Go back to your first statement, where you effectively claim everyone who perceives existence as possessing meaning is stupid. You’re the one who kicked things off on a poor foot. I made a logical argument to start a discussion, you made a judgement and placed yourself above everyone with a different understanding. The fact you don’t understand limits is just the cherry on top.
I didn't say finding meaning is stupid. I said many people clearly struggle with discerning coincidence from causation when the coincidence is improbable enough.
An observation directly relevant to the flawed argument that the coincidence of laws of physics that lead to life is so improbable that it can't be coincidence.
I'm fine with the concept of differing belief systems, just don't make a mockery of math in attempt to validate yours as the only "correct" belief or I'm just gonna make a mockery of you.
Tell me which part of the argument makes a mockery of math:
There are, according to the standard model, 27 independent and fundamental variables which underpin “the laws of physics”
There is no reason for these variables to have the value they do (hence independent), or any other value, beyond the logical necessity that they must have some value
One of these 27 variables is lamda, the cosmological constant, which has been determined to posses a value on the order of 1x10^-122 (unitless)
Should the value of this number change, a variety of effects would occur depending on the degree of change. A very very very very small change would result in galaxies never forming. A very very very small change would result in stars never forming. A very very small change would result in the universe collapsing in on itself nearly instantaneously after the big bang.
That same reality applies to each of the 27 independent fundamental variables, and while I may not be able to actually produce this equation which multiplies the acceptable error bounds, it is clearly logically possible to produce it.
If you want to, from this point, make some Anthropic Principle-esque rebuttal along the lines of “well who says these variables can take any other value than the one they hold in our universe” / “there could be infinite universes, we just happen to be in the one where they take these values”, congrats on shutting down the conversation, but I and Roger Penrose alike assure you, you haven't actually responded to the argument, merely attempted to avoid it (Dip, Dodge, Duck, Davoid, and Dip right? Been a while since school)
It is implausible to the degree of practical impossibility to suggest that this is the result of chaos, chance, and meaninglessness (“beyond a shadow of a doubt”? We execute people on less grounds than you seem to be demanding from a fucking forum conversation lol).
Tell me which part of the argument makes a mockery of math:
The part where you treat very large numbers as literally infinite, then build on that axiom to say things are obviously impossible when that is patently false. But I'll stop harping on on that one since you're obviously determined to plug your ears and avoid the subject on that one. And there's even more holes to address if you're going to ignore that one.
I'm also ignoring that your 27 independent constants are the largest number I've seen anyone dare to propose and a good number are still being debated about being truly independent. Because even if that's driven by a desire to inflate the number as much as possible, in the face of infinity the scale is irrelevant anyway.
Should the value of this number change, a variety of effects would occur depending on the degree of change. A very very very very small change would result in galaxies never forming. A very very very small change would result in stars never forming. A very very small change would result in the universe collapsing in on itself nearly instantaneously after the big bang
Change all of those "would"s to "could"s. There's no proof and no particular reason to believe that this is the only combination of constants that produce an ordered universe. There could be infinite combinations of constants that produce an ordered universe, it might be differently ordered, but ordered nonetheless. On the flip side as we don't know the origin of these constants we have no idea what range of values they could even possibly take. It may be that even in the absence of our universe that these are still the only possible values those constants can take and their presence to lead to our ordered universe is absolutely guaranteed. You just cannot claim with any kind of certainty to know how likely an ordered universe was to have emerged at the genesis of our universe. These probability calculations are more like post-hoc hoe math than real math.
Go back to your first statement, where you effectively claim everyone who perceives existence as possessing meaning is stupid. You’re the one who kicked things off on a poor foot. I made a logical argument to start a discussion, you made a judgement and placed yourself above everyone with a different understanding. The fact you don’t understand limits is just the cherry on top.
I didn't say finding meaning is stupid. I said many people clearly struggle with discerning coincidence from causation when the coincidence is improbable enough.
An observation directly relevant to the flawed argument that the coincidence of laws of physics that lead to life is so improbable that it can't be coincidence.
I'm fine with the concept of differing belief systems, just don't make a mockery of math in attempt to validate yours as the only "correct" belief or I'm just gonna make a mockery of you.
Tell me which part of the argument makes a mockery of math:
There are, according to the standard model, 27 independent and fundamental variables which underpin “the laws of physics”
There is no reason for these variables to have the value they do (hence independent), or any other value, beyond the logical necessity that they must have some value
One of these 27 variables is lamda, the cosmological constant, which has been determined to posses a value on the order of 1x10^-122 (unitless)
Should the value of this number change, a variety of effects would occur depending on the degree of change. A very very very very small change would result in galaxies never forming. A very very very small change would result in stars never forming. A very very small change would result in the universe collapsing in on itself nearly instantaneously after the big bang.
That same reality applies to each of the 27 independent fundamental variables, and while I may not be able to actually produce this equation which multiplies the acceptable error bounds, it is clearly logically possible to produce it.
If you want to, from this point, make some Anthropic Principle-esque rebuttal along the lines of “well who says these variables can take any other value than the one they hold in our universe” / “there could be infinite universes, we just happen to be in the one where they take these values”, congrats on shutting down the conversation, but I and Roger Penrose alike assure you, you haven't actually responded to the argument, merely attempted to avoid it (Dip, Dodge, Duck, Davoid, and Dip right? Been a while since school)
It is implausible to the degree of practical impossibility to suggest that this is the result of chaos, chance, and meaninglessness (“beyond a shadow of a doubt”? We execute people on less grounds than you seem to be demanding from a fucking forum conversation lol).
The part where you treat very large numbers as literally infinite, then build on that axiom to say things are obviously impossible when that is patently false. But I'll stop harping on on that one since you're obviously determined to plug your ears and avoid the subject on that one. And there's even more holes to address if you're going to ignore that one.
I'm also ignoring that your 27 independent constants are the largest number I've seen anyone dare to propose and a good number are still being debated about being truly independent. Because even if that's driven by a desire to inflate the number as much as possible, in the face of infinity the scale is irrelevant anyway.
Change all of those "would"s to "could"s. There's no proof and no particular reason to believe that this is the only combination of constants that produce an ordered universe. There could be infinite combinations of constants that produce an ordered universe, it might be differently ordered, but ordered nonetheless. On the flip side as we don't know the origin of these constants we have no idea what range of values they could even possibly take. It may be that even in the absence of our universe that these are still the only possible values those constants can take and their presence to lead to our ordered universe is absolutely guaranteed. You just cannot claim with any kind of certainty to know how likely an ordered universe was to have emerged at the genesis of our universe. These probability calculations are more like post-hoc hoe math than real math.