Worrying about whether the multiverse exists is probably a question like "how many angels can fit on a pin head". I suspect that if we keep on plugging away at the problem a change of perspective will render the answer from a different perspective.
@thedeester1007 жыл бұрын
Coastwalker Much of Astrophysics is a waste of time. In my lifetime scientists have discovered the age of the universe three times and each time was different. Did the years they took and the millions they spent actually benefit mankind in any way? Science can be just as irrelevant as religion or philosophy.
@davidwilkie95517 жыл бұрын
If philosophy, by its definition of "love of words/communication of ideas", starts all theorizing with only the accepted established principles of connection, then the measurements used to verify/falsify theoretical probability, has some relative meaning - in principle. The techniques and technology of physical measurement do not take precedent over selection of principles. Words/languages of communication are not as basic a reason for trust in methodology as principles, so it is a "vertically integrated" mix of knowledge and experience that dominates scientific research.
@thedeester1007 жыл бұрын
How do they know the universe isn't rotating? Isn't it difficult to measure without an external point of reference?
@jonathonjubb66267 жыл бұрын
Not being able to see the screen makes this unwatchable - unfortunately...
@WorthlessWinner7 жыл бұрын
Where is he getting the idea that i am "so complex" that it would take an uncountable infinity to clone me exactly? I am made of a countable number of parts aren't I? I live for a finite time? He seems to be trying to jump strait from "uncountable infinities exist" to "therefore i am an uncountable infinitely unlikely thing"
@rahowherox11777 жыл бұрын
unassumption because some people do not actually know what infinite means and use it to describe finite but large numbers, eg sand grains on earth, stars, etc. the same type of person , usually, who would try to conflate science with philosophy, and theories without the research to back them up. gresham seems keen on religious pseudo science, for some reason, probably financial reasons.
@robertleonard78342 жыл бұрын
It's a idealist if you think about .. The two will always argue there point 👉
@jospehhute52034 жыл бұрын
hmm..
@rahowherox11777 жыл бұрын
philosopher of science is, imo, a contradiction of terms - a non sequitor....
@alancrabb7 жыл бұрын
"philosopher of science ...a contradiction of terms". Why so?
@rahowherox11777 жыл бұрын
Alan Crabb 1 relies on evidence based research and inferences from reality, 1 on the abstract, opinion, etc.. this is why science is... well a science, whilst philosophy is considered an art
@rahowherox11777 жыл бұрын
philosophy, simply isnt science.
@davidwilkie95517 жыл бұрын
If philosophy, by its definition of "love of words/communication of ideas", starts all theorizing with only the accepted established principles of connection, then the measurements used to verify/falsify theoretical probability, has some relative meaning - in principle. The techniques and technology of physical measurement do not take precedent over selection of principles. Words/languages of communication are not as basic a reason for trust in methodology as principles, so it is a "vertically integrated" mix of knowledge and experience that dominates scientific research.