Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)R

reliv3

@ reliv3 @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
65
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Multiverse

    Jump

  • I am not entirely certain what point you're making here. Is the premise that conclusions based on evidence that involves literally seeing the thing are stronger than any conclusions where we haven't directly seen the thing? If so, then we better throw out a majority of our scientific hypotheses, since most of them have not are not based on evidence where we have directly seen the thing (most of quantum mechanics, most of general relativity, most of astronomy, etc.)

    Human sight is a very restrictive window into observing our universe. We can only see a sliver of the light spectrum (visible light). We can expand this window slightly by using other senses to observe our universe (sound, taste, touch, scent). Where science shines is the practitioners ability to use abstract models and thought processes to draw conclusions about things we cannot observe. This expands our window into understanding our universe far more than leaning only on concrete models (things we can directly observed).

    In simpler terms, most of science's conclusions involve ones that are closer to Planet X rather than directly seeing an exoplanet. Therefore, we cannot cheapen these type of conclusions.

    All science requires is models that make accurate predictions. For example, atoms. We have never seen an atom before, but we have used this model of the atom to accurately predict outcomes of experiments. Because of this, the atom still exists as a working hypothesis in science.

  • Multiverse

    Jump

  • Sort of. It's kinda similar to science's conclusion about the existence of intelligent alien life. Have we directly observed evidence of intelligent alien life? No. Are we pretty confident that intelligent alien life exists? Yes. It's a probability thing. If we can exist in this massive universe, then it's almost insane to think that we could be the only intelligent life that exists: the principle of mediocrity.

    When it comes to the standard cosmological model, it allows for universes with different shaped space-time continuums, different masses of elementary particles, etc. So, if it allows for all of these variables to be different, then it's almost insane to think that our universe is the only universe that exists: principle of mediocrity again.

    In the BBT, the multiverse hypothesis comes in during the inflation epoch. At some point our universe bubble expanded faster than the speed of light. This creates a sorta localized boundary. Since we observe light with our eyes and we cannot go FTL, then we cannot observe or go places beyond this localized bubble which exists within our localized space. The BBT posits that other localized universe bubbles were also created during the epoch of inflation: the multiverse. Of course, to get to another localized bubble, one would have to travel faster than the speed of light and transverse through literal nothing (no space or time) to get there.

    Now keep in mind that the multiverse hypothesis is pretty cutting edge, so yes, there is still a lot of argument regarding its validity. One argument is that it is not a scientific hypothesis because there is no feasible way to observe outside our own localized bubble. Nevertheless there are scientists who are designing tests. For example, some physicists posit that if our localized bubble collided with another localized bubble, then it could result in an observable effect on the cosmic background radiation.

  • Multiverse

    Jump

  • You are correct. But this doesn't restrict the big bang theory's ability to conclude that other universes would have been created during the event.

    Imagine analyzing a moving ball while simultaneously not knowing what caused the ball to move in the first place. We can still say a lot about this ball without the knowledge of how it started moving in the first place..

    As Hawkings once said, asking questions about what caused the big bang is fruitless. Cause and Effect assumes a timeline, and there was no timeline before the big bang, therefore, asking what caused the big bang is actually a useless question. Therefore, it's only fruitful to analyze the effect of the big bang, and through analyzing it's effect, we conclude that other universes were likely created during the event.

    A lot of this is based on the theoretical mathematics which define the big bang, but it's also based on the standard cosmological model of our universe. The fact is cosmological theories already suggest the possibility of different universes which have different initial parameters. Our universe isn't special, therefore it makes sense that other universes with different initial parameters could exist. The big bang theory aligns with this idea and suggests that different universes with different initial parameters could have also been created during the event, therefore, the multiverse.

  • Multiverse

    Jump

  • The big bang theory posits the creation of multiple universes during the event. To accept the big bang theory as a model for the beginning of our universe is to accept the possibility of multiple universes.

  • If God is all powerful and created human. How come God in endowed with human emotions? Shouldn't he or she be beyond that?

    Jump

  • Religion would make sense to me if it reverted back to polytheism... This monotheistic update was a garbage idea.

    Polytheism feels like a superior theological model that is actually evidence based.. For example, the personalities of the Greek gods were characterizations of which they were gods. This is also true with the Spirits in Native American religion. They were supernatural based on the natural.

    I feel like Monotheistic religions rely on blind faith partly because of the evil problem. One god is supposed to be all powerful, one god is supposed to be omniscient, one god is supposed to be revered; but this means that the one god must be evil and good. Monotheism would make a lot more sense if they can all just collectively accept the notion they worship a neutral entity, not a good entity. Unfortunately, that doesn't sound captivating enough, so instead, "the evil problem" continues.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I find Michael Moore neither smug nor obnoxious. You and others interpret Michael Moore's messages as being smug and/or obnoxious, but there are a lot of other people who listen to his messages without animosity. This pattern is also true for Joe Rogan. I am certain that there are people who interpret his message as being smug or obnoxious.

    The reality is the nature of conversation is complicated: the result relies on how information is produced by the speaker AND how it is interpreted by the listener. So the root of the problem is twofold. It's not just that people are having a hard time speaking to those outside their circle. It is also that people are having a hard time listening to those outside their circle. The blame is not on the left or the right, it's on both. Both exist in their own circle jerk, and neither groups are able to talk and listen to each other.

    I think the fact that we all aligned once this CEO died reveals why this division is important those in power (Top 1%, billionaires, and multi-millionaires). If we did all team up, these people in power would be in trouble. Instead, we are being divided into two sides that cannot even communicate with each other. And because of that, we are being conquered by these oligarchs and we are too busy fighting each other to know what's going on.

  • Would Kamala Harris have won the 2024 election if Latinos didn't shift hard to the right?

    Jump

  • Yes, we are comparing the numbers to the highest voter turn out (which was last election). Biden was able to move 6-7 million more people to vote than Kamala, whereas Trump got about the same as he got in 2020.

    Voters have to take some responsibility here. Trump's base are all being con'd because they are ignorant on how most of the world works beyond their own backyard. Its possible that this is partly true for the 6-7 million people who didn't vote this election cycle.

    The issue isn't so much that they didn't vote for Kamala, but rather they did not have the ability to recognize Trump as the con that he is. Me being of average intelligence feels like this should have been easy to decipher.

  • Computer Sec. Experts Ask Harris to Seek Hand-Counts After Vote System Breaches: 'BradCast' 11/14/24

    Jump

  • Hmm, careful. It was not a majority of American people. Trump didn't win over 50% of the popular vote, and this doesn't consider the people who did not vote.

  • AOC denounces anyone engaging in online vitriol after Trump’s victory — Democrats included

    Jump

  • Okay, this notion is just incorrect. Harris, during her time as senator, was one of the most left leaning senators out of all Democrats. Her votes almost completely aligned with Bernie Sanders.

    Was misogyny THE reason Harris loss, probably not; but it definitely played a meaningful role. During the campaign race, there were a lot of information being pushed to American citizens. It was up to us to process the information and choose what to believe and what to throw away. Post-election, we are learning that people were judging Harris based on false premises. Americans were willing to believe a lot of bullshit about Harris, whereas Trump got the opposite treatment: Americans willingfully ignored terrible truths about Trump. I think misogyny played a role in defining this difference in how we treated information regarding each candidates.

  • ur dada so buff he falls significantly faster than g

    Jump

  • Even if you imagine doing them separately, the acceleration of the Earth cannot be calculated based on just a singular force unless you assume nothing else is exerting a force on the Earth during the process of the fall. For a realistic model, this is a bad assumption. The Earth is a massive system which interacts with a lot of different systems. The one tiny force exerted on it by either the feather or bowling ball has no measurable effect on the motion of Earth. This is not just a mass issue, it's the fact that Earth's free body diagram would be full of Force Vectors and only one of them would either be the feather or bowling ball as they fall.

    As for my second point, I understand your model and I am defining these references frames by talking about where an observer is located. An observer standing still on Earth would measure the acceleration of the feather or bowling ball to be 9.81 m/s/s. If we placed a camera on the feather or bowling ball during the fall, then it would also measure the acceleration of the Earth to be 9.81 m/s/s. There is no classical way that these two observers would disagree with each other in the magnitudes of the acceleration.

    Think of a simpler example. A person driving a car towards someone standing at a stop sign. If the car is moving 20 mph towards the pedestrian, then in the perspective of the car's driver, the pedestrian is moving 20 mph towards them. There is no classical way that these two speeds will be different.

  • ur dada so buff he falls significantly faster than g

    Jump

  • This argument is deeply flawed when applying classical Newtonian physics. You have two issues:

    1. Acceleration of a system is caused by a sum of forces or a net force, not individual forces. To claim that the Earth accelerates differently due to two different forces is an incorrect application of Newton's second law. If you drop a bowling and feather in a vacuum, then both the feather and the bowling ball will be pulling on the Earth simultaneously. The Earth's acceleration would be the same towards both the bowling ball and the feather, because we would consider both the force of the feather on the Earth and the force of the bowling ball on the Earth when calculating the acceleration of the Earth.
    2. You present this notion that two different systems can accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth according to an observer standing on the surface of Earth; but when you place an observer on either surface of the two systems, Earth is accelerating at a different rate. This is classically impossible. If two systems are accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth, then Earth must be accelerating 9.81 m/s/s towards both systems too.
  • Removed

    What could have been... Bernie off the top rope!

    Jump

  • The irony: This is basically what we have. When it comes to action, as senators, Kamala and Bernie voted the same way on most issues. Obviously, they are not the same people, but their viewpoints led to more or less the same voting actions.

  • How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she supports Israel’s war? Here is my answer | Bernie Sanders

    Jump

  • You realize that you're currently being con'd. Netanyahu wants Trump to win the presidential election, because he knows Trump will be friendly towards his genocidal actions. Netanyahu is doing everything in his power to extend this genocide so that he can stay in power; and so that he can keep single issue voters like you away from the polls.

    Netanyahu knows that if he ended Israel's genocide before the election, the Biden administration would receive credit in playing a role in mediating the conflict. This would likely assure a Harris victory. By escalating the conflct, he is assisting Trump. Why would you think that this genocidal maniac is doing this?

    So here you are, the single issue voter that is tuning out all of the other important issues. For example, Trump considers communist (all you genius tankies) some of the biggest enemies in the USA; or how Trump backers and policymakers wants to remove women's right to make decisions about their bodies.

    Do I believe that Biden/Harris has done enough to help Palestinians? The answer is no. Do I believe Biden/Harris feels like Netanyahu and the Israeli government are in the wrong? Yes. Do I believe Trump feels like Israel is in the wrong? No.

    So even if this is your single issue, as an American living thousands of miles from Israel, your best way to assist Palestinians right now is to put someone in the Whitehouse who at least views them as human-beings. By not voting or voting third-party, you're not helping anyone but yourself. You are doing it so you don't need to "feel bad" about crossing some morale boundary.

    Listen man, if that's the route you want to go, then fine. But I'm gonna go ahead and waltz my sorry butt to the polls and cast my vote for the person who will more likely do something to assist Palestinians even if I feel like I'm crossing a moral boundary. Am I gonna feel good doing it? No. But it's the better decision to make, especially considering all the other important issues that surround this election beyond the Palestinian genocide.

  • Reddit says it is not covered by new Online Safety Code as it has moved its jurisdiction to the Netherlands

    Jump

  • You are making such a useless point that requires minimal effort or thought. It would be better if you actually shared a tangible concern rather than providing a strawman argument meant to cause an irrational fear in people reading your comment.

    For example, you could have shared which group of people you want to be a protected class and is not by Irish law; or which group of people is currently a protected class by Irish law and should not be. At least, then, you would have brought up a real concern about how the Irish government is determining hate speech; because right now, all you are doing is fear mongering.

  • I, an Atheist, have been banned from c/AtheistMemes

    Jump

  • From your description, it sounds like you are an Agnostic Atheist. It takes some faith to be an Atheist. Personally, I agree with your points, so I'd be more of an Agnostic Atheist too; but I am somewhat convinced that science has decent evidence which disproves the old and new testament god. I believe our scientific understanding of our universe suggests god would not give a shit whether it was worshipped and it would not be some moral judge. It's consciousness (if we can even call it that) would be so far beyond what humans could comprehend that our puny human morales and ethical dilemmas would be irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, I still think human morales and ethics are important, because us Agnostic Atheists don't need the fear of divine retribution to do the right thing.

    Thank you for sharing your beliefs in such detail. I appreciate it. Sorry to hear about your experience with those forcing their religion on you due to being transgendered. I am cisgendered, but I like to consider myself an ally. I have a lgbtq+ flag flying in my classroom (I'm a teacher) and I already had to give a student a stern talk for telling me that "god loves you" after looking at my flag

  • I, an Atheist, have been banned from c/AtheistMemes

    Jump

  • I agree with this sentiment, but Christianity is partly defined by "spreading the word of god". So "telling people what to believe" is par for the course (think missionaries).

    Curious though, why do you not refer to yourself as atheist? Non-religious is actually not very specific. Non-religious can mean Agnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, or Atheist.

  • Dragon Age Creator Slams "Woke" Criticism: "You're an Idiot"

    Jump

  • Wasn't it dragon age 2 where the level design got super repetitive though? It felt like they kept reusing the same exact level design in ways that didn't really make sense.

  • If Bethesda released Skyrim today, they would have made it woke

    Jump

  • The reality is: if you don't understand why providing "white" scholarships is very different from providing "people of color" scholarships, then you don't have a full understanding of how Racism manifests in America. This is a fundamental thing you will need to work to better understand before a discussion of this topic can be useful.

    Nevertheless, you are correct that not every white person in America take advantage of generational wealth, but this is besides the point. The fact is Black Americans have been in this country for 400 years and the community is still disproportionately impoverished, whereas there are a lot of European/Asian immigrants who have been here for much less time and they are much better off. You kind of make this observation in your response, but missed the implications it has on how Racism rewards certain demographics.

  • ‘Brazen gaslighting’: J.D. Vance slammed for telling Dems ‘tone down the rhetoric’

    Jump

  • By this metric, one can argue that we currently "misuse" a lot of words in the English language, but the reality is language evolves. Think about how the definition of "nice" has evolved from meaning "ignorant or stupid" in the 1300s to it's current meaning.

  • Why Schools Are Racing to Ban Student Phones

    Jump

  • The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.