Leaderboard

It is not necessary to expect your planet / moon system to create this weather on its own. There could be a conjunction with other bodies in its solar system that shaded it or passed it through a dust cloud every 4 years, or near an eccentrically orbiting body or somesuch. Many succesful SF stories have been built on variations of this from The Dragons of Pern to the short stories of The Unorthodox Engineers.

That would be the same as arguing physics is BS, because there are so many crackpot theories (see our Speculations section). One should look what professional, academic philosophers have to say about 'existence', not at philosophical 'hip shots' of people who are not knowledgeable about what philosophy has to say about the topic.

There go those reading comprehension issues again. That your argument is absurd and even uses the tenets of absurdism itself. Correct, and you weren’t personally attacked. Quit whining and being so sensitive, or report the post for review if you feel a rule has been broken. You technically already have, but it’s good that you won’t persist since you still are misusing that term.

Lol It depends a bit on how one defines "random." Genes copy themselves and do wo within certain guardrails and process prerequisites, yes, but during this process there are also random mutations. Some get selected for, some get selected against, some have no measurable effect on outcomes. If it's not random, then really the only other explanation is it's directed... which as you were already told in that other thread which got closed... a status this new thread will soon have as well... that smacks of creationism and results in absurd "it's turtles all the way down" conversations when you start exploring who created the creator... and who created that ad infinitum. Even if you're not thinking of creator, you'd need to explore all free radical interactions and gamma rays coming in to break apart structures and that all follows variabel probabilities and randomness. But since you were told not to bring this up, yet did anyway... the next step for this thread will be anything but random.

In another post, asking about free energy, someone mentioned Helmholtz, and I looked into Helmholtz and I discovered the Helmholtz machines, developed from his ideas that the brain is a "statistical inference engine". Does Helmholtz imply that a "statistical inference engine" can create models from observed functions and their noted effects without really knowing anything about the nature of the "process" being observed? Does the Helmholtz machine prove him right? Is he right? Thank you.

Thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention. I'd heard about Boltzmann brains, but not about Helmholtz machines.

! Moderator Note Not a whole lot of discussion of the OP, and multiple hits on what we consider arguing in bad faith. Closed, and don’t bring either the geology or the physics of this tangent up again. This is a science discussion site, not Rants-R-Us

I just started with wikipedia. Helmholtz machine - Wikipedia

Granite is found only on Earth. It was not found either in meteorites or on other "planets" of the solar system. Officially it is unknown why. I suppose, it is because the Earth is the largest object in the Universe, with the greatest gravity and pressure in the subsoil. Links to quote in russian (did not find the same in english): 1) https://beversmarmyr.com.ua/articles/istoriya-formirovaniya-granita 2) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гранит#Проблема_происхождения_гранитов

Agreed. Well said. We never described the people at the balloon party. They are all kids with developmental disorders who wouldn't know what a hole truly was if you stabbed them. You could do your demonstration out in the desert with no audience and prove as much. Do you want to truly discuss his statement? Since he left the balloon traits to variable interpretation, lets make the balloon out of steel.

Right, it is not cut and dry, The original statement was not cut and dry. It left room for many variables, which I see as assumptions. My statement was "you cannot prove to anyone" when I should have said, you cannot prove to everyone. And even if everyone at the party sees the demonstration and understands it, does not make HOLES objectively real. You have gotten every subjective opinion that exists, and that is not enough to claim objectivity. I guess this is philosophical clipclap to some, but to others, it's a more precise way of discussing actuality. I thought that is why we are all here. SO I assumed his comment was sarcastic, and it was. Everyone's version of subjectivity is basically a form of sarcasm. You don't have to explain it to me. You have to explain it to a child with autism. Lets say that the only people in the universe were you and an autistic child. You could not prove anything to anyone in the universe. IM making a larger point that maybe you dont consider to be a point. Im not sure. I want to understand. Einstein created all sorts of equations that prove his ideas of relativity, special and general. Do you think everyone can examine them long enough to understand the objective reality created by them? I am a person of at least average intelligence. Einstein cannot prove his theories to me. IF he cant explain them without math, than I cant understand them. Ive watched Feynman gives lectures about probability and quarks, using math. To him, he was finding proof. It did not exist for me at all.