Why do atheist's fear God?
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
that is the mystery troll .. how given all the potential starting points.. did the ratio of mass to energy get evenly distributed to a precision of 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123. if it were any different... we would not have life of any kind.
as penrose said that is exteme fine tuning... and in the past when you asked for how he calculated the number I presented an exerpt from his book which showed you how to arrived at that number.
I will keep repeating that point in the myraid ways I have presented it til you cease with your ignorant denials.
as penrose said that is exteme fine tuning... and in the past when you asked for how he calculated the number I presented an exerpt from his book which showed you how to arrived at that number.
I will keep repeating that point in the myraid ways I have presented it til you cease with your ignorant denials.
For goodness sake, he does NOT explain to you, me or anyone else, HOW anything IS fine tuned.
your faith in a future explanation is one of the possibilities...
God did it.
the multiverse enables it
or someday we will find a theory explaining whey all the constants had to be the way they are. (the so called theory of everthing.)
that is something I have been telling your for years and years.
God did it.
the multiverse enables it
or someday we will find a theory explaining whey all the constants had to be the way they are. (the so called theory of everthing.)
that is something I have been telling your for years and years.
The ratios are a product of our own minds, they represent a reality, but they are not that reality. Yes, they exist in the sense that they are patterns of chemistry stored on our neurons, but they are still just reflections of something else. As we continue to chop reality into smaller and smaller pieces (which in fact do not and have never existed independently of each other), and continue to elaborate more and more relationships between those pieces, it's little wonder that some of our representations are strikingly unusual. But then, when you roll a die enough times some rather striking patterns emerge, too. Well, so long as you have a framework for defining patterns--again, our minds.
I appreciate a good mix of religion, philosophy and science as a personal guide... but saying the ratios are products of own minds is a different kind of discussion.
the rations are a reality of our physics right now.
our physics describes our universe
is it possible our universe is just something like a hologram... yes.
but the ratios are still real.
is it possible we are all living a dream... sure but you are going to have to take that up with Descartes - his I think therefore I am is good enough for my existence.
the rations are a reality of our physics right now.
our physics describes our universe
is it possible our universe is just something like a hologram... yes.
but the ratios are still real.
is it possible we are all living a dream... sure but you are going to have to take that up with Descartes - his I think therefore I am is good enough for my existence.
you have also entered the non science zone. science asks how and why... that is why they don't like to say the Creator did it.
your answer... it just had to be that way.
is the same as saying the Creator did it. did your understand the feynman quote from a few pages ago... "it just had to be" ... is not the way science does things.
your answer... it just had to be that way.
is the same as saying the Creator did it. did your understand the feynman quote from a few pages ago... "it just had to be" ... is not the way science does things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant
There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!
—Richard Feynman, Richard P. Feynman (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press. p. 129. ISBN 0-691-08388-6.[/QUOTE]
There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!
—Richard Feynman, Richard P. Feynman (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press. p. 129. ISBN 0-691-08388-6.[/QUOTE]
The universe is not a collection of nouns, it is a single verb. Had we a different way of chopping it up, those ratios would cease to exist. The reality of this cannot be fully captured with words, as words can only ever reflect, only be a tiny subset of IT.
The Tao that can be explained is not the eternal Tao.
: )