Posts by Nowhere

:Since the two friends have not seen each other for a long time -- presumably more than one year this immediately eliminates all but the last three possibilities

My fault, bad choice of words (or bad English grammar). The kids can be of any ages 1-36, and 'oldest' were supposed to cover both the 'oldest' and the 'older' possibility. It isn't a trick question were the answer is found in the words (or grammar).

You are definitely on the right track with a process of elimination, and the first step was correct.

11

funny math problem

by Nowhere in

two old friends meet each other on the street:

- how are you and the kids?

you have three sons don't you?

Nowhere

:This is certainly wrong because I think there should only be one answer

There is a one and only answer.

:I ignored the seeming irrelevant info

You cannot solve the problem, without the info given.

Ok, maybe not funny haha, but funny because it is simple, but looks so hard.

11

funny math problem

by Nowhere in

two old friends meet each other on the street:

- how are you and the kids?

you have three sons don't you?

Nowhere

Two old friends meet each other on the street:

- How are you and the kids? You have three sons don't you? How old are they now?, the first friend asks.

- Yes, I have three sons, the other one answers. The product of their ages is 36, and the sum of their ages is the same as the number of windows on that house over there, the second friend answers.

-I still don't know the answer, there is something more you don't tell me?, the first friend says.

- Right, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you that my oldest son has got red hair, the second friend answers.

Now the first friend knew the ages of the kids.

How old are the kids?

33

What Is The Most Effective Brainwashing Technique The Society Uses?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it seems that for well over a century, the watchtower society has subtly controlled the minds of "thinking persons".

what ways do you think that they are most effective?

Nowhere

repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating ...

And of course DISFELLOWSHIPING and censor. (maybe not brainwashing techniques, but very effective in keaping the minds closed, information only from one channel, no thinking, no other opinions, no other inputs, no nothing except the divine channel with thier repeating messages repeating messages repeating messages repeating messages repeating messages .....)

27

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

by Nowhere in

i found this in one of my course books.

it's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of friedman-robertson-walker universes.

it looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist.

Nowhere

: "I'm wondering if Nowhere believes a "soul" enters the fertilized egg (hmmmm), if so I could see how it doesn't matter."

You don't see how it doesn't matter? Ok, I'll put it like this, the universe doesn't depend on you or me being born, but it does depend on a small set of constants and laws. If we were discussing the fascinating fact that you were born, then your sperm-theory would be interesting, now it has absolutely nothing to do with the point.You are clinging to JW logic. The fact that you or me being born, in spite of the extremely low probability, doesn't in any way prove that the universe is formed by mere chance. It is called independence.

You cannot prove one unbelievable fact, by pointing to another unbelievable fact, who doesn't depend on the first one. Also basic probabillity theory.

And in my view, we already know why a certain sperm won the race, it wasn't due to pure chance, it was due to the initial conditions, different initial conditions would also provide a winning sperm, different initial conditions for the universe, would not. So unless you can show me that any universe would be good for life, I'll just stick to the anthropic principle in the meantime.

27

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

by Nowhere in

i found this in one of my course books.

it's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of friedman-robertson-walker universes.

it looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist.

Nowhere

Well...adaddon... (Satan?)

First, my intension is not to be rude to anyone, my apologies.

Ok, let me now explain basic probability. With a dice, you have a probability of 1/6 to hit 6. That means, it is more likely that you don't hit 6.

Ok, now, if the chance of something is very small, that means it is not very likely that it will happen.

Back to the dice, if you throw the dice 10 times in a row, the probability that 6 doesn't show up at least ones is only about 1/6 (in fact 16.15%). Did you see what happened? If you throw the dice 10 times, or throw 10 dices at once, it is likely to get at least one 6.

What does that mean to the universe? It means, if this isn't the first or if this is just one of many universes, there isn't such a mystery why the probability seems to be so small. Sooner or later it is going to happen.

But you cling to the theory of a very very unlikely scenario. Why?

You also wanted to know why our universe has to be unique. Well, if it isn't unique, we still want to know why our universe isn't unique. Why is G the value we know? Why isn't the gravitational constant higher or lower? A theory of everything would explain that. It would show why G doesn't have a different value.

We already know that human life isn't unique. We could have evolved in a different direction, or another sperm could have won the race, and we have a theory of evolution that to some extent explains how the evolution of human beings was possible, and how it might have happened. And it DOES NOT depend on pure chance to explain it!

Today we have a quantum field theory that explains how the universe behaves, but doesn't answer the question why. A theory of everything would explain why.

I'll explain the sperm to you once more. Your explanation depends on the statement that only one sperm is the winner. To me, any sperm can be the winner, and it doesn't matter if A or B or C wins, the result would be the same. But, I believe that there is a one and only possible universe (for life), only one winner, but here you turn around and tells me that any universe can be the winner, and we are here due to pure chance, that life could have evolved from any universe.

If the universe is unique, the theory of everything is what we have to hope for, if not, then the anthropic principle is the most logical explanation. Do you understand? I see that you are satisfied with the explanation that we are here due to pure chance, I am not, that is not an explanation. I believe there is an explanation for all this. And the anthropic principle migh be just that explanation, and it is very compelling. Then we don't have to wonder why we are here, the answer would be that there is no other alternative. And for me, a diety is something that explaines why there is a universe in the first place. It does not explain why the universe is as we know it.

//N

27

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

by Nowhere in

i found this in one of my course books.

it's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of friedman-robertson-walker universes.

it looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist.

Nowhere

I'm afraid you don't get the points being made her tashawaa and camel. The important points is that, one, there aren't much hope today for finding the theory of everything, and two, it is big mystery why, why does the only possible universe permit life?

And for your sperm theory tashawaa, tou have just explaind evolution, that is not chance, it is a selection. The best equipped sperm wins, it isn't a lottery you know?

One more thing, the world or the universe doesn't depend on you being born or not tashawaa, but it does depend on the early expansion rate for example. Out of 200 million sperms, it really doesn't matter who reaches the egg. Do you understand the differnence?, any sperm would be the winner, but only one expansion rate can be the winner.

And if you didn't notice, the anthropic principle doesn't, I repeat, doesn't involve a diety to explain the mystery.

Next time, read what the question was about before throwing around accusations.

27

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

by Nowhere in

i found this in one of my course books.

it's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of friedman-robertson-walker universes.

it looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist.

Nowhere

I found this in one of my course books. It's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of Friedman-Robertson-Walker universes. It looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist. I find it very compeling. What are your thoughs?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be reassuring if one could believe that our universe (which seems destined either to recollapse and suffer a fiery death, or else to expand indefinitely and suffer a freezing death) is not the sum-total of all physical existence. A philosophically persuasive line of argumentation has, in fact, led some modern cosmologists to posit the existence of infinitely many alternative universes, all with different initial conditions. For them that seems to be the only way out of a profound puzzle: why is our universe favorable to human existence? The number of lucky 'coincidences' required to produce an environment in which life as we know it is possible, seems to defy the laws of chance.

Let us begin with the big bang. A slightly lower initial expansion rate, or higher density, or higher constant of gravity, would have made the universe recollapse and reheat before it had time to cool sufficiently to make life possible. A slightly higher expansion rate, or lower gravitational constant, would have thinned the matter too fast for galaxies to condense. It takes billions of years to cook up and distribute the basic building blocks of life (carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen) in the only suitable furnaces, the interiors of stars. A life-supporting universe must get to be at least that old, and it's laws must permit the process. For example, it is 'lucky' that the nuclear force is not quite strong enough to allow the formation of 'diprotons' (proton + proton), a process that would have quickly used up all primordial hydrogen and so deprived the stars of their fuel, and life of one of its bases. Yet that force is just strong enough to favor the formation of deuterons (proton + neutron), without which higher nucleosynthesis cannot proceed. Without a 'lucky' energy level in the carbon nucleus the formation of carbon out of helium (3H4 ? C12 + 2?) would have failed. But equally luckily, the oxygen nucleus has an energy level that prevents the reaction C12 + H4 ? O16, which would have depleted the carbon as soon as it was formed.
Examples of this kind abound in all branches of science. Here we shall mention only two others. One from biology: apparently the whole basis of life (DNA) would be in jeopardy if the charge or mass of the electron were only slightly different from what they are. And an example from ecology: water possesses the rare yet vital property that its solid form (ice) is lighter than its liquid form. As a consequence, lakes freeze over in winter and the ice protects the life below, possibly even emerging life. Were in otherwise, more and more ice would grow from the bottom upwards without being melted in the summers, until lakes and oceans were frozen solid.

Can all these 'lucky' coincidences be due to pure chance? The law that multiplies probabilities makes this highly unlikely. One can perhaps hope for the eventual discovery of a 'Theory of Everything' - a theory that fixes all the laws and constants of Nature and shows our universe to be unique. But the mystery would remain: why does the only possible universe permit life? One supposition that cannot be disproved is that a benevolent deity so designed the world. But it is part of the credo of modern science not to invoke a deity to explain physical facts. (Newton did not yet feel that so strongly, he believed God would have to intervene periodically to adjust the planetary orbits, since it seemed to him that the mutual gravity of he planets lead to instabilities. It took a hundred years before Laplace was able to solve the stability problem the modern way.) Out of all these difficulties grew the anthropic principle: if there are infinitely many alterative universes, then there is no mystery in finding ourselves in one that permits our presence.

Quoted from: Relativity - special, general and cosmological, Wolfgang Rindler