I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.
Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.
The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.
Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?
I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.
Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?
Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.
But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can’t really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.
Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.
This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.
I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously
I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.
Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.
The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.
Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?
I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.
We have reached the root of the disagreement.
Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?
Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.
But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can’t really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.
Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.
This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.
I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously