Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Glad you like it... :-)

No, i actually think you have an issue here, a fear or dislike of knowledge, a certain 'shyness 2 know'. Like your different uses of the word "know" in philosophic vs. normal language indicate your own thinking that you really cannot know, and that others cannot know either. You are ambivalent re. knowledge.

Non sequitur. Illogical conclusion.

You obviously don't know what a tautology is

... so I don't see much point in wasting time with this.

Knowledge means nothing until it is accepted by knowledgeable consensus. With no consensus, it is just another individual perception

FBM wrote:

Non sequitur. Illogical conclusion.

     It is not that illogical ...

FBM wrote:
What I personally know about the details of the physics is irrelevant.

Hence you know nothing.

having in mind some other mind-blowing claims of yours. Take for example your favorite top design straw-man - the 45%-God of the Gaps/ILF as you call it.

If you have ever seen any textbook in physics, you should have noticed that all physical measures (no matter whether data from direct measurements & observations, or inferred and/or calculated indirectly) have three components: besides value, they have accuracy and probability. Forget about God, God-of-the-Gaps misinterpretations, the ILFs and the ILFs-of-the-Gaps straw-men and tell us how much are the value, the accuracy and the probability of the Infinite Temperature of the Singularity in compliance with the standard claims of the standard model?
     At first you have a value of 'ten trillion trillion times the temperature of the Sun' - so far so good. What it is approximation of - of infinity, ... and how much is the accuracy of that approximation - let's see. Infinity minus 'ten trillion trillion times the temperature of the Sun' is ... also Infinity, so the accuracy of that value is plus/minus Infinity. What about the probability - how much is it? The probability for a finite value to represent infinity is 0.00. So your Infinite Temperature of the Singularity has a value = 'ten trillion trillion times the temperature of the Sun'; accuracy = plus/minus Infinity; and Probability (for it to represent the correct value) = 0.00. WFM. How much was the score?

FBM wrote:

You obviously don't know what a tautology is

     Tautology in logic is formal model constructed on contradictions, and in the capacity of being so you can infer everything from it. It cannot exist as math logic, let alone as representation of whatsoever.

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula that is true in every possible interpretation.

FBM wrote:

... so I don't see much point in wasting time with this.

     So, you prefer to waste our time. I can save you zillions of years wondering in fake inferences. Can you explain the Infinite Temperature as a physical interpretation? How much should be the velocity of the few particles fitting into the Singularity as possible material carrier, in order for the Singularity to have Infinite Temperature? If you want some Joker - it should be infinite. Can you name all the particles that can have infinite velocity - the only one that I can guess is the tachyon, and it is a hypothetical particle (it cannot exist in the physical world - it can exist only on paper in a math formula as possibility). Now, can you explain very slowly and very carefully and with the greatest details that you can afford how can a hypothetical particle become a physical carrier of a physical dimension? No explanations of the kind: 'God-of-the-Gaps' & 'score 4 to ten trillion trillions of whatsoever' will be accepted as a valid answer.

Herald, make up your mind. Is it 50:50 or:

Herald wrote:

... my personal are 45% God or some meta-intelligence (string theory or s.th.); 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
...

Which breaks down into something like this:

45% goes to either:
a) God
b) meta-intelligence
c) String Theory
d) s.th. (?)

[I recommend you choose one before pursuing this 45% any further.]


30% goes to:

"another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here)"

[How is this distinct from the "meta-intelligence" in the 45% answers? But, hey, as long as you're not proposing anything too far-fetched. ]


And "perhaps" 25% goes to:

"25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter."

Can't have it both ways. Math doesn't work like that. Not even elementary school math. Even your 45% is given 4 different options, and your 30% seems indistinguishable from one of those 4 options.

Quote:

FBM wrote:

What I personally know about the details of the physics is irrelevant.

Hence you know nothing.

Non sequitur. Illogical conclusion.

You're the one who posted that you personally believe that the universe is best explained by 45% god/ILF, which might be any one of 4 mutually exclusive choices, 30% something entirely different, and 25% the Big Bang, which you subsequently deny even happened.

Self-contradiction seems to be your hobby, along with making logical fallacies. It's not a strawman if you actually said what I said you said.

More red herring?

FBM wrote:

Quote:

FBM wrote:

What I personally know about the details of the physics is irrelevant.

Hence you know nothing.

Non sequitur. Illogical conclusion.

     If you haven't paid attention all of the QMs and all of the Big Bang 'theory' is physics - how exactly a mediocre knowledge in any physics could be 'irrelevant'?

     Wow, wow, wait a minute - we are talking here about the assumptions.

Where have got that the 'best explained by' from? Without the assumptions you cannot explain the Universe at all, let alone 'the best'.

     Any misinterpretation (of anything said in any other context and in connection with anything else) made with the aim to distort the reality in benefit of your own beliefs (for the natural process is just the opposite - to continuously revise and update the beliefs in compliance with the empirical data, their verification, validation ... and justification) is a straw-man by definition.

     Why don't you prove it - that the accuracy and the probability of a measurement in the physical world is irrelevant to the physical interpretation and its non-true-blue use for any purposes?

     BTW can you explain that score - how exactly the 4 imaginary points have been assigned to you ... and by whom?

... and how did you come to know that a stochastic citing of irrelevant to the theme quotes said on absolutely other occasions - without the knowledge and consent of the lecturers - can bring to you personally any scores? Isn't that a masterpiece of the plagiarism?

boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

What's up with that?

This is the long version, but I doubt that the local wingnuts, denialists, conspiracy theorists and creationists (but I'm being redundant) have either the will or the capacity to watch all of it and perhaps *gasp* learn the answers to their questions: