Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

I think it's interesting that Davies cites, and references others who cite, a number of the same points I've made here on A2K.

Almost all scientists and philosophers accept the general principle that the prediction of unobservable entities is an acceptable scientifc hypothesis if those entities stem from a theory that has other testable consequences.

Quote:

I think it's interesting that Davies cites, and references others who cite, a number of the same points I've made here on A2K. However, I am usually ridiculed for doing so. So be it.

Well I sure don't see it, so either you are delusional or I am.

real life wrote:

I think it's interesting that Davies cites, and references others who cite, a number of the same points I've made here on A2K.

Such as?

References
1. B. Carter, in IAU Symposium 63, ed. M. Longair (Reidel, 1974); J. D. Barrow and
F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Univ. Press, 1986).
2. M. J. Rees, Astrophys. Space Sci. 285, 95 (2003).
3. L. Boltzmann, Ann. Phys. 60 (1897).
4. A. Albrecht, in Science and Ultimate Reality: From Quantum to Cosmos, eds. J. D.
Barrow, P. C. W. Davies and C. L. Harper (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).
5. P. C. W. Davies, Nature 301, 398 (1983).
6. D. N. Page, Nature 304, 39 (1983).
7. L. Susskind, hep-th/0302219.
8. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D27, 2848 (1983); A. Linde, Mod. Phys. Lett. A1, 81 (1983);
Sci. Am. 271, 32 (1994).
9. A. Linde, in 300 Years of Gravitation, eds. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1987).
10. H. Everett III, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957).
11. D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (Allan Lane, 1997).
12. J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983).
13. M. Tegmark, Sci. Am. (May 2003); in Science and Ultimate Reality: From Quantum
to Cosmos, eds. J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies and C. L. Harper (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2004).
14. L. Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).
15. J. A. Wheeler, in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. H. Woolf (Addison-Wesley,
1980).
16. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999).
17. P. Steinhardt and N. Turok, hep-th/0111098.
18. M. Li and P. Vitanyi, An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications
(Springer-Verlag, 1997); G. J. Chaitin, Algorithmic Information Theory (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1987).
19. S. W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam 1988), p. 174.
20. F. Hoyle, D. N. F. Dunbar, W. A. Wensel and W. Whaling, Phys. Rev. 92, 649 (1953).
21. B. J. Carr and M. J. Rees, Nature 278, 605 (1979).
22. F. Dyson, Sci. Am. 225, 25 (1971).
23. G. Whitrow, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 6, 13 (1955).
24. P. C. W. Davies and S. D. Unwin, Proc. R. Soc. A377, 147 (1981).
25. A. Linde, Rep. Prog. Phys. 47, 925 (1984); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607
(1987).
26. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D61, 103505 (2000).
27. S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (Pantheon, 1992), Chap. 9.
28. A. Einstein, quoted in www.humboldt1.com/gralsto/einstein/quotes.html
29. W. Thirring, Ann. Phys. 3, 91 (1958).
30. J. A. Wheeler, quoted in J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle (Oxford Univ. Press, 1986), 255; see also J. A. Wheeler, in Chaotic Behavior
in Quantum Systems: Theory and Applications, ed. G. Casati (Reidel, 1985), and
Ref. 15.
31. R. Holder, God, The Multiverse and Everything, to be published.
32. M. J. Rees, Edge 116 (May 19, 2003); J. D. Barrow, New Scient. (7 June 2003), 44.
33. N. Bostrom, Phil. Quart. 53, 243 (2003); for a popular account see M. Brooks, New
Scient. (27 July 2002), 48.
34. G. F. R. Ellis and G. B. Brundrit, Quart. J. R. Astr. Soc. 20, 37 (1979); P. C. W.
Davies, Are We Alone? (Penguin 1995), Appendix 2.
35. J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D64, 043511 (2001).

Funny real life, I can't find a single instance of you citing anyone Davies did.

What always amazes me about RL is that he continues to use these ridiculous tactics with people whom he well knows have repeatedly shown him for the charlatan that he is. I can understand him trying them on people who haven't dealt with him before, but why waste the time with people who have 'been there done that.'

When you deny him the latitude of going off on an absurd tangent such as his famous second law B.S. and either corner him with questions that have specific short answers, as my post on naming the conservation laws, or Parado's post on: here is the article and its references, just WHERE does any of it agree with your assertions. He has no recourse but to ignore the posts or act as if it is beneath him to provide an answer. As if any of that is gonna fly with anyone here.

Maybe you guys have him figured out, I'd sure love to know why he continues to embarrass himself in front of people who have shown they have long spotted him and his tactics for what they are. I can claim enough understanding of science to make a living from it, I can never explain an understanding of people; they are totally inscrutable to me in so many ways.

what we have hitherto regarded as absolute and universal laws
of physics are, in fact, more like local by-laws2: they are valid in our particular
cosmic patch, but they might be different in other regions of space and/or time.

An early application of the biophilic principle was made by Boltzmann as a
possible explanation for why the universe is in a state far from thermodynamic
equilibrium.

Boltzmann argued that statistical
fluctuations will always create
minor excursions from thermodynamic equilibrium, and that major excursions,
while exceedingly rare, are nevertheless possible in principle.

In this case the laws of physics are uniform, but the thermodynamic circumstances
are not, because of random
fluctuations. This ensures the existence of
exceedingly rare atypical life-encouraging regions, which may then be selected by
observers.

One can envisage an energy landscape in these several hundred variables.7
Within this landscape there will be countless local minima, each corresponding to a
possible quantum vacuum state, and each a possible low-energy physical world.

The real existence of these other worlds, or \pocket universes" as Susskind
has called them,7 is rendered plausible

In the fashionable variant known as eternal inflation, due to A. Vilenkin and
A. Linde,8 our \universe" is just one particular vacuum bubble within a vast |
probably infinite | assemblage of bubbles, or pocket universes.

Perhaps the best known is the Everett
interpretation of quantum mechanics.10 In its modern form, this so-called \manyuniverses"
theory postulates that all branches of a wave function represent equally
real universes existing in parallel.11

Furthermore, following Wheeler,15 Smolin
proposes that the violence of gravitational collapse might \reprocess" the laws of
physics randomly,

Of recent interest are the brane theories, in which \our universe" is regarded as a
three-dimensional sheet or brane embedded in a higher-dimensional space.16 Observers,
along with most matter and radiation, are confined to a three-brane by a
large potential gradient. In the ekpyrotic model of Steinhardt and Turok,17 a brane
collides with a confining three-dimensional boundary to a four-dimensional space
to create what we interpret as the big bang.

In other words, Tegmark's extreme multiverse might well be simpler than our single
observed universe and therefore, invoking Occam's razor, it should be favoured as
a description of reality.

Life as we
know it is based on carbon,

If gravitation were 100 times stronger, the universe would collapse before observers had time to evolve.

The basic idea is that
A is treated as a random variable that may change from one region of space to
another.

It is sometimes objected that because our observations are limited to a single universe
(e.g. a Hubble volume) then the existence of \other universes" cannot be observed,

parados wrote:

Funny real life, I can't find a single instance of you citing anyone Davies did.

Funny, I never said I cited any of them.

Have you had this reading comprehension problem long?

You consistently misrepresent what I say.

Is it purposeful, or are you just not able to understand what is said?

I think it's interesting that Davies cites, and references others who cite, a number of the same points I've made here on A2K.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

I have thought it through which is why I specifically listed all of Davies references.

As I suspected you can't name the ones that made points you agree with.

So not only did I think it through, my estimate of how many of those references you would claim agreed with you as shown to be accurate at zero.

Whatever you 'suspect' is of no interest to me, especially since you so obviously misstated my point to begin with (as is your constant habit).

I'll not spoon feed you.

Let me spoon feed you real life..

real life wrote:

I think it's interesting that Davies cites, and references others who cite, a number of the same points I've made here on A2K.

Such as?

No thanks. I don't eat straw, not even with a spoon.

What you 'know' I disagree with and what you 'assume' I disagree with are mostly products of your own bent thinking.

If you want to quote something I've said , quote it correctly and in context, then we'll have somewhere to go with this.

I stated that the naturalistic Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution scenario violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

We'll also have seen something quite new and different.