Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 132517" data-attributes="member: 353"><p>Haha, oh look I'm eating you for breakfast again.</p><p></p><p>You’ve expended considerable energy trying to perform verbal aikido on my question, but you’ve yet to touch the substance.</p><p></p><p>Let me be very clear: I’m not asking whether different constants <strong><em>might</em></strong> permit “something.” That’s not a theory—it’s a placeholder for one. I'm asking whether <strong>you</strong> (or Greene, or anyone) can produce a mathematically grounded, <strong>predictive model in which the known physical constants are not arbitrarily <em>inserted</em></strong>, but rather <em>derived</em> from first principles—<strong>no ad hoc tuning</strong>,<strong> no infinite regress,</strong> and<strong> no appeals to unverifiable constructs like the multiverse</strong>. That’s the gold standard in theoretical physics, and you haven’t gotten within striking distance of it.</p><p></p><p>You say “as we know it” like it’s a mic drop, but that phrase only betrays the depth of the problem. Because all known forms of matter, structure, chemistry, and even dimensional stability hinge on a razor-thin band of physical constants. If your answer to that is a shrug and "maybe some other form of life in a different kind of universe," then you’ve abdicated explanatory responsibility. You’re not engaging in science—you’re performing metaphysical improv under the banner of physics.</p><p></p><p>So again—let’s make this clear and simple:</p><p></p><p><strong>Can you present a theory (not a metaphor) that predicts the precise values of the physical constants—such as the fine structure constant, the cosmological constant, or the strength of the strong nuclear force—without manually inserting them or invoking speculative infinities? If not, then what justifies dismissing fine-tuning as illusory rather than taking it seriously as an empirical clue?</strong></p><p></p><p>Until you answer that, you're just rearranging fog.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tiger, post: 132517, member: 353"] Haha, oh look I'm eating you for breakfast again. You’ve expended considerable energy trying to perform verbal aikido on my question, but you’ve yet to touch the substance. Let me be very clear: I’m not asking whether different constants [B][I]might[/I][/B] permit “something.” That’s not a theory—it’s a placeholder for one. I'm asking whether [B]you[/B] (or Greene, or anyone) can produce a mathematically grounded, [B]predictive model in which the known physical constants are not arbitrarily [I]inserted[/I][/B], but rather [I]derived[/I] from first principles—[B]no ad hoc tuning[/B],[B] no infinite regress,[/B] and[B] no appeals to unverifiable constructs like the multiverse[/B]. That’s the gold standard in theoretical physics, and you haven’t gotten within striking distance of it. You say “as we know it” like it’s a mic drop, but that phrase only betrays the depth of the problem. Because all known forms of matter, structure, chemistry, and even dimensional stability hinge on a razor-thin band of physical constants. If your answer to that is a shrug and "maybe some other form of life in a different kind of universe," then you’ve abdicated explanatory responsibility. You’re not engaging in science—you’re performing metaphysical improv under the banner of physics. So again—let’s make this clear and simple: [B]Can you present a theory (not a metaphor) that predicts the precise values of the physical constants—such as the fine structure constant, the cosmological constant, or the strength of the strong nuclear force—without manually inserting them or invoking speculative infinities? If not, then what justifies dismissing fine-tuning as illusory rather than taking it seriously as an empirical clue?[/B] Until you answer that, you're just rearranging fog. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
A Million Views.
Started by Declan
Yesterday at 10:54 PM
Replies: 8
Public Chat and Announcements
An Open Letter to SwordOfStZip
Started by AN2
Oct 11, 2025
Replies: 12
Public Chat and Announcements
athletics
Started by céline
Oct 8, 2025
Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
S
The real agenda in this Presidential Election?
Started by scolairebocht
Oct 6, 2025
Replies: 11
Scholairebochts Blog.
J
Varadkar "confronted by far right" while walking down street inDublin
Started by Jay Homer Simpson
Oct 2, 2025
Replies: 6
Public Chat and Announcements
Popular Threads
Ukraine.
Started by Declan
Feb 21, 2022
Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
Started by jpc
Nov 7, 2022
Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
Started by Anderson
Feb 26, 2023
Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
Started by Charlene
Sep 14, 2021
Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
Started by Declan
Dec 30, 2024
Replies: 3K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
Started by Anderson
Jul 29, 2022
Replies: 2K
Climate Change
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
Top
Bottom