'perhaps';

'>>16143061
It's completely ad-hoc, created exclusively to evade simulation/creation/boltzmann brain conclusions.';

'If you believe in the anthropic principle then that means you also have to believe in some kind of multi-verse or cyclic universe.';

'>>16143061
I think it implies all our models of the universe are built upon a bunch of flimsy magic numbers';

'>>16143070
Yeah, but those are just can-kicking.';

'>>16143345
How so?';

'>>16143061
no you fucking moron';

'>>16143061
>Does fine tuning imply multiverses with different physics?
no, it doesn't imply it, but it neither negates them.';

'>>16144975
>1 in 10^120
>… or physical constants can vary in some sense (multiverse, alternate laws in different regions, on large timescales etc etc)
The second option is just more probable than winning the cosmic lottery with 1 single draw.';

'>>16143061
Depends on your definition of a multiverse. If every other universe is "identical" to ours then no, all physics would still be the same. However, if every universe is "all encompassing" then yes, there will be "infinite" universes in which there will be an "infinite" amount of different variations of physics.';

'>>16144273
The existence of simulators/creators still begs for explanations. You need special pleading to ignore that. Boltzmann brains are formed randomly so there's still a question of "Why this? And why does it persist?" And you're back to some version of anthropic principle again.';

'>>16143061
Why? If this universe was not 'fine-tuned' then you wouldn't be making this post. But here we are, so it must be.';

'>>16145979';

'>>16143074
Why? There is a universe and it fits the criteria for humans to observe it. It doesn't matter how it arose, if it had any other form we wouldn't observe it.
/sci/entists sometimes seem to get lost in probabilities and forget that the probability of something that has already happened is 1. By the same logic the probability of a person with the exact same genetic makeup as you being born again is practically null, so you must not exist.
Anthropic principle doesn't say "if you generate infinite universes, at least one of them must be able to contain humans", it says "you cannot observe a universe that cannot contain humans", and thus all universal parameters must allow human life regardless of what mechanism gives them their values.';

'>>16146753
>We can't assess probabilities of things that already happened
Yes we can';

'>>16146771
Of course we can, they're all 100%.';

'>>16146771
you can't, you don't even know what to consider, and how to consider it. you always come up with stupid shit like "what are the chances of a human existing" in void like that with no causality considered. or fucking boltzmann brains';

'>>16146775
Nope, QM is probabilistic';

'>>16146776
Probabilities is how we gauge nature when we lack perfect information. You can't talk about "causality" in how the physics we observe were created because we have no information on that.';

'>>16146781
the tiniest little bit of information can massively throw the whole chance calculation off. don't care about stressing on what we now think the chances for some shit were.';

'>>16143061
If multiverses exist, then this argument works.

Which is self refuting.

So, no. Ad hoc and we get to where we started.

>>16145379
No, you can have infinite regression. Which makes it probable. This just makes it equivalent to the big bounce, though,';

'>>16146785
Correction to picrel';

'>>16143061
"fine tuning" is literally nothing. made up bs';

'>>16146794
There are infinitely possible universes, and despite this, only a finite amount would cause life to exist. That makes the probability 0.

Also, abiogenesis.';

'>>16146803
Directly, faggit. DirectX11';

'>>16146803
There are infinite possible faggots. But God graced us this day with one super fag instead, you.';

'>>16146803
I will clarify, 0 probability doesnt mean impossible. It just means 0 probability.';

'>>16146803
>There are infinitely possible universes
not so sure. even here we have an absolute finite number of possible configurations for ... everything. there is an absolute finite possible number of humans based on all of the possible configurations. even if absurdly high, still limited.';

'>>16146811
>not so sure.

See "Model Theory" by Marker. For any Model, you can develop countable many models. In particular, for physics, it is more likely you can form an uncountable amount of independent models.

In general, if you take all the constants of the universe, you can imagine possible universes as universes where the constants (x_1,....,x_n) in R^n had varying values. This makes an uncountable number of possibilities.';

'>>16146817
what do you mean by universe tho? do you really thing universes existing in some_state are possible with any possible constant value you could imagine? or stable even? there may be extremely few who "make it" past few ns of existence.
there may be an infinity of versions you can think of, doesn't make them possible or stable.';

'>0 probability doesnt mean impossible. It just means 0 probability.';

'>>16146823
>there may be an infinity of versions you can think of, doesn't make them possible or stable.

It makes them mathematically possible, but most of them can be necessarily unstable.

>universes existing in some_state are possible with any possible constant

Yes. They can be seen as the empty set with infinite types added. Tegmark has a multiverse theory on all mathematically possible multiverses.';

'>>16146832
>It makes them mathematically possible
but math is not reality
>Tegmark has a multiverse theory on all mathematically possible multiverses.
I am not denying they could exist. I was just saying you can't have infinite stable ones. at some point the weirdly high/low values for constants are going to result in bullshit.';

'>>16146837
>but math is not reality

Physics is modeled by math, physicalism (dominate ontology and epistemology) asserts everything which exists is 'physical', which means it may be modeled with math.

> at some point the weirdly high/low values for constants are going to result in bullshit.

Bullshit that exists. Just imagine a chaotic jar of random stuff. And scale it to the universe.';

'>>16146803
>There are infinitely possible universes
baseless assertion. this universe might be the ONLY possible universe. if determinism is true (i believe it is) then that follows.';

'>>16146839
>which means it may be modeled with math.
reality may be modeled with math but not all mathematically constructed realities are real. weird that you keep failing to understand this point, it's quite simple.
>Bullshit that exists. Just imagine a chaotic jar of random stuff. And scale it to the universe.
I'm specifically saying that such a thing is possible, wouldn't be stable the universe would rip itself apart. we're actually at risk of it I think. let alone retarded high values as compared to ours.';

'>>16146808
also wrong, 0 probability DOES mean impossible.';

'>>16146849 me
>is possible
is impossible';

'>>16146848
>if determinism is true (i believe it is) then that follows.

Well you're wrong because we have the uncertainty principle. The only model in which every proposition of truth can be predicted by a cause is the pilot wave theory, which is a fringe theory. Either the many world interpretation is true (in which, buddy that IS possible worlds theory) or the copenhagen interpretation is true, in which the possible worlds aren't physical, but theoretical like math.

>but not all mathematically constructed realities are real.

Yes they are, I can construct one using a machine. I can build a computer and boom, there is your reality. I don't even need to do that. I can make a simple machine using rocks, adding a rock is 1, removing is 0.

>I'm specifically saying that such a thing is possible, wouldn't be stable the universe would rip itself apart.

But it would exist for a time, so it is a possible, actual world.

>>16146848
>this universe might be the ONLY possible universe.

I just realized you're wrong. This isn't how probability works. Probability theory uses possible worlds in the way I do. They, indeed, use measure theory (even though there is no evidence of an infinite universe with infinite density). So probability theory is already idealized.';

'>>16146849
>>16146863
Forgot to add you to my reply';

'>>16146863
>Well you're wrong
you can't and don't know that. you have no disproof of determinism, no one has or can disprove it.

>I just realized you're wrong
you have no proof of counterfactual worlds.';

'>>16146867
I believe, whole-heartedly, that this poster is a homo sexual, which is a term used to describe pic rel';

'>>16146863
>Yes they are, I can construct one using a machine. I can build a computer and boom, there is your reality. I don't even need to do that. I can make a simple machine using rocks, adding a rock is 1, removing is 0.
nah anon that ain't it';

'2 good ones.';

'>>16146869
>you have no disproof of determinism, no one has or can disprove it.

I demonstrated an argument on why it is most likely false. And you didn't address it.

>you have no proof of counterfactual worlds.

I gave you my arguments, but I will go one step further. At the moment of the big bang, this is when everything was determined. Prior, nothing can be said to be determined. Determinism only works when you have all intial variables. It could have been the big bang happened and a different universe came to be. Or it could've been the big bang never happened.';

'>>16146877
>nah anon that ain't it
A computer is a mathematically constructed reality, bound by a set rule list. There is no reason to suppose the universe couldn't have been this way, rather than the big bang which occured in a plank time.';

'>>16146884
pretty sure there's no reason to suppose it can be the way you explained it.
see this is what I was talking about, people reaching batshit insane conclusions based on misinterpreting certain things';

'>>16146880
>I demonstrated an argument on why it is most likely false
your argument doesn't make sense. unless you can prove that counterfactual worlds are physically possible (you can't btw), there's no reason why we should follow your bias for many worlds/copenhagen
>At the moment of the big bang, this is when everything was determined
there is no point in time when everything became determined. it being determined is probably something beyond time.';

'>>16146895
>see this is what I was talking about, people reaching batshit insane conclusions based on misinterpreting certain things
more exactly, you can't even begin to seriously consider chances, or possibility of some universe existing, without having god like access to EVERYTHING in this universe, all science, all math, all forces, all particles, the way they interact, small/large scales. every single fucking thing. only then can you start "modelling" possible universes, with math. you can consider it now, sure, but it's silly. as in it's silly believing what you came up with. lol';

'>>16146895
>based on misinterpreting certain things
Which things?

>there's no reason why we should follow your bias for many worlds/copenhagen

The bias comes from QED being the most accurate and precise model of physics to exist. The existence of counterfactuals should follow from the uncertainty principle as a theorem or corollary. If there are no hidden variables causing indeterminacy, then the quantum state is necessarily indeterminate. Therefore, it there exist possible worlds which may be modeled by the wave function.

> it being determined is probably something beyond time.

This is a metaphysical presupposition. You seem to just to WANT to have determinism be true than to follow the facts. Why does this follow? The big bang cause our physical world and caused the physical laws. The only way to concieve the universe as prior to the big bang is the empty set. There was no time, nor physics, nor quantum laws. It was all made actual in that instant. Prior, it had no fixed variables to set in motion the universe which you think is determined.';

'>>16146896
>>16146900
I keep forgetting to reply';

'>>16146898
>every single fucking thing. only then can you start "modelling" possible universes, with math. you can consider it now, sure, but it's silly. as in it's silly believing what you came up with.

No, we have ordinals and cardinals that probably do not exist. There isnt evidence of infinitty, and yet we can model it.

The modelling may be limited, but is more general than physical. Classical computers, for example, can model quantum computers- which use different logics.';

'>>16146900
>The existence of counterfactuals should follow from the uncertainty principle as a theorem or corollary
well it doesn't

>You seem to just to WANT to have determinism be true
yes i do, and i also believe it is true. but the same applies to you and your favourite theory. i can admit i have no proof for my position. you should do the same';

'>>16146905
>but the same applies to you and your favourite theory. i can admit i have no proof for my position. you should do the same

We have:

x in U, U is a subset of spacetime, x is a particle. Is the statement true or false?

by the uncertainty principle, "x in U" can be converted to phi(x,t), for (x,t) in psi(U), where psi is an atlas mapping from a manifold to R^n. The uncertainty principle (attached image), dictates that: sigma(x) to be nonzero. Therefore, phi(x,t) is not going to be 1. It will never be probability 1.

Therefore, "x in U" has a less than 1 probability. If x in U was true, it would have a 100% probability. But it has a less than 1 probability. Contradiction. Therefore, "x in U" is not true. Likewise, "not(x in U)" iff "x in M-U", for M being the whole universe. You apply the uncertainty principle the same and find "x in M-U" has a less than 1 probability. Since there are no hidden variables, this probability is a fundamental fact- independent of any variables.

Therefore: $(x \in U) \lor \lnot (x\in U)$ is false.

If we have a modal model M = <W, R,V>:

w is the actual world

wRv if v is another world, which is accessible to w. If we interpret $\diamond$ as to mean "possible" in time, from a given time, we note from the uncertainty principle, there exists $v \in W$, such that wRv. Thus, $M, w |= \diamond (x in M-U)$

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/';

'>>16146924
Someone help me in writing latex correctly, I forgot.';

'>>16146803
There is one possible universe unless proven otherwise
Abusing mathematics and calling it cutting edge physics is not proof';

'>>16146937
>calling it cutting edge physics
Never said that.
>Abusing mathematics

Chapter 4, Marker. On types, you can see a proof.

>There is one possible universe unless proven otherwise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

See 8 minutes in';

'you can make a number about losing energy without losing momentum and that might something something the dark matter and energy or whatever idk

but alien life could definitely just teach people to death by making obvious things too obvious and letting us do what we inevitably would with such whatevers

and as far as timelines as in fine tuned physics that's to say the slices on a brane would make slippy travel wut nonlocal or something to similarity with that constant concepts

anyway perhaps making the average person able to overcome having 3 different personalities in one head would prevent maliciousness from division and I don't mean psychic anything

could fit that stuff where there's too much gooner in the species right now and we wuzness

I am drunk btw';

'>>16146967
Troll Spotted.';