Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

It can't possibly be '45% god' based on his own posts. There is no such thing as fractional belief in something; can't be partially pregnant.

     You are the one who are part of that probability. I know that you don't acknowledge any other evidence except for the red shift from the telescope, but the logical inferences and the reasonable ground to believe are also accepted as evidence by some sciences.
     If you remember you claimed that it is impossible to know the assumptions of the Big Bang, for if one knows the reason for the creation of something there always remains the question who/what created the reason itself, and after that who/what created the assumptions of that reason, and who/what created the assumptions of the assumptions, etc. So this very question is contradiction within the self, hence it is invalid ... for most of its interpretations. One of the few interpretations for which it is not invalid, is the case when the Universe has always existed and the Intelligence of the Universe has always existed (I don't comment whether this might be God, or String Theory, or a previous ILF, or the previous form of existence of our intelligence). The other few are the case when the reasons for the creation of something have always existed, but they far too improbable.
     When you eliminate the impossible there remains the improbable, notwithstanding that it has been always rejected. Have you ever heard about the logical inference based on Modus Tolendo Tolens ('the way that denies by denying'). As it is impossible for the Universe and for the Intelligence to have been created, there remains the exclusive option (although highly improbable and denied by science) for the Universe and for the Intelligence to have always existed, which automatically means that the Big Bang has not created anything, and we are most probably bio-robots on remote control or on relay race switch, or a form of existence of the intelligence in the Universe ... and in the capacity of being so we are most probably obliged to preserve the life in the Universe from extinction and to switch it over to the next inhabitable planet/world or whatever it might be there.
     Perhaps you should pay attention that this hypothesis preserves the physical law of conservation of energy (the hypothesis is feasible), and also the math logic laws for the possibility of existence exclusively when being released from contradictions within the self (plausibility) ... and everything is hunky-dori! lol
     Yet there remains some probability for us to be totally missing something ... or misinterpreting the things.
     Ah, I forgot the CBR - it comes most probably from the Hyperspace, and our space might have been formed by the constraints imposed from outside - the intersection of two 4-D spaces for example. This also preserves the law of conservation of energy for in this case our Universe is actually an open system with exchange of energy with the outside Hyperspace and there are no problems to exchange Dark Energy and Gravitation coming from the Dark Matter located in another dimension.

Why should we follow your ex recto "45% god, blah blah" over the centuries of work done by highly trained professionals?

We need some solid motivation to believe that you're smarter than all of them put together.

Motivate us with some empirical support and necessary inference.

...my personal are 45% God or some meta-intelligence (string theory or s.th.); 30% another ILF...and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang ...

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | ARTICLE

Equivalence of wave–particle duality to entropic uncertainty

Patrick J. Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski & Stephanie Wehner
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Communications 5, Article number: 5814 doi:10.1038/ncomms6814
Received 14 May 2014 Accepted 11 November 2014 Published 19 December 2014

Abstract

Interferometers capture a basic mystery of quantum mechanics: a single particle can exhibit wave behaviour, yet that wave behaviour disappears when one tries to determine the particle’s path inside the interferometer. This idea has been formulated quantitatively as an inequality, for example, by Englert and Jaeger, Shimony and Vaidman, which upper bounds the sum of the interference visibility and the path distinguishability. Such wave–particle duality relations (WPDRs) are often thought to be conceptually inequivalent to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, although this has been debated. Here we show that WPDRs correspond precisely to a modern formulation of the uncertainty principle in terms of entropies, namely, the min- and max-entropies. This observation unifies two fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it leads to a robust framework for deriving novel WPDRs by applying entropic uncertainty relations to interferometric models. As an illustration, we derive a novel relation that captures the coherence in a quantum beam splitter.

Subject terms: Physical sciences Atomic and molecular physics Theoretical physics

     Because your claims of creation...

.
It is obvious that your 'standard' theory cannot make out of Ground Zero and Energy Zero directly Uranium 239 & Plutonium 242 .

By way of illustration

FBM wrote:

By way of illustration

     Forget about that probability percents - they are subject to changes all the time. Why don't you tell us whether you have any plausible & feasible explanation for the appearance of the water on the Earth, or not?

By way of illustration, let's compare the relative strengths of your claim and that of another random piece of scientific news. You say;

Herald wrote:

...my personal are 45% God or some meta-intelligence (string theory or s.th.); 30% another ILF...and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang ...

OK, the best thing that can be said about that is that you admit that it's your "personal," I guess, seeing as you presented no supporting details, evidence or reasoning.

Now let's look at an arbitrarily bit of current science news. I think the qualitative difference will be obvious to anyone not engulfed in denialism and fantasy: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141219/ncomms6814/full/ncomms6814.html

Quote:

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | ARTICLE

Equivalence of wave–particle duality to entropic uncertainty

Patrick J. Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski & Stephanie Wehner
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Communications 5, Article number: 5814 doi:10.1038/ncomms6814
Received 14 May 2014 Accepted 11 November 2014 Published 19 December 2014

Abstract

Interferometers capture a basic mystery of quantum mechanics: a single particle can exhibit wave behaviour, yet that wave behaviour disappears when one tries to determine the particle’s path inside the interferometer. This idea has been formulated quantitatively as an inequality, for example, by Englert and Jaeger, Shimony and Vaidman, which upper bounds the sum of the interference visibility and the path distinguishability. Such wave–particle duality relations (WPDRs) are often thought to be conceptually inequivalent to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, although this has been debated. Here we show that WPDRs correspond precisely to a modern formulation of the uncertainty principle in terms of entropies, namely, the min- and max-entropies. This observation unifies two fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it leads to a robust framework for deriving novel WPDRs by applying entropic uncertainty relations to interferometric models. As an illustration, we derive a novel relation that captures the coherence in a quantum beam splitter.

Subject terms: Physical sciences Atomic and molecular physics Theoretical physics

Now, this is only an abstract, and the topic is irrelevant. But if you take your "personal" into a room of reasonably sane and educated individuals and try to convince them that your argument is stronger than that of the scientific publication, you'll deserve all the ridicule you get and probably more.

What creation?

Why don't you tell us whether you have any plausible & feasible explanation for the claim that an invisible, undetectable, magical being created the universe, or not?

FBM wrote:

What creation?

     The creation of the Universe through evolution (whatever this might mean);

the creation of the chemical elements out of the gravitational continuum; the creation of the life on Earth out of a planet of molten lava, etc. You are the mastermind of the creation and the mastermind of all unjustified beliefs in the creativity of the stochastics - why don't you simply confess it?