Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Great! Mind sharing yours with us? Maybe your metrics? Maybe we can sharpen them up to produce something better than a "rough estimate."

     In any estimate everything is relative and rough estimate - even when it is based on math calculations (with precision to the Nth digit after the decimal point).
     1. You are not making calculations over the reality, but over its representation - this is a model, it is not the reality, and is more or less inaccurate. Even the red shift in the light spectrum is inaccurate representation of whatever it might be there (for it may not be Doppler effect & expansion of the space, but shrinking of the elementary particles with the time, which might be even more mind-blowing claim - anyway).
     2. No matter how precise the calculations of a model might be, there are always some weight factors, assigned there by expert assessment (personal view of the things). Thus for example if I assign to my beleifs:
B = w1.Pgod + w2.Pilf + w3.Pbb = 0.45.Pgod + 0.3.Pilf + 0.25.Pbb, where w1, w2, w3 are the weight factors assigned by some non-explicitly justified reason; Pgod - is some mathematically calculated probability of God to exist; Pilf - is the probability of an ILF before us to have some final touch on our mind & body design (and in the design of our planet at some early stage of its development); and Pbb - is the probability for the Big Bang to have done the housework - faire le menage; and even if you calculate absolutely equal probability Pgod = Pilf = Pbb, the belief will still be different from the thus calculated probability: 45% for the existence of God; 30 % for an ILF to have a final touch, and 25% for the Big Bang to have created us ... out of star dust, or out of whatever - I don't even want to know.
     May I ask you something: what has been the main reason, stimulating the Big Bang to guess to create (or to take out of the sleeve) the cyano-bacteria at some point of time X (that has been actually very wisely chosen)? ... we are not talking about how yet.

1 Reply

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/01/ten-lessons-from-the-standard-model/

Quote:

Ten Lessons from the Standard Model
By Frank Wilczek on Mon, 06 Jan 2014

The most recent Nobel Prize in physics, awarded to Francois Englert and Peter Higgs for the prediction of the Higgs boson, marks the apotheosis of the Standard Model in two ways. First, the Higgs particle is a milestone in itself: It is the last ingredient required to complete the Standard Model. But second, and more profoundly, the discovery process bore witness to the extraordinary power of the Standard Model. Higgs particles are rare and fleeting visitors to our world. Even at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where the discovery was made, they are produced in less than a billionth of all collisions. When they are produced, they quickly decay, leaving behind just a few extra tracks among hundreds of others from more conventional sources. It is only because physicists can so reliably predict such “backgrounds,” as well as the rate of Higgs particle production and the modes of its decay, that the discovery experiments could be planned and their results interpreted.

After this crowning triumph it seems appropriate to reflect on the big picture. What does the Standard Model teach us? What does it mean?

To answer that, I’ve adopted the List of Ten format pioneered by God and copied by Letterman and the “For Dummies” series. Here follow ten big lessons from the Standard Model organized into four categories: epistemology, natural philosophy, emergent simplicity, and unfinished business.

1. Reductionism Works: The premise of reductionism is that...
2. The Surface Appearance of the Physical World is Quite Different from its Deep Structure: In general, quantum theory presents a picture of the world...
3. Relativity (Poincare Symmetry), Quantum Mechanics, and Local (Gauge) Symmetry Rule: It might have been the case that...
4. The Distinction between “Matter” and “Light” is Superficial: Like light, the building-blocks of matter are...
5. “Empty Space” is a Substance: What we perceive to be “empty space” is actually...
6. Nature Loves Transformations: Superficially, the Standard Model seems to contain...
7. The Behavior of Matter at High Energy Simplifies and Reveals Its Deep Structure: Flows of particles we can observe...
8. The Early Universe is Open to Rational Reconstruction: At the extremely high energy density of the Big Bang...
9. We’ve Got Vexing Family Problems: When the muon...
10. Unification Looks Good, and Suggests Supersymmetry: The standard model contains three...

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

In any estimate everything is relative and rough estimate - even when it is based on math calculations (with precision to the Nth digit after the decimal point).

Holy ****! You just absolutely can't stop putting your foot in your mouth and embarrassing yourself, can you? What part of "rough estimate" don't you comprehend? Laughing

A "rough estimate" to the nth decimal point? Another oxymoron, you run-of-the-mill moron!

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/rofl2.gif

2 Replies

@FBM,

And then to know that the 'standard model' doesn't work at all!
It has huge holes in it!~

But eh?! That is blasphemy of course?!

Where does this one comes from?

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Holy ****!

     What about your 'standard model' ... isn't it a **** and a masterpiece of all shits ever existed? Honestly speaking I don't believe a **** of all that 'article'.
     1. The prediction of the Higgs boson is not based on calculations from the expansion of the space, but rather from the red shift in the light spectrum ... that may have nothing to do with any expansion ever happening.
     2. Higgs boson is the seventh elementary particle, which not only does not complete the 'periodic table' of the particles, but introduces a greater mess.
     3. In terms of most of the elementary particles physics knows nothing more than they can exist as traces in the heavy water of the LHC.
     4. The Nobel prise is for the discovery of the particle ... that has existed several picoseconds and hasn't proved anything, let alone improving the 'Standard Model' to infinity.

RE: 'the last ingredient, required to complete the standard model'
How? - By what means & in what way?
   - Does it classify better the elementary particles?
   - Does it explain anything of the Dark Matter and of the Dark Energy?
   - Does it explain in addition any of the characteristics of the remaining particles?
   - Does it contribute in anyway to the verification & the validation of the assumptions for the 'appearance' of the Big Bang?
   - Does it explain how can something exist outside Time (without a time component)?
   - Does it resolve any of the contradictions the Big Bang is imposing on the classical physics ... and doesn't it incur much more contradictions and more problems?
      If you are fascinated by the beliefs in various pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo - this may be O.K. ... but not with me. I will believe in whatever I like, and will verify it to me with all possible means that I may have.
     Merry Christmas!

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Holy ****!
What about your 'standard model' ... isn't it a **** and a masterpiece of all shits ever existed? Honestly speaking I don't believe a **** of all that 'article'...

Honestly speaking, science doesn't give a **** about what you believe. It works anyway. Very Happy

Merry Christmas!

4 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Honestly speaking, science doesn't give a **** about what you believe. It works anyway

No, mate, that is the whole problem, IT DOESN'T WORK!!!

Please tell me where it works?!!!

You have to face it! You are a strong BELIEVER of the religion called 'science'!!!

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

...
- Does it classify better the elementary particles?
- Does it explain ...

God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. ... Rolling Eyes

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps.

Hmm no answer and no argument, figures! Of course

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Honestly speaking, science doesn't give a **** about what you believe. It works anyway. Merry Christmas!

IT DOESN'T MATE !!!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RKU1wPqkL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Wrong-About-Almost-Everything/dp/1938398319

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It works anyway.

Absolutely ... especially in a logic based on contradictions. WFM

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

God of the gaps ... God of the gaps

No, it is not 'God of the gaps' - it is called Standard Hoax ... in any interpretation of the world.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
It works anyway.
Absolutely ... especially in a logic based on contradictions. WFM

All you gotta do is show up with something better. "Personal 45% god based on a rough estimate I pulled out of my ass" doesn't cut it outside your own mind, homie.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
God of the gaps ... God of the gaps
No, it is not 'God of the gaps' - it is called Standard Hoax ... in any interpretation of the world.

a) Science can't explain it, therefore god = god of the gaps
b) Standard Hoax =

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/emot-tinfoil.gif

Either way, you out yourself as either a denialist or a conspiracy theorist. Both are wingnuts, so take your pick. Or do both. Why not? There's no known limit to human ignorance, to my knowldedge. Laughing

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10849727_343466432505181_4071738977799118110_n.jpg

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10505506_785233678178760_4553497442002838660_n.png

0 Replies

@FBM,

The ignorance may really be 'a virus', but the constructs of fake theories, based on even more fake logic ... full of contradictions, is the masterpiece and the master-template for the appearance of all viruses.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

The ignorance may really be 'a virus', but the constructs of fake theories, based on even more fake logic ... full of contradictions, is the masterpiece and the master-template for the appearance of all viruses.

You've already forgotten what you learned about "fake theories," I see. What's it been, a whole day?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/coffeescreen.gif

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know