universe, and you use concepts such as sets. The set is useful in the building of the model.

Then you use the model to explain your perceptions and to make predictions. If the predictions are in agreement with the observations you conclude the model is a good model for the Universe, under the limitations of the observations.

Then you can make predictions with your model and be confident in the results. This way, the model is useful for you, and, transitively, the concept of set is useful. But you can never know if the model if completely correct. How can you ever tell if a model is completely valid?

The doubt is always there, you can not evade it. But even in this way a model can be useful to make predictions, and so the concept of set. Yes, set are, by definition, collections of objects. I agree with this.

But, what is an object? I believe any definition of an object is in the realm of a model. So yes, a set is a collection of objects, but an object is an abstraction. I believe you will not agree with me on this. For me, a knife is an abstraction, a classification. Would you be able to say if something is a small sword or a big knife?

Is a knife too rusty to work still a knife? Or maybe not. Because the atoms are changing. Is it an objects or a lot of them? Is a collection of atoms? In what instant? For me, an object is an abstraction, not a real thing. In fact any though you can have is about models in your head.

A lot of times I can not say where a perception ends and where the next starts; nor I can say if two perceptions thunder and lighting are one objects or two. Language is about abstractions, not reality directly. But I still find the concept of set very useful.

I can make predictions with them. Anyway, all these are my opinions, which seem very natural to me. You have your own, which I respect and find interesting. But precisely as we both have different perspectives Langan can not say the Universe is a set. At least without explaining why my perspective that which I find so natural is wrong.

He could always assume it is a set and create a theory from that assumption. No problem, all theories make assumptions.

To take just one example, for me the important thing is not to recognize all knives vs. swords, etc. Do philosophical questions remain about being able to do so?

I suppose they probably do e. I admit this is just my strong intuition; not something I can prove. You have made me question a little bit what seemed transparently obvious to me at the outset: that the universe is, in a real sense, composed of many different objects, and it is legitimate, therefore, to call it a set, but not only a set.

Perhaps I should have confined myself to that point, and not got onto the side issues. It seems to me that the difference in our point of view comes down to your saying that even in assigning identity to things there is an act of modelling which may be wrong.

My point of view is that as long as the assignments are done according to some repeatable algorithm based on real perceptions, then there is no real doubt that the assignment is capturing something real about the universe. Perhaps that is a philosophical point of view, after all.

I want to correct my remark: re-reading, I see that Mr. Langan did use some harsher language in his first reply than he used in his later replies. He did throw around some ad hominem stuff, mixed in with valid atttemps at rebuttal. All in all, no one in this exchange fought entirely on the level of ideas; there was some invective on both sides.

Noting that Mark had titled his critique in an extremely deprecating manner, I thought it advisable to respond. However, I found that because Mark had moved his blog to Scientopia, it would be impossible to enter a response at ScienceBlogs.

I entered what I thought, under the circumstances, was a friendly and moderately informative response. Mark responded in a highly aggressive and insulting way. So I entered another comment to make sure that everyone understood the problem.

I hoped that this would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, it was not the end of the matter. Mark moved a slightly updated version of his critique to the current front page of his blog, under an arguably even more insulting heading, in an apparent effort to teach me the following lesson:.

If one thinks about it a little, this may at least begin to explain the harshness of my tone. In fact, I think that my language has been quite controlled under the circumstances. I like how you are utterly unable to talk about math instead of your rather large ego and insults to it.

It would have been much more effective had you simply addressed the criticism against you rather than ignored it and raised several points that had already been dealt with and talked about MarkCC instead. Consider that even if Mark was a complete idiot, it would still be possible for him to point out a flaw in what you are saying.

If these people wanted to explain why the surface of the water in a bucket curves when the water rotates, they will explain this phenomenon as the effect of the motion of the water with respect to absolute space.

Now let us say someone comes along and says that this phenomenon is not due to the absolute circular motion of the water, but is actually due to the relative motion of the water with respect to the local gravitational field. Certainly not. How merely pointing this out renders him the biggest jerk on the planet is beyond me.

This is not my concern however: my concern is that the people on here simply do not know how to be civil in a debate.

If you think there is an aspect of the theory that is objectionable, ask questions to clarify. If you think something he said was unfair, explicate why you feel that way in a polite manner.

Overall, actually have a discussion rather than just making these increasingly incoherent statements along with the name calling.

If Chris had pointed out that he was using different assumptions and then proceeded to explain the differences that would have been perfectly reasonable. That was the goal of pointing out that Chris was bringing Mark the person into it rather than defending his ideas.

The very fact that such a statement is incomprehensible counts against its coherency. However, this seems to fail to counter my above point, tangential to the overall discussion as it may be. But if people really believe the theory is meaningless then why are they even bothering to raise objections?

Why would you object to something that says precisely nothing? He is most certainly trying to convey something. This is not an uncommon or pointless charge especially when it comes to evaluating metaphysical theories.

For example, logical positivists claim that metaphysical claims are meaningless by virtue of their being unverifiable, and various theorists of meaning have thought that sentences whose subject lacks a referent are meaningless e.

Since no one has pointed it out, I may as well. February post at least makes one of his fundamental problems very clear. In mereology, one can talk about the universe itself as a collection of objects or mereological sums.

In naive set theory or ZFC, the universe cannot be a set since the set of the entities comprising the universe and the universe itself are different things by definition. In order to derive any problems for set theory or our conception of the universe, Langan has to decide which framework he is using.

He never explicitly does that, but jumps back and forth between mereology and naive set theory. In naive set theory which is inconsistent anyway or ZFC none of his purported problems even arise, since in these systems the universe cannot be viewed as a set — rather, the structured set consisting of all the elements in the universe is itself an abstract, mathematical object as is the singleton with the universe as a member with physical entities as members — and the only thing he provides is some feeble nonsense about how, if we distinguish our mathematical models of reality from the physical phenomena they model, science becomes impossible and we are saddled with ontological dualism.

Well, there are indeed philosophical questions that arise from accepting abstract objects, but they have nothing to do with what Langan discusses. If you do think that accepting abstract objects entails an untenable form of dualism but it is a problem for nominalism rather than materialism, and those are not the same positions , I suggest adopting some kind of constructivist or even formalist view of mathematics.

A lot of work, to put it mildly, has gone into developing such approaches, none of which Langan even mentions removing the sharp distinction between syntax and semantics and the need for model theory has been a defining characteristic for many logicist approaches, for instance, although they do retain the difference between mathematical language and the reality the language is about, of course; it is not so obvious that Langan does.

On a related note, it is claimed that things like syntax and semantics are coupled in a new and profoundly different way. This is what everyone else is talking about, qualified or otherwise. That is not the case — there are primitive notions in mathematics that are not derived from any axiom.

They, themselves, have a status like axioms. It further quotes Tarski saying that:. At the same time we adopt the principle: not to employ any of the other expression of the discipline under consideration, unless its meaning has first been determined with the help of primitive terms and of such expressions of the discipline whose meanings have been explained previously.

This does not make them invalid for use in axiomatic theories. I have no reference beyond your own pointer to the Wikipedia article.

I would say that one constructs axioms to try to capture the primitive notion, but once the axioms and rules of inference are chosen, the primitive notion has no more role to play.

The essence of mathematical proof is the application of the rules of inference to the axioms; nowhere does the primitive notion that the mathematician was trying to capture play a role. You know, you understand Chris and in so doing you recognize him as senseless and hence, throw out the CAT.

And hopefully, the logical chain behind a theory should be validated by more than one person. And maybe this is the antithesis and anathema to the postmodernist and why you get nothing but obfuscation and rhetoric from that camp.

One needs to realize that the Universe has never been treated as a set but more as a complex. After all, do we treat a library as a set? No, we treat it as a complex, i. a whole that comprehends a number of intricate parts, especially one with interconnected or mutually related parts and a set is nothing more than a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right.

My observation has to do with the quality of the article and posts on this blog. The writing on this blog, it seems to me, suffers from a lack of self-editing. Most of the writing displays deep and thoughtful consideration of interesting issues.

However, the ideas are often not well expressed, leading to misunderstanding and personal attacks. is failure to communicate. One fundamental way to improve written communication is to self-edit. Introduction 1 Explain in a sentence why we should care about what you are about to say. Body Go through each point in order and methodically.

When transitioning from one point to the next, explicitly state any temporal, logical, or other connection between the point you just finished and the next point. Conclusion Summarize what you think you just said. Call for whatever action you want from the readers.

writes elegant first drafts. All right, one of them does, but we do not like her very much. Now for the question. In the evolution of my world-view, I have decided that I believe that everything in the world exists and is material.

In particular, given what I have read about modern neuroscience, I have come to the view that ideas, thoughts, and emotions exist in a material form, in particular, as electrical signals and chemical combinations in the brain.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter. With regard to the original issues raised by this post, in my formulation, the concept of a set, whether naive or not, has an existence in this universe as a pattern of physical events occurring in each of our brains when we consider the concept.

Of course, it is probably the case that patterns are slightly different for each individual. Nonetheless, perhaps when we are communicating effectively, our use of the term and concept is recognized by the reader as sufficiently close to his or her concept that the communication can be understood.

To conclude, and to follow my own template, I think I have said that self-editing, and in particular, reorganization would improve the quality of communication on this blog and I encourage you all to try it.

I have also asked for your opinion on my philosophical ruminations. I would enjoy reading your response, whether it takes the form of references to materials I might be interested in, general thoughts on my concept of materialism, or your answer to the question, How does the idea that all concepts, including the concept of a set, have a physical presence affect the idea of the universe as a set?

Or if any of you folks are still reading you can feel free to criticize my interpretation as well. I viewed it as more of a philosophical treatise, something more in line with A Critique of Pure Reason, and less of a model for physics as I keep seeing it described in the media. The inconsistencies of naive set theory manifest via this isomorphism as the challenges and dilemmas faced by modern metaphysics.

So Langan claims that this paradigm is equivalent to trying to create a set of all sets in naive set theory, which leads to problems down the road. The rest of his paper shows why this simple view of the Universe causes most of the problems.

In this case he claims that the mind-body problem is one of these false dilemmas, and that dualism is the incorrect resolution of it. Langan claims that many of these dilemmas can be addressed by realizing that they stem from this invalid schema for the universe, which most people have without realizing it.

It is also notable that things like the mind-body problem are actually problems with our model of the Universe, not a problem with the Universe itself — in the Universe, everything fits together nicely with no paradoxes.

By coming up with such a model for the Universe, one can become instantly enlightened and realize that monism is the way to go. He claims to resolve the paradox by defining exactly in what sense the Universe contains itself while also being contained by a larger set, and in so doing defines a meta-language outside of the original one.

And he also claims that one bit of the Universe is holographically reflective of every other bit of it, and since one of those bits is our brains, which are constantly perceiving order and cognizing things, that order and cognition are everywhere.

Or something like that. I think I may pick up where you leave off. it is dynamic and resolves in the same way, forever. The easiest way to think about this is to make a set of some arbitrary elements, lets call it M.

We can then define a power set of M that includes the power set of M. At least this is my interpretation of it. What do you think? Also, Mr. First and foremost all this hostility and blame of its initiation needs especially Mark and Chris to stop.

Let me tell you my story, that might be relevant to you. When I was a lowly PHD student my first couple journal articles I sent in kept getting R and R Revise and Resubmit. Finally my adviser sat down with me one day he was kind of a ghost read through my shit and told me it was incomprehensible.

I was pissed. The accumulation of all these little jumps led to an incomprehensible paper. Now looking back I think this is why I was so poor at writing essays for history etc. during undergrad. So I sat back down went through both the papers and in painful and what I thought redundant detail went through every little step.

After I did that both got published in tier one journals. So yeah I think there might be an element of this with you. Thirdly I think of lot of this is miscommunication.

One positive thing about academia though, is that it acts as a coordination mechanism in terms of jargon. When you get that kind of divergence in terms, translation honestly becomes an issue.

Also Chris try to be a little more………diplomatic. Sorry to double post I do have a question to ask though. I am going to break away from the all the abstract stuff and go to something a little more concrete.

How do we max global utility when we only know our own utility function and not others? Are laws and religion attempts? Are we just supposed to use our best guess? What if someone really loves raping and he rapes a retarded girl that is too disabled to feel pain etc.

First, sorry for the bad writing. Bad writing may be worse for communication that no writing! Sorry about it, but you can not use physics to prove the universe is a set.

Physics defines models. Physics is an experimental science. You can find sets and elements in your model, but they are not objetive elements in reality. You say the Universe can be seen as the set of particular events in your brain.

What is an event in your brain? What is a signal in your brain? As I previously said, you have a model in your case, independent signals on your brain , and you can identify elements and sets in your model.

But thats not the Universe, even in an objetive, absolute, material Universe. I still see pseudoscience in your interpretation. So the premise is misguided. The problem is in our interpretation, if there is any problem at all. So the conclusion is trivial.

The rest is empty words glued together without meaning. No, seriously. What semantics does he associate with this sentence?

What is he trying to say? Where does he get that conclusion? Does he even know what thermodynamic entropy is? He wants a free ride …what with, only one can imagine. The thrashing he gives his dead horse keeps away the flies, but the stink is unmistakable.

Challenge accepted. Ask me any single question about the CTMU, exclusive or offer any single piece of criticism.

The two things are really one thing, however, it just depends on how the detection of this specific event reaches our senses. The imagining of these scenes will cause various neurological events which will show up on the MRI we will assume that they do for the sake of argument.

A different, monistic interpretation might be that these two events the MRI blip and the actual qualitative experience of cognition are really one event just experienced through two different modes of sensory perception — literally.

Either way, this is the perception of that event from the standpoint of the event beaming information through space, where it is detected by the senses of another human being probably with the help of tools like an MRI and cognized over there.

The above was an idea I had thrown around for a while, so it seemed like Chris Langan was on the same page with his CTMU.

People think the Universe is the set of all material things, or the set of all existing sets, the set of all consistent sets, whatever, but not the set of all mathematical sets. At least, I have never found a person with this idea. I may be wrong. We could make a poll. With respect to the rest, I can not comment.

But this is a change of name. Langan allegedly espoused regarding entropy. Please explain where he says or implies this. You are on the right track with your views inasmuch as they are monistic. Though your views fit more or less into the framework of the CTMU, I do not think they originate from where in the CTMU you think they originate.

Specifically, Mr. Instead, his argument against dualism proceeds by syndiffeonesis, a process which he describes in his paper. Oh, sorry about that. I thought you were Mr. Langan because I noticed your other comment on the americanatheist.

org blog, where he was also posting. My bad. Such an unfortunate waste of Mr. I agree with koinotely, seems like mob mentality even reaches the PHD level. Langan is not just extremely smart, he is an off the charts genius. I believe he deserves more respect than he got here period whether he made himself clear or not.

Seguir al autor

Vuelva a intentarlo en otro momento. Compra verificada. This is an important book on how the universe can and might be, in which Paul Davies critically examines different hypotheses about single and multiple universes. His book illuminates the most critical issues of physics and philosophy and of some biology underlying our understanding of Science and Religion.

He has called himself an agnostic, and he does not argue for religious beliefs. This newest book by Davies is somewhat more technical than his other books but is still well within the general readership level.

Davies updates and expands upon all previous overviews I know of in the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence, enriching previous accounts especially in his discussion of multiple universes. Throughout the book, Davies flags the free parameters, or "constants of nature", some 20 of them counting force coupling constants and the masses of elementary particles, which, in the standard models of nuclear physics, astrophysics and cosmology, must be exquisitely fine-tuned to yield a single universe capable of supporting life.

As an alternative to this fine-tuning, physicists have proposed multiple universes, or a multiverse, wherein infinite universes, a few of them with properties supporting life, could counterbalance the infinitesimal probability of the degree of fine-tuning necessary in a single universe if it occurred only by chance.

The difference between these views has obvious and profound metaphysical and religious implications. It is a mathematical construct wherein physical theories might be "accommodated" - it can in principle provide a way to make predictions for those theories - but so far it cannot predict anything real, anything that has been or could be measured.

And right now the odds are about even and rapidly getting longer that it ever will. Davies spells out some of these wild possibilities - wild because there would be infinite possibilities, including infinite variations of the laws of physics among different universes - and he describes some that might be more likely from probability arguments.

I cannot do justice to that exciting ride without quoting his whole discussion. But, mind you, Davies does not do this in any lighthearted way; he is deadly serious in scientifically examining these possibilities. One of the inevitable possibilities is that some universes are but computer simulations by some superculture out there in another universe.

And the show-stopper in that scenario is that our own universe, including our very selves, is most probably a simulation imagine an incredibly advanced virtual reality emulation of everything, even our consciousness. In the multiverse picture, the universe we perceive, and any God we worship, are fakes!

Every philosopher's wildest dreams can and will come true with infinite possibilities in infinite universes. This multiverse thing is annoying, isn't it?

Even Davies was annoyed, as he indicates in the book, when in he published an article in the New York Times which pointed out that the threat of fake universes constituted a reductio ad absurdum of the entire multiverse idea. In a recent note 1 Davies concluded that there were three alternatives, and he explains this more thoroughly in the book.

Namely, the argument leading from the laws of physics we know - to multiple universes with fake physics - to anthropic selection - to the elimination of God is a contradictory loop; and the multiverse advocates are thus "hoist by their own petard!

However, Davies admits p. Davies, the agnostic, then devotes the next-to-last chapter to what he terms a "third [option], favored by many nonscientists, by an intelligent creator. I would strongly suggest that the book "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins 2 be substituted for Davies' attempts here.

But then Davies moves quickly on to his more comfortable ground of physics. While concluding that belief in a God who makes the laws of physics, who is responsible for the universe and for continually holding it into existence without tinkering with its day-to-day operation, is popular with many scientists as well as theologians, Davies is uncomfortable with this as its being, in his view, an hoc explanation that leads us "no further forward" no further forward to a purely scientific explanation.

He then goes on to ask many questions couched within physics, that, for me, are not the dilemmas an agnostic or atheist faces, e. The agnostic constraints Davies imposes on himself in this chapter seem to go beyond an evenhandedness in treating belief and non-belief in God.

Perhaps the alternative and stronger definition of an agnostic applies to Davies a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality, as is God, is unknown and probably unknowable. In summarizing this chapter, Davies writes: "Unless everything that can exist does exist, something still unexplained must separate what exists and what doesn't" and "We are not finished yet!

Davies then addresses whether life should, in the first place, be considered a fundamental or accidental phenomenon. After some very elegant discussion, he concludes from both scientific and philosophical considerations that life, and mind in particular, is a unique, extremely important and fundamental phenomenon of nature.

Further, he considers that the connection between 1 life and mind and 2 the cosmos must be deeper than that from just "the crude lottery of multiverse cosmology combined with the Weak Anthropic Principle.

Davies' bottom line is that neither of The Two Explanations, the universe fine-tuned for life which Davies calls a "fluke" or the multiverse picture, can scientifically answer the ultimate question of existence because they both require a scientifically unexplained starting point. Lastly, Davies considers briefly a self-engineered, self-aware universe perhaps brought about through quantum backward-causation, such as causal loops and wormholes, but concludes a missing ingredient would be self-awareness.

I must note that that notions of traveling backwards in time to change the future were, in my view, forever put to rest by simple, non-quantum arguments from spacetime properties.

One short section titled "Afterword: Ultimate Explanations" is included at the end of the book and is extremely useful. Here, Davies gives a brief summary description of seven, as it turns out, classes of universes that embody the various attributes and their interpretations discussed throughout the book, thus collecting in one place each of their achievements in explaining things and their failures to do so.

After reading the book, one can then use this splendid synopsis as a quick reference to what all currently envisioned universes can, might, and cannot be like, presented in a mere eight pages. However, if you cheat and start reading back there first, you won't understand it.

At the end of this Afterword, Davies indicates which two of the seven types of universes he thinks might have the best chance of being true; but I won't spoil the book for you by revealing these.

However, I will say that, not surprisingly, these two do not include the simplest, most straightforward one, since that one references a God, which is considered by Davies to be too "ad hoc".

In summary, let me emphasize that this book explains, in simple language, both scientifically and philosophically, the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence more comprehensively than any previous account I know of when it comes to multiple universes. Although one might infer that his agnosticism leans more toward atheism, that does not affect his tremendous contributions.

Davies continues to serve a vital function in being a critical watchdog, from the science side, of the most important, underlying issues in the field of Science and Religion. Martin P. Fricke Del Mar, California May 7, 1. Paul Davies, "Reloading The Matrix", pp. Francis S.

Collins, The Language of God, Free Press Div. See, for example, Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, Alfred A. Davies' Agnosticism. The discipline of Science and Religion includes, as it must to be healthy, agnostics, atheists, deists, monotheists, and others of different philosophical or religious persuasion.

However, it is only natural that atheists who deny the existence of a deity are not much interested in the subject of Science and Religion, whereas agnostics and those of any religious confession are usually very interested in what science might clarify for us about the mysteries of religious revelation.

As I've indicated, Davies' agnosticism, or even atheism, does not detract one iota from his extremely valuable contributions to Science and Religion. He serves as a critical scientific watchdog for the most important scientific ideas impacting this field.

I thank God for Davies' long-time interest in this field, of which he was a pioneer and founder. A 69 personas les resultó útil. Traducir opinión al idioma Español. Davies' broad knowledge shines in the "Cosmic Jackpot".

He provides a very impartial survey of physics and cosmology, taking the reader through six chapters before getting to the heart of the issue: the Goldilocks enigma. All theories are considered, but how does science account for the fine-tuning of constants that life depends on?

Regarding the "dark energy density", Davies page writes the following. This reduces the life-giving conditions to the "observer effect", we just happen to be in a lucky corner of the accidental universe.

Davies page writes: "Cosmology is thereby transformed into an environmental science, in which a basic part of the explanation for what we observe in the universe depends on features of the local cosmic environment. It is not like we can travel to the fall corners of the universe to sample these various locations, and some pockets may be beyond our ability to observe.

Davies comes to the rescue by implying that there may be "indirect evidence" that can refute these theories. This is a very unconvincing argument for the accidental universe that has not found a justification of its claims from first principles, while taking itself far from empirical science.

Davies is too polite to say this, but he tries a different approach. In the second half of Chapter 8, Davies goes from polite to the ridiculous. He treats multiverses of infinite size containing duplicated people, fake or computer simulated realities, artificial intelligence, fake physics, and fake gods, thereby completing the reductio ad absurdum.

Sadly, some scientists actually fall for these fantasies, and Davies is sly to use trickery to expose their unfounded affection for technology and the accidental universe.

The accidental universe cannot just be a love affair if it is going to remain science. laptop Chromebook. tv TV. flag Marcar como inapropiada. public Sitio web. email Correo de ayuda. place Dirección. shield Política de Privacidad.

Are you looking for best ready to wear sale Pakistan? Look no further than Mannat Clothing! They are currently having a sale on many of their top brands, including Chaap, Sunehri Rutt, and Morbagh. This sale is an excellent opportunity to save on some of your favorite clothing brands.

Bagerz brings you the ultimate bags sale Pakistan! Shop now for amazing discounts on renowned brands and find the perfect bag to complement your style at unbeatable prices.

Pursuing an MBBS Medical? Osh University offers an exceptional educational experience, making it the preferred choice for aspiring medical professionals seeking quality and excellence.

Shalamar Hospital's orthopedic department is dedicated to enhancing your musculoskeletal health, combining expertise with compassionate care in a modern medical environment.

Immerse yourself in the excitement of Formula 1 races with Rental Sport's premium gear. Elevate your racing experience, whether you're on the track or cheering from the sidelines, with our top-notch collection.

Discover a captivating range of rings for women at Jewelgalore. Explore their collection of beautifully crafted pieces, each designed to add elegance and charm to your style. When considering top-ranking medical universities , Osh University stands out, thanks to its inclusion in the Kyrgyz State Medical Academy world ranking, which highlights its dedication to providing quality education.

Jewelgalore offers a captivating collection of ladies rings. Explore their exquisite designs, each a symbol of elegance and sophistication, perfect for adding a touch of luxury to your style. Visit Shalamar Hospital for expert orthopedic care by our dedicated orthopedic surgeon. With advanced techniques and personalized attention, we're committed to your musculoskeletal well-being.

Commending the masterful creators sculpting this virtual wonderland, the intricate game set landscape evokes the sensation of strolling through vibrant streets. The fusion of tradition and innovation generates an electrifying atmosphere. The gaming panorama, intricately woven with inventive brilliance, transforms into a captivating tapestry of joy, mirroring the dynamic spirit of diverse cultures.

Challenges are immersed into the digital abyss, molding a gaming haven with the finesse of a seasoned strategist.

Rally fellow gamers for a plunge into a digital escapade, where the essence of various streets permeates every virtual encounter! Jackpot Joy di Rizk Casino by Kris Middle - 10th February report Kasino Rizk dengan cepat menjadi salah satu kasino online favorit saya.

Seguridad de los datos Discover a Temática espacial para juegos de azar range of rings Jafkpot women at Jewelgalore. In Senstion respect, the sn of physics differ Jackpot Sensation Universe en español from Sendation laws of civil society, Jacpot are an untidy hodgepodge of statutes expanding without limit. But the feelings are sense-certain and not demanding a reason based on conditions of necessity. Of course, scientists might be deluded in their belief that they are finding systematic and coherent truth in the workings of nature. You can also use set theory as a tool when you describe the universe and make models of it.
Royal Artillery Association

As we have seen, Mark cannot possibly justify this form of dualism, as it has the effect of separating the universe from the structural properties in terms of which we scientifically identify it and reason about it at any stage and on any level.

But just as obviously, he is neither a mathematician nor a philosopher. Writing good code is not easy, and Mark deserves respect for his evident ability to do it. He is simply not up to going toe-to-toe with all of those on whom he targets his uncontrollable resentment. Some of you have offered, amidst the noise, what almost seems to be intended as constructive and well-meant advice.

To the extent that this is actually the case, your efforts are appreciated. I would merely advise you not to leap so readily to what seem to be your highly standardized conclusions regarding me, my level of knowledge, and the originality and profundity of my writing, lest you end up disappointed and embarrassed as a result.

You might learn something. There are more people here. In fact, there is a lot of people outside this little forum who do not seem to be very interested on your theory, neither. But it has to be:. The collection of all sets is not a set, and if it is, it would lead to contradictions. So you have to impose some restrictions.

c informative. You evade the question. Calling something a set explaining that you understand by set something vague and without giving any idea what the elements are is not very useful. I would call that a sentence free of meaning. We understand you can start with a vaguely defined theory, and go refining it, working on it.

But you have a very vague idea of what a set is and try to force people to accept real Universe is one. Something very expressive to be what our Universe is. And if someone say the opposite, the hell with him, he is an ignorant. You are probably discovering how little people that counts are interested in your theory.

But please, stop doing that. You have not proved anything. By maintaining your concept of set open enough you can evade criticism for a while, but by the same measure you maintain your theory content free. Circular logic and vagueness would carry you nowhere.

Have you find anyone seriously interested in your theory? I still think the real Universe can be unmodelable as a set because you could not differentiate one entity from other. At quantum level, there is no individual particles. Wave functions any function really can be described using sets.

One can show all our current models can be expressed as a set and still not be allowed to say that the Universe is a set.

What I say is that we can never know if a model completely reflects reality, which it is a necessary step to make that identification, the model as the reality.

A lot. The contradiction comes when someone introduces the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Then ask whether that set is a member of itself. Bertrand Russell tried to work around this by redefining terms so that a set cannot be a member of itself, but his approach is not universally accepted.

If I recall correctly, it produces different levels, so a set at level 0 can be a member of a class at level 1, but not of another level-0 set. The Universal set is problematic only in some theories, but not in all. And you rightly pointed out an alternative problem.

Yeah, Russell tried to do leveled sets, so that you had first-order sets, whose members were atoms; second-order sets, whose members were first order sets; third order sets whose members were second-order sets, and so on.

I mean, I hold responsibility for my opinions. I find it wrong for Langan to blame Mark for my opinions. I also believe you misinterpreted the origin of the many versus one situation. Langan has very peculiar ideas. Regardless of the their validity, when someone has non-common ideas it will always be a many vs one situation.

They can be true, or they can be false, but initially it will be that many vs one. How is Langan supposed to get anything done when new people keep popping up like weeds, each with different objections? When Langan showed up here, his primary goal was to talk to Mark, not the unknown number of varied commentators.

Well, yes, it is impossible for one person to cope with so much comments in a blog. I believe this is a common problem. From this point of view, yes, it may be the only sensible thing to do, to talk only to Mark.

One thing on which Mr. However, Mr. For those who may not be familiar, within classical or intuitionist logic, one can derive any statement from a contradiction making every contradiction equal and maximal in expressive power.

This is wrong. First of all, naive set theory is not logically consistent. Consider for example, ZF with anti-Foundation replacing Foundation. Or ZF with a large cardinal axiom. So try explaining in it more simply, or using different language.

You are using language in a non-standard fashion again. Mark has a large amount of math background as should be pretty clear from reading his blog on a regular basis. There are multiple professional mathematicians in this thread. First off, the point of promoting this whole thing to a new post, rather than leaving it hidden in a discussion on a two-year-old post that had been migrated from my old site was, actually, intended as a gesture of respect.

Naive set theory is inconsistent. Naive set theory is ill-founded and ultimately useless , because no proof, no implication, no inference based on naive set theory is valid — because the fundamental axiomatic basis of naive set theory is invalid.

Any argument that you make about set theory, or about anything built on set theory, is only as valid as the underlying theory.

There are lots of different axiomatizations of set theory. You just spew out a bunch of garbled word-salad. Yet here you go again, behaving as though I said the exact opposite. But to my way of looking at it, both of those claims are absurd.

Somewhere in the Deep South of yore, a bus containing a Black gospel choir was on its way to a revival. Suddenly, a car stopped on the shoulder of the road pulled out directly in front of the bus.

Panicked, the driver cranked the wheel as hard as he could, veering directly into the path of an oncoming semi. Unable to stop, the fast-moving semi ripped open the midsection of the bus, strewing the highway with dead or injured passengers, some moaning in pain. A minute or two later, an archetypal redneck and his woman drove up in a pickup truck.

Seeing the carnage, the hillbilly stopped, got out of the truck, and sauntered among the bodies for a minute or two. Then he returned to the pickup, and without saying a word, resumed driving in the same direction as before. On a more serious note, I think I know what your problem is.

Why, with my superior math skills, this guy and everyone like him is totally at my mercy, cannon fodder for my unbelievably excellent anti-crank blog! Good Math my opinion trumps Bad Math any conflicting opinion every time, so everybody better hunker down and get ready for some more of that trademark supercilious Chu-Carroll wit!

While you might see the latter self-dialogue as a bit over the top, your subsequent behavior shows that it accurately reflects your basic attitude. If you want people to accept your theory, you need to present it in ways that they can understand, and convince them that it is correct. Unfortunately, you are hardly the only person who is presenting what he believes to be a revolutionary new theory.

Not all of those theories are correct because they contradict each other. Even very intelligent people make mistakes. to: Chris Langan 1 How is your theory falsifiable?

For example, the heliocentric theory of the solar system was useful in that it simplified computations. The fact that is also represented the observable universe was simply a bonus.

So, what utility does your theory provide? How does one measure the utility of being able to condescend to the entire world? If Mr. Langan has had the better of his exchange with Mr.

Chu-Carroll, not to mention some of the less knowledgeable commenters. Others have pointed accusatory fingers at Mr. Langan, declaring him guilty of ad hominem attacks mostly falsely, in my opinion for merely having questioned Mr.

Langan a crank! In fact, despite provocation, Mr. Langan has not descended to personal attacks or name calling, and has confined his judgment to Mr. I think the worst insult he issued was to call Mr.

He also made remarks that showed that he respects Mr. I trust that Mr. Chu-Carroll really thought Mr. But so far Mr. Langan appears to me to have successfully defended himself against at least his selected set of Mr. Carroll may be the one who misunderstood. I enjoy Good Math Bad Math frequently.

I often learn from it. But these occasional exercises in derision, and subsequent group efforts in condemnation, only detract from that.

I know that comments on blogs are notorious for such chauvinism, but perhaps this need not be the case here. Yes, of course. You can trivially say that any two non-distinct objects are one object. You can go aggregating entities until you have only one.

Strictly right. This is strictly true. But, let me say, it is also completely useless. By that treatment, everything is a set. Not a mathematical set, but some kind of aggregation of some stuff. At least one, the thing. And he is fighting for this idea!

If everything everything, think of it is a set, then that does not carry any information. That is why I explicitly said yes, I said it first! And something. The universe is also something. By the way. Because I think Mr. Chu-Carroll is a good-to-outstanding explicator of things he does understand, and because I know he knows a lot about some relevant topics, I would ordinarily consider him a good guide to this stuff.

But when Mr. Langan, apparently correctly, points out errors in Mr. Some of Mr. They may be wrong for any number of reasons, from a few simple errors to large-scale self-delusion. Exercises in condemnation of his ideas do not help me or, I think, anyone to understand that.

Unfortunately, too much of this post and the ensuing comments takes that tack, rather than careful criticism. As long as the sets Mr. Langan considers fit the basic set concept regardless of what they contain as elements and exhibit the properties stipulated by the axioms, they are mathematical sets, right?

Second, it seems to me there is some choice of the level of concern at which we view entities as distinct. Two things may be the same in some respects and different in others.

But it would be valid to reason about them either way, as long as we establish the context correctly. In fact, from skimming through Mr.

I cannot judge if he has done this well or poorly, coherently or incoherently, in part because I lack the background, in part because I have been stymied by some of his new nomenclature, and in part because some of his reasoning is unclear to me.

But I think he has grappled with this question. You have a reality. Of course, one can build different models of reality, depending on what is of interest in every moment.

Then you have mathematics, which are a good language to build models of reality. One of their tools is the concept of set. You can MODEL reality as a set. When you are building your model, you can decide if some perception is modeled as an object, as two objects, or as many as you want.

But what you are not able do is to mistake the model for reality. It is your model that is a set, not reality. From some perspectives they look the same, from others they do not. And you can assume there are unknown perspectives to you.

So you evaluate and you decide if you model them by one entity or two. He is doing this because he pretends not to be discussing a model for the Universe, which could be more or less appropiate and would be refutable, but the Universe itself. This is what is profoundly wrong and is highly antiscientific.

Of course we understand you can model the Universe as a set. But that is not what Langan is saying. Earlier you suggested that the model might amount to a one-element set, because none of the things in it might be truly distinct. But if this is so, in what way can it be a complete, successful model of the universe?

The universe actually exhibits manifold aspects, which may be observed as its distinct features or parts, or objects contained in it. If the model can only model it as a singular entity, then it is not an exhaustive model.

So any successful, complete model actually would not be such a singleton set, and would instead have to have many elements. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me you are restating Mr.

I found Mr. I have searched, in vain, for some guidance on the web as to whether it is valid to think, from a mathematical perspective, of real objects as being contained in a set.

But anyway, let suppose it is right: you would have proved that if a completely correct model exists then it would be a set. You would still have to prove that this model exists.

And not obvious at all. The fact that you perceive some aspects does not mean they are real. I agree because, well, yes, you see your knives, and you think they are a set.

But at certain level the model falls down: the knives are made of atoms. Some atoms are separated from the blade, and mix with air. Some atoms go, some arrive.

Some are interchanged between the blades. Do reality equal your mental set of six knives? Yes, you can go for another model, an atomic one. The model is not the thing. Again, you could consider a temporal model. Got it? But that is irrelevant, so I will not go into any deep.

The key is this: a model can not be identified with the modeled reality because we can never know if the modeled reality will always behave as our model. How can you be sure your model completely fit the reality? You can not, and so you can not mistake one thing for the other.

I think that was accomplished, at least according to your reply. As to the fact that we may perceive things that are not real — yes, of course. I think your take on the steak knives question is a non-starter. It is not the case that the definition of the knives is identical to a particular collection of atoms.

The definition of the knives is what an intelligence can recognize as the knives. The only problem with that is I never said that. Reread my comments, please. If you want to model perceptions, feel free to use a set.

You have the universe a real knife , you model your perception of it, and as you can model it by a set, you say I was mistaken telling maybe the Universe is not a set. You are not arguing with me, but you believe you are. I was talking about Langan views and you are arguing about models of our perception.

Sets are, by definition, collections of objects. In our universe, perceptions are, by observation, among the objects that we find. They are not unreal — they are real perceptions.

That means they are among the distinct things in the universe. If all perceptions, thoughts, etc. You are correct and I was wrong about your point to Mr. Langan; I misremembered your earlier remark and did not go back and re-read the entire thread.

However, it still seems to me that your attempted refutation that the universe is set — because it may not be made up of distinct objects — is invalid. There are clearly many distinctions between objects, e. the perceptions we were just talking about. You build a model for the Universe, and you use concepts such as sets.

The set is useful in the building of the model. Then you use the model to explain your perceptions and to make predictions. If the predictions are in agreement with the observations you conclude the model is a good model for the Universe, under the limitations of the observations.

Then you can make predictions with your model and be confident in the results. This way, the model is useful for you, and, transitively, the concept of set is useful. But you can never know if the model if completely correct. How can you ever tell if a model is completely valid?

The doubt is always there, you can not evade it. But even in this way a model can be useful to make predictions, and so the concept of set. Yes, set are, by definition, collections of objects. I agree with this. But, what is an object? I believe any definition of an object is in the realm of a model.

So yes, a set is a collection of objects, but an object is an abstraction. I believe you will not agree with me on this. For me, a knife is an abstraction, a classification. Would you be able to say if something is a small sword or a big knife? Is a knife too rusty to work still a knife?

Or maybe not. Because the atoms are changing. Is it an objects or a lot of them? Is a collection of atoms? In what instant? For me, an object is an abstraction, not a real thing. In fact any though you can have is about models in your head.

A lot of times I can not say where a perception ends and where the next starts; nor I can say if two perceptions thunder and lighting are one objects or two. Language is about abstractions, not reality directly. But I still find the concept of set very useful.

I can make predictions with them. Anyway, all these are my opinions, which seem very natural to me. You have your own, which I respect and find interesting.

But precisely as we both have different perspectives Langan can not say the Universe is a set. At least without explaining why my perspective that which I find so natural is wrong.

He could always assume it is a set and create a theory from that assumption. No problem, all theories make assumptions. To take just one example, for me the important thing is not to recognize all knives vs.

swords, etc. Do philosophical questions remain about being able to do so? I suppose they probably do e. I admit this is just my strong intuition; not something I can prove. You have made me question a little bit what seemed transparently obvious to me at the outset: that the universe is, in a real sense, composed of many different objects, and it is legitimate, therefore, to call it a set, but not only a set.

Perhaps I should have confined myself to that point, and not got onto the side issues. It seems to me that the difference in our point of view comes down to your saying that even in assigning identity to things there is an act of modelling which may be wrong.

My point of view is that as long as the assignments are done according to some repeatable algorithm based on real perceptions, then there is no real doubt that the assignment is capturing something real about the universe. Perhaps that is a philosophical point of view, after all. I want to correct my remark: re-reading, I see that Mr.

Langan did use some harsher language in his first reply than he used in his later replies. He did throw around some ad hominem stuff, mixed in with valid atttemps at rebuttal. All in all, no one in this exchange fought entirely on the level of ideas; there was some invective on both sides.

Noting that Mark had titled his critique in an extremely deprecating manner, I thought it advisable to respond. However, I found that because Mark had moved his blog to Scientopia, it would be impossible to enter a response at ScienceBlogs.

I entered what I thought, under the circumstances, was a friendly and moderately informative response. Mark responded in a highly aggressive and insulting way. So I entered another comment to make sure that everyone understood the problem. I hoped that this would be the end of the matter.

Unfortunately, it was not the end of the matter. Mark moved a slightly updated version of his critique to the current front page of his blog, under an arguably even more insulting heading, in an apparent effort to teach me the following lesson:.

If one thinks about it a little, this may at least begin to explain the harshness of my tone. In fact, I think that my language has been quite controlled under the circumstances. I like how you are utterly unable to talk about math instead of your rather large ego and insults to it.

It would have been much more effective had you simply addressed the criticism against you rather than ignored it and raised several points that had already been dealt with and talked about MarkCC instead.

Consider that even if Mark was a complete idiot, it would still be possible for him to point out a flaw in what you are saying. If these people wanted to explain why the surface of the water in a bucket curves when the water rotates, they will explain this phenomenon as the effect of the motion of the water with respect to absolute space.

Now let us say someone comes along and says that this phenomenon is not due to the absolute circular motion of the water, but is actually due to the relative motion of the water with respect to the local gravitational field.

Certainly not. How merely pointing this out renders him the biggest jerk on the planet is beyond me. This is not my concern however: my concern is that the people on here simply do not know how to be civil in a debate. If you think there is an aspect of the theory that is objectionable, ask questions to clarify.

If you think something he said was unfair, explicate why you feel that way in a polite manner. Overall, actually have a discussion rather than just making these increasingly incoherent statements along with the name calling. If Chris had pointed out that he was using different assumptions and then proceeded to explain the differences that would have been perfectly reasonable.

That was the goal of pointing out that Chris was bringing Mark the person into it rather than defending his ideas. The very fact that such a statement is incomprehensible counts against its coherency. However, this seems to fail to counter my above point, tangential to the overall discussion as it may be.

But if people really believe the theory is meaningless then why are they even bothering to raise objections? Why would you object to something that says precisely nothing? He is most certainly trying to convey something. This is not an uncommon or pointless charge especially when it comes to evaluating metaphysical theories.

For example, logical positivists claim that metaphysical claims are meaningless by virtue of their being unverifiable, and various theorists of meaning have thought that sentences whose subject lacks a referent are meaningless e.

Since no one has pointed it out, I may as well. February post at least makes one of his fundamental problems very clear. In mereology, one can talk about the universe itself as a collection of objects or mereological sums.

In naive set theory or ZFC, the universe cannot be a set since the set of the entities comprising the universe and the universe itself are different things by definition.

In order to derive any problems for set theory or our conception of the universe, Langan has to decide which framework he is using. He never explicitly does that, but jumps back and forth between mereology and naive set theory.

In naive set theory which is inconsistent anyway or ZFC none of his purported problems even arise, since in these systems the universe cannot be viewed as a set — rather, the structured set consisting of all the elements in the universe is itself an abstract, mathematical object as is the singleton with the universe as a member with physical entities as members — and the only thing he provides is some feeble nonsense about how, if we distinguish our mathematical models of reality from the physical phenomena they model, science becomes impossible and we are saddled with ontological dualism.

Well, there are indeed philosophical questions that arise from accepting abstract objects, but they have nothing to do with what Langan discusses.

If you do think that accepting abstract objects entails an untenable form of dualism but it is a problem for nominalism rather than materialism, and those are not the same positions , I suggest adopting some kind of constructivist or even formalist view of mathematics.

A lot of work, to put it mildly, has gone into developing such approaches, none of which Langan even mentions removing the sharp distinction between syntax and semantics and the need for model theory has been a defining characteristic for many logicist approaches, for instance, although they do retain the difference between mathematical language and the reality the language is about, of course; it is not so obvious that Langan does.

On a related note, it is claimed that things like syntax and semantics are coupled in a new and profoundly different way. This is what everyone else is talking about, qualified or otherwise.

That is not the case — there are primitive notions in mathematics that are not derived from any axiom. They, themselves, have a status like axioms.

It further quotes Tarski saying that:. At the same time we adopt the principle: not to employ any of the other expression of the discipline under consideration, unless its meaning has first been determined with the help of primitive terms and of such expressions of the discipline whose meanings have been explained previously.

This does not make them invalid for use in axiomatic theories. I have no reference beyond your own pointer to the Wikipedia article. I would say that one constructs axioms to try to capture the primitive notion, but once the axioms and rules of inference are chosen, the primitive notion has no more role to play.

The essence of mathematical proof is the application of the rules of inference to the axioms; nowhere does the primitive notion that the mathematician was trying to capture play a role.

You know, you understand Chris and in so doing you recognize him as senseless and hence, throw out the CAT. And hopefully, the logical chain behind a theory should be validated by more than one person. And maybe this is the antithesis and anathema to the postmodernist and why you get nothing but obfuscation and rhetoric from that camp.

One needs to realize that the Universe has never been treated as a set but more as a complex. After all, do we treat a library as a set?

No, we treat it as a complex, i. a whole that comprehends a number of intricate parts, especially one with interconnected or mutually related parts and a set is nothing more than a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right.

My observation has to do with the quality of the article and posts on this blog. The writing on this blog, it seems to me, suffers from a lack of self-editing. Most of the writing displays deep and thoughtful consideration of interesting issues.

However, the ideas are often not well expressed, leading to misunderstanding and personal attacks. is failure to communicate. One fundamental way to improve written communication is to self-edit.

Introduction 1 Explain in a sentence why we should care about what you are about to say. Body Go through each point in order and methodically.

When transitioning from one point to the next, explicitly state any temporal, logical, or other connection between the point you just finished and the next point. Conclusion Summarize what you think you just said.

Call for whatever action you want from the readers. writes elegant first drafts. All right, one of them does, but we do not like her very much. Now for the question. In the evolution of my world-view, I have decided that I believe that everything in the world exists and is material.

In particular, given what I have read about modern neuroscience, I have come to the view that ideas, thoughts, and emotions exist in a material form, in particular, as electrical signals and chemical combinations in the brain.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter. With regard to the original issues raised by this post, in my formulation, the concept of a set, whether naive or not, has an existence in this universe as a pattern of physical events occurring in each of our brains when we consider the concept.

Of course, it is probably the case that patterns are slightly different for each individual. Nonetheless, perhaps when we are communicating effectively, our use of the term and concept is recognized by the reader as sufficiently close to his or her concept that the communication can be understood.

To conclude, and to follow my own template, I think I have said that self-editing, and in particular, reorganization would improve the quality of communication on this blog and I encourage you all to try it. I have also asked for your opinion on my philosophical ruminations.

I would enjoy reading your response, whether it takes the form of references to materials I might be interested in, general thoughts on my concept of materialism, or your answer to the question, How does the idea that all concepts, including the concept of a set, have a physical presence affect the idea of the universe as a set?

Or if any of you folks are still reading you can feel free to criticize my interpretation as well. I viewed it as more of a philosophical treatise, something more in line with A Critique of Pure Reason, and less of a model for physics as I keep seeing it described in the media. The inconsistencies of naive set theory manifest via this isomorphism as the challenges and dilemmas faced by modern metaphysics.

So Langan claims that this paradigm is equivalent to trying to create a set of all sets in naive set theory, which leads to problems down the road. The rest of his paper shows why this simple view of the Universe causes most of the problems.

In this case he claims that the mind-body problem is one of these false dilemmas, and that dualism is the incorrect resolution of it. Langan claims that many of these dilemmas can be addressed by realizing that they stem from this invalid schema for the universe, which most people have without realizing it.

It is also notable that things like the mind-body problem are actually problems with our model of the Universe, not a problem with the Universe itself — in the Universe, everything fits together nicely with no paradoxes. By coming up with such a model for the Universe, one can become instantly enlightened and realize that monism is the way to go.

He claims to resolve the paradox by defining exactly in what sense the Universe contains itself while also being contained by a larger set, and in so doing defines a meta-language outside of the original one.

And he also claims that one bit of the Universe is holographically reflective of every other bit of it, and since one of those bits is our brains, which are constantly perceiving order and cognizing things, that order and cognition are everywhere. Or something like that.

I think I may pick up where you leave off. it is dynamic and resolves in the same way, forever. The easiest way to think about this is to make a set of some arbitrary elements, lets call it M. We can then define a power set of M that includes the power set of M.

At least this is my interpretation of it. What do you think? Also, Mr. First and foremost all this hostility and blame of its initiation needs especially Mark and Chris to stop.

Let me tell you my story, that might be relevant to you. When I was a lowly PHD student my first couple journal articles I sent in kept getting R and R Revise and Resubmit. Finally my adviser sat down with me one day he was kind of a ghost read through my shit and told me it was incomprehensible.

I was pissed. The accumulation of all these little jumps led to an incomprehensible paper. Now looking back I think this is why I was so poor at writing essays for history etc.

during undergrad. So I sat back down went through both the papers and in painful and what I thought redundant detail went through every little step. After I did that both got published in tier one journals.

So yeah I think there might be an element of this with you. Thirdly I think of lot of this is miscommunication. One positive thing about academia though, is that it acts as a coordination mechanism in terms of jargon. When you get that kind of divergence in terms, translation honestly becomes an issue.

Also Chris try to be a little more………diplomatic. Sorry to double post I do have a question to ask though. I am going to break away from the all the abstract stuff and go to something a little more concrete.

How do we max global utility when we only know our own utility function and not others? Are laws and religion attempts? Are we just supposed to use our best guess?

What if someone really loves raping and he rapes a retarded girl that is too disabled to feel pain etc. First, sorry for the bad writing. Bad writing may be worse for communication that no writing! Sorry about it, but you can not use physics to prove the universe is a set.

Physics defines models. Physics is an experimental science. You can find sets and elements in your model, but they are not objetive elements in reality.

You say the Universe can be seen as the set of particular events in your brain. What is an event in your brain? What is a signal in your brain? As I previously said, you have a model in your case, independent signals on your brain , and you can identify elements and sets in your model.

But thats not the Universe, even in an objetive, absolute, material Universe. I still see pseudoscience in your interpretation. So the premise is misguided. The problem is in our interpretation, if there is any problem at all.

So the conclusion is trivial. The rest is empty words glued together without meaning. No, seriously. What semantics does he associate with this sentence? What is he trying to say? Where does he get that conclusion? Does he even know what thermodynamic entropy is?

He wants a free ride …what with, only one can imagine. The thrashing he gives his dead horse keeps away the flies, but the stink is unmistakable. Challenge accepted. Ask me any single question about the CTMU, exclusive or offer any single piece of criticism.

The two things are really one thing, however, it just depends on how the detection of this specific event reaches our senses. The imagining of these scenes will cause various neurological events which will show up on the MRI we will assume that they do for the sake of argument.

A different, monistic interpretation might be that these two events the MRI blip and the actual qualitative experience of cognition are really one event just experienced through two different modes of sensory perception — literally. Either way, this is the perception of that event from the standpoint of the event beaming information through space, where it is detected by the senses of another human being probably with the help of tools like an MRI and cognized over there.

The above was an idea I had thrown around for a while, so it seemed like Chris Langan was on the same page with his CTMU. People think the Universe is the set of all material things, or the set of all existing sets, the set of all consistent sets, whatever, but not the set of all mathematical sets.

At least, I have never found a person with this idea. I may be wrong. We could make a poll. With respect to the rest, I can not comment. But this is a change of name. Langan allegedly espoused regarding entropy.

Please explain where he says or implies this. You are on the right track with your views inasmuch as they are monistic. Though your views fit more or less into the framework of the CTMU, I do not think they originate from where in the CTMU you think they originate.

Specifically, Mr. Instead, his argument against dualism proceeds by syndiffeonesis, a process which he describes in his paper. Oh, sorry about that. I thought you were Mr. Langan because I noticed your other comment on the americanatheist.

org blog, where he was also posting. My bad. Such an unfortunate waste of Mr. I agree with koinotely, seems like mob mentality even reaches the PHD level. Langan is not just extremely smart, he is an off the charts genius. I believe he deserves more respect than he got here period whether he made himself clear or not.

Has anyone heard of asking him nicely to explain his theory on a more comprehensive level instead of insulting the man by calling him a crank? I think not…. I agree with both koinotely and Justin, but I would like to add that Mr.

Langan has explained his work quite clearly over the Internet. If one wishes to learn about it in more detail, one must simply look at the correct websites.

No matter what. Because, hey, he is intelligent! Well, he may be intelligent, but some people here seem to be pretty err… the opposite. You can continue to think that heavier bodies fall faster. Aristotle was a very intelligent people.

I at least will continue to think and judge on ideas, not authority. Seriously, I have a big problem trying to understand you. Are you really trying to convince us that he is right using as your only argument that some unknown guy said he was very intelligent?

John, I assume you are addressing Justin. All I can say is that Mr. Langan considers his IQ to be ultimately irrelevant next to his intellectual contributions. If you wish to debate those intellectual contributions, namely various parts of the CTMU, with me, feel free to proceed right now. Simply state a specific qualm you have with it and I will gladly debate it with you here.

Well, I was addressing anyone who basically speaks about intelligence as an argument. Nobody specifically, they are scattered over the post. Maybe to be willing to learn, but that is not the way people use the term. And nobody seems to know, yet people try to use the word to settle arguments.

My impression about IQ is this: A lot of people trying to get into mensa-like-clubs to feel superior, only to later hide their IQ to not feel inferior once there.

Talk about irony! Regarding your offer to debate the theory, I believe his pages speak by themselves. I would be a hard time finding an specific qualm.

I also feel that many high IQ societies originally founded as places for members to befriend like-minded people have become breeding grounds for insecure egos. It is of course extremely likely that some societies are worse than others in that respect and there are probably still societies truly dedicated to helping the gifted overcome their isolation.

Because every sentence is a premise, an assertion. An they are assertions widely known to be false. free assertion — every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it.

what is the largest set? does it really have a powerset? free assertion — a powerset if larger. is this assertion valid for infinite sets? free assertion. Bad logic is about disguising unaccetable premises premises not much people would take for granted as being inferred, despite having no connection with the rest.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. In hopes of rebooting this discussion from scratch: Can someone explain, very simply, a correct interpretation of the CTMU? You need to look at that quotation in context. The assumption is that reality is a set. It follows that it is the largest set of all because all conceivable things necessarily fall into reality.

Now that we have for the sake of contradiction come to the conclusion albeit illogically that reality is the largest set, its powerset is the set of all mappings between its members, as is true for all sets. Assuming that reality is a set as we have, it has a powerset.

Just remember that Mr. Langan does not actually believe reality to be a set and that this is merely the beginning of a proof of its not being such. The assumption is that reality is a set, that it is the largest set, that the largest set exists, that reality is the largest set, that infinite sets can be compared in size, that… he actually makes a lot of assumptions.

It follows from where? Wow, not so fast. Want a proof? As I conceived it, it is part of reality. So hey! Why is my proof empty? First: what do you understand by conceivable?

Then why is it necessary for something conceivable to fall into reality? Maybe there are conceivable things that are not real. Why not? Maybe there are a sets of inconceivable things that are bigger. As the previous conclusion is erroneous, the conclusions based on that conclusion are erroneous.

And so on. To make things clear, some of his hypothesis are: — the universe is a set — there exists a set larger than any other, which we call the largest set. But he could be referring to a more relax concept. I would not need so much hypothesis to build a contradiction.

The problem is he is not proving anything about the Universe at all. But then you select one of the premises and say it is wrong because inserting it in a set of inconsistent hypothesis it results in a new set of inconsistent hypothesis. You only need the last two for that, so he said nothing about the Universe being a set or not.

This paragraph is just an example, but you can see he is just asserting things. I admit that what I said is terribly inaccurate.

Let me give a better reason for reality being the largest set of all, assuming it is a set. I provide here the method by which Mr. Langan goes about this in his paper, which I should have read more carefully before replying to your earlier post. Predicates may be described as sets and vice versa, so a self-defining predicate may be described as a self-including set.

By the way, I mean predicate in the mathematical and not grammatical sense. By definition, all that exists is included in reality. As reality is also a self-including set, as shown above, it both contains itself and contains everything real. You also claimed that Mr. You seem to be confused about how Mr.

As scientists have probed deeper and deeper into the workings of nature, all sorts of laws have come to light that are not at all obvious from a casual inspection of the world, for example, laws that regulate the internal components of atoms or the structure of stars.

The multiplicity of laws raises another challenging question: How long would a complete list of laws be? Would it include ten? two hundred? Might the list even be infinitely long? Not all the laws are independent of one another.

It wasn't long after Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Boyle began discovering laws of physics that scientists found links between them. For example, Newton's laws of gravitation and motion explain Kepler's three laws of planetary motion and so are in some sense deeper and more powerful.

Newton's laws of motion also explain Boyle's law of gases when they are applied in a statistical way to a large collection of chaotically moving molecules.

In the four centuries that have passed since the first laws of physics were discovered, more and more have come to light, but more and more links have been spotted too. The laws of electricity, for example, were found to be connected to the laws of magnetism, which in turn explained the laws of light.

These interconnections led to a certain amount of confusion about which laws were "primary" and which could be derived from others. Physicists began talking about "fundamental" laws and "secondary" laws, with the implication that the latter were formulated for convenience only.

Sometimes physicists call these "effective laws" to distinguish them from the "true" underlying fundamental laws, within which, at least in principle, the effective, or secondary, laws can all be subsumed. In this respect, the laws of physics differ markedly from the laws of civil society, which are an untidy hodgepodge of statutes expanding without limit.

To take an extreme case, the tax laws in most countries run to millions of words of text. By comparison, the Great Rule Book of Nature at least as it is currently understood would fit comfortably onto a single page.

This streamlining and repackaging process — finding links between laws and reducing them to ever more fundamental laws — continues apace, and it's tempting to believe that, at rock bottom, there is just a handful of truly fundamental laws, possibly even a single superlaw, from which all the other laws derive.

Given that the laws of physics underpin the entire scientific enterprise, it is curious that very few scientists bother to ask what these laws actually mean. Speak to physicists, and most of them will talk as if the laws are real things — not physical objects, of course, but abstract relationships between physical entities.

Importantly, though, they are relationships that really exist "out there" in the world and not just in our heads.

For brevity I have been a bit cavalier with my terminology. If you confront a physicist and say, "Show me the laws of physics," you will be referred to a collection of textbooks — on mechanics, gravitation, electromagnetism, nuclear physics, and so on. But a pertinent question is whether the laws you find in the books are actually the laws of physics or just somebody's best stab at them.

Few physicists would claim that a law found in a book in print today is the last word on the subject; all the textbook laws are probably just some sort of approximation of the real ones.

Most physicists nevertheless believe that as science advances, the textbook laws will converge on the Real Thing. There is a subtlety buried in all this that will turn out to be of paramount importance when I come to discuss the origin of the laws.

The idea of laws began as a way of formalizing patterns in nature that connect physical events. Physicists became so familiar with the laws that somewhere along the way the laws themselves — as opposed to the events they describe — became promoted to reality. The laws took on a life of their own.

It is hard for nonscientists to grasp the significance of this step. One analogy might be made with the world of finance. Money in the pocket means coins and notes — real physical things that get exchanged for real physical goods or services.

But money in the abstract has also taken on a life of its own. Investors can grow or shrink, in my case money without ever buying or selling physical stuff. For example, there are rules for manipulating different currencies that are at best tenuously connected to the actual purchasing function in your local corner shop.

In fact, there is far more "money" in circulation, much of it swirling around cyberspace via the Internet, than can ever be accumulated as coins and notes. In a similar vein, the laws of physics are said to inhabit an abstract realm and touch the physical world only when they "act.

This "prescriptive" view of physical laws as having power over nature is not without its detractors namely, philosophers who prefer a "descriptive" view. So we have this image of really existing laws of physics ensconced in a transcendent aerie, lording it over lowly matter. One reason for this way of thinking about the laws concerns the role of mathematics.

Numbers began as a way of labeling and tallying physical things such as beads or sheep. As the subject of mathematics developed, and extended from simple arithmetic into geometry, algebra, calculus, and so forth, so these mathematical objects and relationships came to assume an independent existence.

In this Platonic heaven there would be found, for example, perfect circles — as opposed to the circles we encounter in the real world, which will always be flawed approximations to the ideal.

Many modern mathematicians are Platonists at least on weekends. They believe that mathematical objects have real existence yet are not situated in the physical universe. Theoretical physicists, who are steeped in the Platonic tradition, also find it natural to locate the mathematical laws of physics in a Platonic realm.

I have depicted this arrangement diagrammatically in Figure 2. In the final chapter I shall take a critical look at the nature of physical laws and ask whether the Platonic view has become an unwelcome fixation in the drive to understand the mathematical underpinnings of the universe.

Goodbye God? Religion was the first systematic attempt to explain the universe comprehensively. It presented the world as a product of mind or minds, of supernatural agents who could order or disorder nature at will.

In Hinduism, Brahma is creator and Shiva destroyer. In Judaism, Yahweh is both creator and destroyer. For the traditional Aboriginal people of the Kimberley in Australia, two creator beings acted in synergy. Wallanganda, a male space being, sprinkled water on Wunngud, a female snake coiled in jelly, to make Yorro Yorro — the world as we see it.

The major world religions devoted centuries of scholarship in attempts to make these theistic explanations cogent and consistent.

Even today, millions of people base their worldview on a religious interpretation of nature. Science was the second great attempt to explain the world. This time, explanations were cast in terms of impersonal forces and natural, physical processes rather than the activities of purposive supernatural agents.

When scientific explanations conflicted with religious explanations, religion invariably lost the battle. Mostly, theologians retreated to concentrate on social and ethical matters such as spiritual enlightenment, content to leave interpreting the physical universe to the scientists.

There are still people who believe that rain is made by rain gods rather than by atmospheric processes, but I wouldn't rate their chances in a debate with a meteorologist. When it comes to actual physical phenomena, science wins hands down against gods and miracles. That is not to say that science has explained everything.

There remain some pretty big gaps: for example, scientists don't know how life began, and they are almost totally baffled by consciousness. Even some familiar phenomena, such as turbulent fluids, are not completely understood.

But this doesn't mean that one needs to appeal to magic or miracles to plug the gaps; what is needed are advances in scientific understanding. This is a topic I shall address in detail in Chapter When it comes to metaphysical questions such as "Why are there laws of nature?

These sorts of questions are not much affected by specific scientific discoveries: many of the really big questions have remained unchanged since the birth of civilization and still vex us today. The various faith traditions have had hundreds of years to ponder them carefully.

Religious scholars such as Anselm and Thomas Aquinas were not pious simpletons, but the intellectual heavyweights of their age. Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile delusion.

And not only God, but any vestige of God-talk, such as "meaning" or "purpose" or "design" in nature. These scientists see religion as so fraudulent and sinister that nothing less than total theological cleansing will do. They concede no middle ground and regard science and religion as two implacably opposed worldviews.

Victory is assumed to be the inevitable outcome of science's intellectual ascendancy and powerful methodology. But will God go quietly? Even within the world of organized religion, the concept of God means many different things to different people.

At the level of popular, Sunday-school Christianity, God is portrayed simplistically as a sort of Cosmic Magician, conjuring the world into being from nothing and from time to time working miracles to fix problems. Such a being is obviously in flagrant contradiction to the scientific view of the world.

The God of scholarly theology, by contrast, is cast in the role of a wise Cosmic Architect whose existence is manifested through the rational order of the cosmos, an order that is in fact revealed by science. That sort of God is largely immune to scientific attack.

Is the Universe Pointless? Even atheistic scientists will wax lyrical about the scale, the majesty, the harmony, the elegance, the sheer ingenuity of the universe of which they form so small and fragile a part. As the great cosmic drama unfolds before us, it begins to look as though there is a "script" — a scheme of things — that its evolution is following.

We are then bound to ask, Who or what wrote the script? Or did the script somehow, miraculously, write itself? Is the great cosmic text laid down once and for all, or is the universe, or the invisible author, making it up as it goes along?

Is this the only drama being staged, or is our universe just one of many shows in town? The fact that the universe conforms to an orderly scheme, and is not an arbitrary muddle of events, prompts one to wonder — God or no God — whether there is some sort of meaning or purpose behind it all.

Many scientists are quick to pour scorn even on this weaker suggestion, however. Richard Feynman, arguably the finest theoretical physicist of the mid- twentieth century, thought that "the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behavior has a kind of meaninglessness about it.

To be sure, concepts like meaning and purpose are categories devised by humans, and we must take care when attempting to project them onto the physical universe. But all attempts to describe the universe scientifically draw on human concepts: science proceeds precisely by taking concepts that humans have thought up, often from everyday experience, and applying them to nature.

Doing science means figuring out what is going on in the world — what the universe is "up to," what it is "about. So we might justifiably invert Weinberg's dictum and say that the more the universe seems pointless, the more it also seems incomprehensible.

Of course, scientists might be deluded in their belief that they are finding systematic and coherent truth in the workings of nature.

It could be we who weave a tapestry of dazzling intellectual elegance from what is nothing more than a banality. Ultimately there may be no reason at all for why things are the way they are.

But that would make the universe a fiendishly clever bit of trickery. Can a truly absurd universe so convincingly mimic a meaningful one? This is the biggest of the big questions of existence that we will confront as we embark on our investigation of life, the universe, and everything.

To appreciate this book you have to be comfortable with that idea. Many physicists think they are real and that they inhabit a transcendent Platonic realm. Most, but by no means all, scientists are atheists or agnostics. Copyright © by Orion Productions.

Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Company. Leer más. Brief content visible, double tap to read full content. Full content visible, double tap to read brief content. Sobre el autor Sigue a los autores para recibir notificaciones de sus nuevas obras, así como recomendaciones mejoradas.

Leer más Leer menos. Opiniones de clientes. Cómo funcionan las opiniones y calificaciones de clientes Las opiniones de clientes, incluidas las valoraciones de productos ayudan a que los clientes conozcan más acerca del producto y decidan si es el producto adecuado para ellos.

Más información sobre cómo funcionan las opiniones de clientes en Amazon. Imágenes en esta reseña. Opiniones con imágenes. Ver todas las fotos. Todas las fotos. Received used book, ordered new - had to return. Más Ocultar. Gracias por tus comentarios.

Lo sentimos, se produjo un error. Lo sentimos, no pudimos cargar la opinión. Ordenar opiniones por Opiniones principales Más recientes Opiniones principales. Opiniones destacadas de los Estados Unidos.

Traducir todas las opiniones al Español. Ha surgido un problema al filtrar las opiniones justo en este momento. Vuelva a intentarlo en otro momento. Compra verificada. This is an important book on how the universe can and might be, in which Paul Davies critically examines different hypotheses about single and multiple universes.

His book illuminates the most critical issues of physics and philosophy and of some biology underlying our understanding of Science and Religion.

He has called himself an agnostic, and he does not argue for religious beliefs. This newest book by Davies is somewhat more technical than his other books but is still well within the general readership level.

Davies updates and expands upon all previous overviews I know of in the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence, enriching previous accounts especially in his discussion of multiple universes. Throughout the book, Davies flags the free parameters, or "constants of nature", some 20 of them counting force coupling constants and the masses of elementary particles, which, in the standard models of nuclear physics, astrophysics and cosmology, must be exquisitely fine-tuned to yield a single universe capable of supporting life.

As an alternative to this fine-tuning, physicists have proposed multiple universes, or a multiverse, wherein infinite universes, a few of them with properties supporting life, could counterbalance the infinitesimal probability of the degree of fine-tuning necessary in a single universe if it occurred only by chance.

The difference between these views has obvious and profound metaphysical and religious implications. It is a mathematical construct wherein physical theories might be "accommodated" - it can in principle provide a way to make predictions for those theories - but so far it cannot predict anything real, anything that has been or could be measured.

And right now the odds are about even and rapidly getting longer that it ever will. Davies spells out some of these wild possibilities - wild because there would be infinite possibilities, including infinite variations of the laws of physics among different universes - and he describes some that might be more likely from probability arguments.

I cannot do justice to that exciting ride without quoting his whole discussion. But, mind you, Davies does not do this in any lighthearted way; he is deadly serious in scientifically examining these possibilities.

One of the inevitable possibilities is that some universes are but computer simulations by some superculture out there in another universe. And the show-stopper in that scenario is that our own universe, including our very selves, is most probably a simulation imagine an incredibly advanced virtual reality emulation of everything, even our consciousness.

In the multiverse picture, the universe we perceive, and any God we worship, are fakes! Every philosopher's wildest dreams can and will come true with infinite possibilities in infinite universes.

This multiverse thing is annoying, isn't it? Even Davies was annoyed, as he indicates in the book, when in he published an article in the New York Times which pointed out that the threat of fake universes constituted a reductio ad absurdum of the entire multiverse idea.

In a recent note 1 Davies concluded that there were three alternatives, and he explains this more thoroughly in the book. Namely, the argument leading from the laws of physics we know - to multiple universes with fake physics - to anthropic selection - to the elimination of God is a contradictory loop; and the multiverse advocates are thus "hoist by their own petard!

However, Davies admits p. Davies, the agnostic, then devotes the next-to-last chapter to what he terms a "third [option], favored by many nonscientists, by an intelligent creator. I would strongly suggest that the book "The Language of God" by Francis S.

Collins 2 be substituted for Davies' attempts here. But then Davies moves quickly on to his more comfortable ground of physics. While concluding that belief in a God who makes the laws of physics, who is responsible for the universe and for continually holding it into existence without tinkering with its day-to-day operation, is popular with many scientists as well as theologians, Davies is uncomfortable with this as its being, in his view, an hoc explanation that leads us "no further forward" no further forward to a purely scientific explanation.

He then goes on to ask many questions couched within physics, that, for me, are not the dilemmas an agnostic or atheist faces, e. The agnostic constraints Davies imposes on himself in this chapter seem to go beyond an evenhandedness in treating belief and non-belief in God.

Perhaps the alternative and stronger definition of an agnostic applies to Davies a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality, as is God, is unknown and probably unknowable.

In summarizing this chapter, Davies writes: "Unless everything that can exist does exist, something still unexplained must separate what exists and what doesn't" and "We are not finished yet!

Davies then addresses whether life should, in the first place, be considered a fundamental or accidental phenomenon. After some very elegant discussion, he concludes from both scientific and philosophical considerations that life, and mind in particular, is a unique, extremely important and fundamental phenomenon of nature.

Further, he considers that the connection between 1 life and mind and 2 the cosmos must be deeper than that from just "the crude lottery of multiverse cosmology combined with the Weak Anthropic Principle.

Davies' bottom line is that neither of The Two Explanations, the universe fine-tuned for life which Davies calls a "fluke" or the multiverse picture, can scientifically answer the ultimate question of existence because they both require a scientifically unexplained starting point.

Lastly, Davies considers briefly a self-engineered, self-aware universe perhaps brought about through quantum backward-causation, such as causal loops and wormholes, but concludes a missing ingredient would be self-awareness. I must note that that notions of traveling backwards in time to change the future were, in my view, forever put to rest by simple, non-quantum arguments from spacetime properties.

One short section titled "Afterword: Ultimate Explanations" is included at the end of the book and is extremely useful. Here, Davies gives a brief summary description of seven, as it turns out, classes of universes that embody the various attributes and their interpretations discussed throughout the book, thus collecting in one place each of their achievements in explaining things and their failures to do so.

After reading the book, one can then use this splendid synopsis as a quick reference to what all currently envisioned universes can, might, and cannot be like, presented in a mere eight pages.

However, if you cheat and start reading back there first, you won't understand it. At the end of this Afterword, Davies indicates which two of the seven types of universes he thinks might have the best chance of being true; but I won't spoil the book for you by revealing these.

However, I will say that, not surprisingly, these two do not include the simplest, most straightforward one, since that one references a God, which is considered by Davies to be too "ad hoc".

In summary, let me emphasize that this book explains, in simple language, both scientifically and philosophically, the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence more comprehensively than any previous account I know of when it comes to multiple universes.

Although one might infer that his agnosticism leans more toward atheism, that does not affect his tremendous contributions.

Davies continues to serve a vital function in being a critical watchdog, from the science side, of the most important, underlying issues in the field of Science and Religion. Martin P. Fricke Del Mar, California May 7, 1. Paul Davies, "Reloading The Matrix", pp.

Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, Free Press Div. See, for example, Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, Alfred A. Davies' Agnosticism. The discipline of Science and Religion includes, as it must to be healthy, agnostics, atheists, deists, monotheists, and others of different philosophical or religious persuasion.

However, it is only natural that atheists who deny the existence of a deity are not much interested in the subject of Science and Religion, whereas agnostics and those of any religious confession are usually very interested in what science might clarify for us about the mysteries of religious revelation.

As I've indicated, Davies' agnosticism, or even atheism, does not detract one iota from his extremely valuable contributions to Science and Religion. He serves as a critical scientific watchdog for the most important scientific ideas impacting this field.

I thank God for Davies' long-time interest in this field, of which he was a pioneer and founder. A 69 personas les resultó útil. Traducir opinión al idioma Español. Davies' broad knowledge shines in the "Cosmic Jackpot". He provides a very impartial survey of physics and cosmology, taking the reader through six chapters before getting to the heart of the issue: the Goldilocks enigma.

All theories are considered, but how does science account for the fine-tuning of constants that life depends on? Regarding the "dark energy density", Davies page writes the following.

This reduces the life-giving conditions to the "observer effect", we just happen to be in a lucky corner of the accidental universe. Davies page writes: "Cosmology is thereby transformed into an environmental science, in which a basic part of the explanation for what we observe in the universe depends on features of the local cosmic environment.

It is not like we can travel to the fall corners of the universe to sample these various locations, and some pockets may be beyond our ability to observe.

Davies comes to the rescue by implying that there may be "indirect evidence" that can refute these theories. This is a very unconvincing argument for the accidental universe that has not found a justification of its claims from first principles, while taking itself far from empirical science.

Davies is too polite to say this, but he tries a different approach. In the second half of Chapter 8, Davies goes from polite to the ridiculous.

He treats multiverses of infinite size containing duplicated people, fake or computer simulated realities, artificial intelligence, fake physics, and fake gods, thereby completing the reductio ad absurdum.

Sadly, some scientists actually fall for these fantasies, and Davies is sly to use trickery to expose their unfounded affection for technology and the accidental universe. The accidental universe cannot just be a love affair if it is going to remain science.

In Chapter 9, Davies describes the intelligent design controversy, and he falls for the Darwinist propaganda that sees no value in intelligent design. He refers to Richard Dawkins' arguments in "The Blind Watchmaker," forgetting that Dawkins' arguments have been refuted in various places.

They have been refuted in my new book, "Trinity. Where is the gene s for feeling? Or do genes feel too? Davies page admits "that living organisms are contraptions cobbled together from odds and ends as circumstances dictate.

But this tenancy for life to co-opt prior structures to bring new novelties into existence is extreme, leading to Behe's irreducible complexities. For example, genes also seemed to be cobbled together into Hox systems, where prior genes from distant ancestors have been co-opted for building entirely new structures.

We share the same genes, they are only organized differently. Darwin's theory did not predict this co-opting ability of life. Moreover, it is thought that gene mutations within the Hox system can lead to large or abrupt changes in evolution, a direct contradiction of the slow and gradual changes predicted by Darwin's theory.

Darwin's theory must assume that this co-opting ability is completely explained by conditions of necessity, and this is only a leap of faith.

This ability is every bit as mysterious as biogenesis, and it is continually occurring within evolution. Advocates of the accidental universe are required to attempt refutation of their theories if their theories are to remain within science. As they are advocates they do this reluctantly.

For intelligent design to remain within science these folks need only attempt eager refutation of the same hypothesis the accidental world , and no mention of a white-haired designer need be made. This tension returns value to science.

Davies page accuses intelligent design of equivocation, implying that the "intelligent design movement's propaganda is a failure to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the mechanism of evolution.

But intelligent design only provides Darwin's antithesis, and this eager involvement is necessary if Darwin's theory is going to stay within science. Davies is more sympathetic with intelligent design as it relates to fine-tuning and a cosmology that is found bio-friendly. He page writes that "here the design arguments is largely immune to Darwinian attack.

To describe life's feeling from conditions of mere necessity would seem to require a leap of faith, if not a miracle. The so-called explanations of life built from conditions of necessity work just as good if life had no feelings at all.

In the last half of Chapter 9, Davies looks at various conceptions of God, and questions "what is it that determines what exists? I could have told him that myself, in different words. It is Aristotle's principle of excluded middle that is an unfounded leap of faith.

And it is for this very reason that conditions of necessity are found insufficient to explain the feelings that life offers. But the feelings are sense-certain and not demanding a reason based on conditions of necessity.

The feelings source the middle term that had been excluded from reason. What co-opts the past implies a necessary backward causation, a subtle form of teleology that Davies finds favor with in Chapter And in his concluding remarks Davies finds favor in a self-explaining universe, or a universe that holds a life principle.

These are very agreeable choices again, in my view. And my point all along has been that Darwinism is incomplete without Davies' life principle. Feeling is found escaping conditions of necessity by way of a life principle that points to Aristotle's forgotten middle-term.

And what is feeling at its deepest level but love? It has been the love of God that drove our evolution. But this is not a white-haired creator God that is held separate from his creation.

This God affirms the Trinity, as only a Trinitarian logic can deal with a middle-term that cannot be excluded. As I agree with Davies remarkable conclusions, despite our disagreements, his book wins five stars in my most critical opinion.

Remember, our felt tension returns value to science. Disclosure: My agenda is declared in my profile. A 8 personas les resultó útil. Ver más opiniones.

Page navigation Or did the script somehow, miraculously, write itself? At least without explaining why my perspective that which I find so natural is wrong. A profound shift of paradigm such as the CTMU could provoke would likely change the sciences forever. Blink Seguridad inteligente para todos los hogares. By the way. The laws took on a life of their own.
of theoretical physics, author Epsañol Hyperspace and Parallel Jzckpot —. Paul Davies edpañol an internationally Free Spins physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist at Arizona State Jackpot Sensation Universe en español, Jackpkt he Jackpt the pioneering Beyond Center for Cashback al completar preguntas en juegos de azar en español Concepts in Science. He Sejsation chairs the Jackpot Sensation Universe en español for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Post-Detection Taskgroup, so that if SETI succeeds in finding intelligent life, he will be among the first to know. The asteroid OG was officially renamed Pauldavies in his honor. In addition to his many scientific awards, Davies is the recipient of the Templeton Prize--the world's largest annual prize--for his work on science and religion. He is the author of more than twenty books, including The Mind of God, About Time, How to Build a Time Machine, and The Goldilocks Enigma. He lives in Tempe, Arizona.

Video

¡GANA LA LOTERIA con la Ley de Asunción! - afirmaciones Poderosas - Directo al subconsciente💤

Author: Fenridal

0 thoughts on “Jackpot Sensation Universe en español

Leave a comment

Yours email will be published. Important fields a marked *

Design by ThemesDNA.com