I am thinking ass holes theory "What does it mean for someone to be an asshole? The answer is not obvious, despite the fact that we are often stuck dealing with people for whom there is no better name. We try to avoid them, but assholes are everywhere—at work, at home, on the road, in the public sphere—and we struggle to comprehend why exactly someone should be acting like that. Asshole management begins with asshole understanding. Finally giving us the concepts to discern why assholes disturb us so, philosopher Aaron James presents a provocative theory of the asshole to explain why such people exist, especially in an age of raging narcissism and unbridled capitalism."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-powerball-jackpot-20150930-story.html and yet another winner agianst all odds
it's not IF you're an asshole it's when. EVERYONE is perceived an asshole to another at some point in lifetime, or you're not socializing There are all kinds of stupid people that annoy me but what annoys me most is a lazy argument. Christopher Hitchens
now that you modified your previously ridiculous position... we can have a conversation. 1. do you consider Penrose's cyclic universe to speculation or fact? You seem to act like theory is fact... lets get this straight so we can talk. From a scientific perspective does a a cyclic universe rule out a creator? No. Is a cyclic universe more likely than a Creator? You can't really say. 2. Does Penrose's cyclic universe eliminate the fine tuning problem? I just read it shares the same problem as the inflationary model. So please stop throwing shit at the wall and engage on a real level. Maybe we could all learn something.
...you throw some shit ...and ask for no shit throwing. I'm thinking... ass hole... theory also. You first. You're the one who keeps trolling Penrose. Is that big odds number speculation or fact? ....'cause if it's speculation, wtf kind of kicking yourself would ever be sufficient for brainlessly trolling it out for years like you have, as if it was some sort of an argument for anything at all. If it's fact, then by the same measure, so his Cyclic universe would be, by which he removes the question of big odds numbers. In that respect, is the penny dropping with you in any way yet? What you mean by creator is not a scientific question in the first place. Yes I really can say. Cyclic has math. Creator has myth. So yes, Cyclic more likely than your Creator thing. Why wouldn't it? The universe bouncing through birth death cycles to infinity and beyond. Why wouldn't this one occur.
throwing shit at the wall is an expression... apparently you didn't get that. I gave you links to his book where penrose explains the math he used to arrive at the number. You are rehashing old arguments as if they are new. Cyclic universe does not necessarily remove the question of the appearance of fine tuning caused by finely tuned constants. You provided the cyclic universe answer... you should be the one supporting it. there are myraid reasons why a cyclic universe would still not explain why our universe appears so finely tuned. it would be your job to explain it since you provided it as your answer. but, you never do explain your science cause you just throw shit at the wall. you are historically one shallow response deep..
That is incorrect. In fact, this is one of the reasons a cyclic universe is so attractive, the first being that there is no need for a beginning cause. There is nothing that says that all constants of nature have to be the same from one cyclic universe to the next. Although, physical laws, particularly gravity probably do need "carry forward". But that G = 9.8 m/s^2 need not carry forward. If you have a universe that is finite in extent but infinite in time, eventually you get by pure random chance one where the constants of nature and several other miracle like fine tuning to come about exactly right for life completely by chance. Do I believe it? Nah. But there are parts of the cyclic universe that I do find appealing.
People get hung up on fine tuning. No question, it is a mystery. But to me, a FAR deeper question is: Why are there physical laws at all? And as Max Tegmark has pointed out, it is not that our Universe has some mathematical properties, it is that it has only mathematical properties. That is the most profound mystery of all. And it is hard not to assign design cause to that. Not that it is impossible. Just that it is beyond our current comprehension as to how it can come about naturally, unless you have infinite trials, e.g., the monkey typing on a typewriter forever gets Shakespeare's works eventually, imo. Either way, you come to things that are beyond the human mind: An infinite in time (multi/uni)verse through cyclic trials A Designer I find it funny that the church tried to quiet scientists from discovering and communicating the truth because it might kill God. Yes, it killed God, but GOD is alive and well. The quote should read: God is dead - Nietzsche. Nietzsche is dead - GOD
1, I have done some searches and learned that at least some of the authors of the cyclic models have stated that the cyclic universe does not eliminate the fine tuning problem... But, I have seen that there are others how have bet developing or trying to develop models within the models which can account for the fine tuning problem. for instance... http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclicFAQS/ (halfway down the page) 2. are you sure the cyclic universe model has no starting point or beginning cause?
You don't have to do any searching. A simple thought experiment is enough. Given an infinite amount of time, ANYTHING is possible, even a monkey reproducing Shakespeare's works by random typing. In fact, that is probably infinitely less likely than all the fine tunings needed for life. That makes 10^120 look like a puny number.