/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12341544

279KiB, 500x500, 1597005776047.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

/sci/ can't refute this.

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 19:04:40 2020 No.12341544 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12341582 >>12341778 >>12341905 >>12341952 >>12341963

/sci/ can't refute this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0

all your arguments as to why the fined tuned hypothesis is wrong, are methaphysical (pseudoscience) arguments.

don't give me the multiverse explanation, there's not evidence for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 19:13:58 No.12341582 Report

Quoted By: >>12341590

>>12341544
any none-metaphysical argument would require being able to answer, scientifically, why these physical constants take the value they do today. this is currently beyond the grasp of experimental physics. /sci/ cannot refute this in the same way that it cannot tell you about the surface topology of planets in a distant galaxy; the means to make observations, perform experiments, and analyse results about such facts do not yet exist. by the same token you can't refute the anthropic principle; the fine-tuned hypothesis is metaphysical all the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 19:15:32 No.12341590 Report

Quoted By: >>12341735 >>12341736

>>12341582
why there's a sacred geometry if there's not designer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY74AFQl2qQ

It's mathematics, so /sci/ should be able to refute the sacred geometry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 19:52:27 No.12341735 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341590
>sacred geometry
just autismos enjoying shapes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 19:52:29 No.12341736 Report

Quoted By: >>12341743

>>12341590
things naturally tend to fit together anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 19:54:01 No.12341743 Report

Quoted By: >>12341884

>>12341736
And who wrote the "nature" rulebook to make them fit together? Who formed forms?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:00:29 No.12341778 Report

Quoted By: >>12341785

>>12341544
We got lucky.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:01:05 No.12341785 Report

Quoted By: >>12341797 >>12341809

>>12341778
statistically impossible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:03:34 No.12341797 Report

Quoted By: >>12341819

>>12341785
HAHAHA

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:05:42 No.12341809 Report

Quoted By: >>12341819

>>12341785
And yet here we are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:07:55 No.12341819 Report

Quoted By: >>12341834 >>12341856

>>12341797
>>12341809
It's more likely someone fined tuned all the variables together rather than randomly happening like 60 variables to the 1-60 zeroes just randomly having 60 coincidences at the same time.

besides, there's more evidence for the simulation, which is the same argument for the fine tuned hypothesis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:09:55 No.12341834 Report

Quoted By: >>12341847

>>12341819
>someone
don't give me the 'someone' explanation, there's not evidence for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:12:59 No.12341847 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341834
well, if there's evidence of weird /x/ shit, there must be some methaphysical reality that we can't properly access.

Science already know there's more than 3 dimentions.

So it makes sense to agree there must be higher dimentional beings who must have created this universe.
Any argument towards a computer simulation automatically agrees with some designer intelligence that is outside our reality.

But who created this beings?
Even if they were also created, there must be some origin of everything (AKA some kind of GOD).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:14:58 No.12341856 Report

Quoted By: >>12341861

>>12341819
"Improbability" is meaningless in a boundless thermodynamic expanse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:17:06 No.12341861 Report

Quoted By: >>12341877 >>12341886

>>12341856
there's also the coincidences of sacred geometry.

If this universe would have been random chance, there wouldn't be a logic for such geometry to exist.

there's not reason why we have a hand with knuclkes and fingers that follows the 12 number system (5*12).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:21:59 No.12341877 Report

Quoted By: >>12341885

>>12341861
>our hand follows the 12 number system
>not - the 12 number system exists because it's convenient to use with our hand

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:23:54 No.12341884 Report

Quoted By: >>12341885

>>12341743
>Who formed the forms
Well, first of all, forms are eternal, so no one formed them. Secondly, why do you people just pretend to read Plato and then ignore the thousands of years of scholarship that proceed to refute him?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:24:29 No.12341885 Report

Quoted By: >>12341890

>>12341877
there's multiple counting systems.

music also follows a 12 system, hours, days, seconds, also follow a 12 system.

>>12341884
thousands of years of cope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:24:57 No.12341886 Report

Quoted By: >>12341893

>>12341861
Yeah this is clearly just a misattribution of order. If you were a bee you'd be goshing over all of the hexagons everywhere.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1604884440766.png, 618KiB, 1050x1205

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:25:58 No.12341890 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341885
>thousands of years of cope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:27:02 No.12341893 Report

Quoted By: >>12341907

>>12341886
my point is that nature seems to follow some mathematical rules, like fibonnacci.

such rules aren't casual at all.
When zooming out, you see there's a clear intelligence behind nature rules.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:32:12 No.12341905 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341544
>/sci/ can't refute this.
https://youtu.be/sm0Ul-Ym8Ys

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:32:30 No.12341907 Report

Quoted By: >>12341912 >>12341916

>>12341893
Yes but you get this the wrong way round. Take the Fibonacci sequence. It's generated with a ratio that involves the square root of 5. This is completely arbitrary. There's another sequence with no name that involves the square root of 3. If, for whatever reason, nature had decided to go with the square root of 3 sequence for many things, you'd look at that and go "Wow this sequence is so special, clearly designed!", whereas what's happening is that some sequence is likely to be adopted for efficience, and it just so happens to be Fibonacci.

Like in a behive. You don't look at a behive and go "wow this cell is also a hexagonal cell, just like the neighbouring one, someone must've designed this behive!". If the behive had square cells, it would work just as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:33:44 No.12341912 Report

Quoted By: >>12341925

>>12341907
what if God is a mathematician?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:34:54 No.12341916 Report

Quoted By: >>12341919

>>12341907
> If the behive had square cells, it would work just as well.
Actually it wouldn't, that is why they are hexes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:36:44 No.12341919 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341916
Your're technically right bc evolution but the point stands with regards to what the fine tuningtard is talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:38:53 No.12341925 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341912
What if my fat nuts were? That's a non-sequitur. If God were a mathematician then you'd probably expect better maths from our universe. Why are our constants so unpretty and asymmetric?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:44:40 No.12341952 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341544
>Muh fine tuned.
It's just how things are. If they were different then a different dumbass would be making the same thread with different numbers and calling them fine tuned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Nov 2020 20:47:31 No.12341963 Report

Quoted By:

>>12341544
If you can understand why evolution is a miracle and the beaver isn't some architectural genius but that beavers bad at dam building died, then you can understand why the fine-tuned argument is inane.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches