Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> >  > Matt: The only real philosophical mistake he made is in his dismissal of why questions.  I don&apos;t disagree with him however, that how questions are imminently preferable.  And even if a multiverse is inevitable, and may have had a beginning, it automatically means that chance is no longer a problem.  Given that our universe is infinitely large, I still think you can make the argument that every possible configuration of matter in the universe has been created multiple times, purely by natural law.  Chance is a false bugaboo, especially the more you play with the total amount of matter we estimate the universe holds, and you add in the nature of "virtual particles" which was the singlehandedly best description of quantum mechanics I have ever read.-The problem is that all you have presented is supposition. Yes, the univedse is large but we can see back to the first 300,000 years. So far we cannot see beyond the COBE but the results so far from Planck still support inflation, a flat universe, continual expansion until heat death, etc. The original reports that the Wilkinson was wrong have just been refuted by more careful analysis of the data. But we cannot see the universe you are supposing. When you show me a bubble universe different than ours I&apos;ll then accept your viewpoint. Please don&apos;t base your thinkng on String Theory. So far it has opened uop some intersting observations, but most of it is mental masterbation. A good person to follow is Matt Strassler and his blog. He has one of the clearest views of quantum mechanics I have found.