Lord Antares

Senior Members
  • Content count

    695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Lord Antares last won the day on July 4

Lord Antares had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

126 Excellent

About Lord Antares

  • Rank
    Molecule

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics, mathematics

Recent Profile Visitors

4613 profile views
  1. Why do they have to be false in order to disprove your claim? Why can they not all be true and still be coincidental? As I have stated, you seem to be good at probability, so I'm interested to know why you think these events are not coincidental? And what is the alternative to coincidence?
  2. Honestly, I don't see why it couldn't be coincidence. You are good at math, so you're aware that coincidences like these aren't unbelievable given that there are so many variables, possible outcomes, people and generally ''high entropy'', to put it like that. Personally, I find the one where a kid dropped from some floor on a person and then 1 year later (or something like that) it fell from the same floor on the same person more unlikely - but it doesn't have to mean anything. It would be extraordinary if coincidences like that didn't happen.
  3. I understand what you are saying but I don't see your point. I did agree that, for all intents and purposes of humans, things are random. I'm simply pointing out that randomness isn't an objective, exact ''thing'' which can be agreed upon. What may be random for humans might not be random at all for some possible alien beings. We do agree here. I did say ''except for QM, arguably'' in my next post.
  4. I would be against this. I would guess that most people join the forum to ask a question in their thread. That's why I registered. If I wasn't able to do that, I certainly would have found another place to be a part of. Plus, most new members are not very knowledgeable in science, so by needing to contribute to other threads, they would literally be encouraged to post unfounded and potentially bad posts. I think new members need to be able to ask questions immediately.
  5. Exactly, but my point is, randomness is an arbitrary term, given as a statistical probability measure for what we don't know. If we did know, nothing would be random to us, hence the nature of the universe cannot be random. Things CANNOT be unpredictable in a technical way (except for arguably QM, but will not go into that), because if they could, the laws of physics couldn't exist and the sole purpose of laws (to standardize and always measure a predictable result) would be defeated. Therefore, reality is not random. Do you agree?
  6. Obviously, reality isn't ''random'' because randomness isn't a real ''thing''. It is only applicable to an ignorant observer. For example, a coin might have a ~50% chance of landing on either side for your or me, but only because we don't know at which angle it was flipped, with which force, velocity etc. If this information was known to us, we would know how it would land with a probability of 1. Same goes for the rest of the universe. Every reaction was caused by an opposite action which we may or may not be aware of, but it is present nevertheless. It may be random to us mere mortals, but it isn't ''actually'' ''random''.There is nothing mysterious there.
  7. Also, I encourage the use of spoiler tags. Especially since the new activity feed displays the whole posts.
  8. It doesn't really make much sense.
  9. You're going on incoherent tangents, none of which have anything to do with your ''theory''. It's ironic that you're talking so much about math without ever providing any. Please focus on the thread and provide concrete evidence and cases, instead of handwaving.
  10. What are you on about? Seriously. As I said, the point of math is not to demonstrate anything ''logically''. It is to give correct, quantifiable results, as far as proving and standardizing theories goes. You're writing too many words with too little meaning.
  11. No, it really doesn't. Math demonstrates that a theory is correct or at least applicable if you don't like using ''correct''. Newton's inverse square law, for example, tells you exactly how much weight an object will have at a certain distance from another object (given that the masses are known). There is no logical explanation which accompanies it. It is literally correct in every experiment shown so far and is a method of calculation. It has nothing to do with concepts. Then it would be wrong, and hence, illogical. So it would be useless and unlike a theory supported by math. Quantum mechanics is largely incomplete. That doesn't mean that anything you say is a substitution. That is a stupid way of saying that math is useful. It is certainly supported by much more evidence and use than god.
  12. The common folk are still more well off than in the majority of countries. Therefore, comparatively wealthy. I'm talking about the general success of the country; what it has achieved through history, not what individuals might have achieved.
  13. What sort of question is that? What is any country's role in the word? Does it need to be anything than to exist under good conditions? lol Are you implying that it was something higher than that prior to the cold war? I hate to break it to you, but it really is just a country. A wealthy and successful one, but just a country like any else nonetheless.
  14. I don't think you're necessarily wrong in your main point, it's just that out posts are at cross purposes. You're talking along the lines of philosophy. Does truth exist? Are things which are shown to be functional true or a re they approximations? Is math the truth or a model etc etc. This is not what I am talking about. I am saying that math is essential for science and only with math are you able to ''prove'' your theories and experiments. Math is how we can replicate and standardize how we handle the theory and how we apply it. Whether it is ''the truth'' or not is irrelevant to me as long as it serves its exact intended purpose. I bring this up only because I have a feeling he's saying that his speculative models are as plausible as the ones supported by math. If you read through what he says, he states that (I paraphrase) quantum mechanics is largely unsupported by evidence and it's just an abstract model rather than something functional. He then states that math is not a proof of anything, it's just a concept which is secondary to a theory (that's wrong). Then he exclaims how no one has refuted his philosophical thoughts. That leads me to conclude that he thinks that his ramblings are as legitimate as some other theories which are actually supported by math. This could not be farther from the truth. Math is THE ultimate way to a theory's success.