6 hours ago, exchemist said:

I don't myself think that consideration of a multiverse is required to dismiss the Fine Tuning Argument. It seems to me, rather, that the FT Argument rests on a misunderstanding of probability. Just because a particular outcome is one of millions does not mean that the outcome we observe is "impossible" and therefore must have been influenced in some way. After all, there has to be an outcome, which will be one of the millions of possibilities. For instance the probability of dying by being struck by lightning is vanishingly small, yet people do die that way.

Ok, I was thinking the FTA was about how the fine structure constant and all was so perfectly set for organized matter etc. The counter to that was that life which can observe this can only happen in the universe where the FSC etc has that perfect ratio. In effect, bio-supporting universes are like lightning strikes - rare, but there are pazillions of them. That's the "strong anthropic principle" IIRC. I am guessing the FTA you all mention is more about how planets give rise to life. I was thinking cosmic structure, you meant planetary conditions. In which case, yes, that just is a believer with poor understanding of probability.

Edited October 12Oct 12 by TheVat
who cares

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Ok, I was thinking the FTA was about how the fine structure constant and all was so perfectly set for organized matter etc. The counter to that was that life which can observe this can only happen in the universe where the FSC etc has that perfect ratio. In effect, bio-supporting universes are like lightning strikes - rare, but there are pazillions of them. That's the "strong anthropic principle" IIRC. I am guessing the FTA you all mention is more about how planets give rise to life. I was thinking cosmic structure, you meant planetary conditions. In which case, yes, that just is a believer with poor understanding of probability.

No we're talking about the same thing, I think. I'm just saying that, while the probability of the universal constants coming out so as to support chemistry and thus life, out of all the possible values one can envisage, would appear to be infinitesimally low, whatever values they had would have the same low probability. Yet for any universe to exist they have to have a value. So the values they actually have are no less probable than any other individual possible set.

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No we're talking about the same thing, I think. I'm just saying that, while the probability of the universal constants coming out so as to support chemistry and thus life, out of all the possible values one can envisage, would appear to be infinitesimally low, whatever values they had would have the same low probability. Yet for any universe to exist they have to have a value. So the values they actually have are no less probable than any other individual possible set.

Ah, I see the problem. And the FT arguer will say that leaves the door open to some role for some pervasive consciousness because one of their premises is that this is the only universe, so why should it just happen to have those optimal universal constants when it was just a random thing. Any setting of constants is equally rare, barring some other effect (like Lee Smolin's evolving constants conjecture), so the FT arguer would then ask why the rare one just happened to be bio-friendly. Which then kicks it back to some form of multiple universes where all settings on the constant dial are "tried out" at some point. No one hears about the dead ends, where say electron are in orbitals the radius of a solar system, because no baryonic matter can organize into sentient life. And we can't access such regions of the multiverse, either proving or falsifying. So the FT creationist can think there's a standoff.

5 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Criticizing a public figure at the centre of a major political controversy is nothing to be ashamed of, even if said person is deceased. IMHO it actually needs to be done.

He was a disgusting POS. I have read enough of his hateful, divisive crap to realise that.

Judging his words, that's it.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ah, I see the problem. And the FT arguer will say that leaves the door open to some role for some pervasive consciousness because one of their premises is that this is the only universe, so why should it just happen to have those optimal universal constants when it was just a random thing. Any setting of constants is equally rare, barring some other effect (like Lee Smolin's evolving constants conjecture), so the FT arguer would then ask why the rare one just happened to be bio-friendly. Which then kicks it back to some form of multiple universes where all settings on the constant dial are "tried out" at some point. No one hears about the dead ends, where say electron are in orbitals the radius of a solar system, because no baryonic matter can organize into sentient life. And we can't access such regions of the multiverse, either proving or falsifying. So the FT creationist can think there's a standoff.

Yes but there doesn't have to be a question of "why" those values are the case. There has to be a set of values and the ones we observe are no less probable than any other individual set. So they, er, just are, it seems to me.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not at all, I'm just pointing out that there's more than one path to disseminate information, even if you don't agree.

WTF does that even mean? I don’t agree because it’s demonstrably wrong. There aren’t two sides here. There is a standard we expect in science discussions; either you meet it or you don’t.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

And he did seem pretty quick witted in his debate style, so he was fairly intelligent. I would say intelligent enough to realize that if he put aside his morals, and took advantage of stupid people, there would be a sh*t-load of money to be made.

Much like I said about televangelists earlier: they might have started out as true believers, but at some point they get corrupted by the money to be made.

An example of mine from three days ago. I was debating the Great Terror on some Marxist Leninist subreddit. I'd pointed out that the NKVD literally had numerical quotas of how many people they need to shot and imprison and someone replied that the quotas were maximum quotas to which I replied that they were not by saying:

They were often not just met but exceeded actually. Khrushchev was the head of the Party in Moscow at the time and he asked Stalin to increase his quotas (and Stalin did that). You can find the full text of the NKVD Order No. 00447 on the internet. Nowhere does it state that these quotas are maximum quotas, in fact, it states that their reduction requires approval from higher authorities.

The result - a permaban with no explanation. It's pretty clear to me that we're dealing with a secular religion here.

Edited October 14Oct 14 by Otto Kretschmer

On 10/12/2025 at 10:08 PM, swansont said:

WTF does that even mean? I don’t agree because it’s demonstrably wrong. There aren’t two sides here. There is a standard we expect in science discussions; either you meet it or you don’t.

No, there's at least three, if we include emotions; don't tell me scientist's never miss a valid point bc there angry with their interlocutor.

Even a fanatic is capable of reasoned thought...

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

It's pretty clear to me that we're dealing with a secular religion here.

LOL 😂

Look up secular...

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

No, there's at least three, if we include emotions; don't tell me scientist's never miss a valid point bc there angry with their interlocutor.

Again, I have no idea what you mean. It’s like you’re having a thought but only post the second half of it.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Again, I have no idea what you mean. It’s like you’re having a thought but only post the second half of it.

I'm refering to my intial post on this tangent, and on this topic, debate can only be usefull, in terms of understanding, if emotion is not part of the discussion.

When it is, our only chance of effective communication and therefor understanding, at least of their position and motivation, is to not be an enemy and just chat.

Like I said, we basically agree but WTF does look like an emotional responce.

On 10/14/2025 at 2:53 PM, dimreepr said:

LOL 😂

Look up secular...

You know, what's funny is that this kind of weird tribalism doesn't just impact serious stuff but mundane as well - the Playstation vs Xbox wars with neverending discussions about specs, framerates, loading times ("my console went from cold boot to dashboard in 8.7s, yours at 9.2s was still showing the logo!"), sounds ("my console makes a sophisticated 'beep' sound while yours only makes an aggressive and ugly 'bloop'!"), controller layout, layout of stuff after unboxing, quoting words of retired or deceased CEOs ("the CEO of X said this in 2004 while the boss of your console maker said somthing really stupid which shows he doesn't care about gaming!") are just comical.

PS: Why was the forum down for so long?

21 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

PS: Why was the forum down for so long?

A renewal thing as far as I know.

On 10/15/2025 at 12:26 PM, dimreepr said:

Like I said, we basically agree but WTF does look like an emotional responce.

If the claims and numbers are off then WTF will not be used in a paper.

Here is fine though.

On 10/12/2025 at 7:15 AM, MigL said:

I do think the 'drivers' for these ideological movements are different for the originaters than for the followers.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but take Charlie Kirk for example.
I have never heard him, but by all accounts ( from people who have listened to him ) he was a lot more reasonable and not as extreme about 10 years ago.
And he did seem pretty quick witted in his debate style, so he was fairly intelligent. I would say intelligent enough to realize that if he put aside his morals, and took advantage of stupid people, there would be a sh*t-load of money to be made.
By going to extreme ideologies he founded TP and became a millionaire by a young age, without actually working.

It started with 'snake-oil' salesmen in travelling shows, then TV Evangelists, but the internet has seen a proliferation of such people who take advantage of the stupid, and those who refuse to think for themselves. Now the American Government is jumping in for their piece of the pie, and taking advantage of everyone, while supported by these these same people.

With AI compounding the problem ( due to Government/Billionaire control ) and even more people not thinking for themselves, I think we are doomed.

To find the "root cause' of all evil ... "Follow the Money"

One aspect where influencers are good at is manipulating emotion. There is an increasing body of lit that shows how misinformation is linked to emotional responses and that truthfulness and facts only play minor, if any role.

The authors of a recent paper have written an article on their findings. In short there are folks who virtue signal by perpetuating known (even to them) falsehoods.

(https://theconversation.com/winning-with-misinformation-new-research-identifies-link-between-endorsing-easily-disproven-claims-and-prioritizing-symbolic-strength-265652)

The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.

But we believe that to someone with a symbolic mindset, debunkers merely demonstrate that they’re the ones reacting, and are therefore weak. The correct information is easily available, but is irrelevant to someone who prioritizes a symbolic show of strength. What matters is signaling one isn’t listening and won’t be swayed.

In fact, for symbolic thinkers, nearly any statement should be justifiable. The more outlandish or easily disproved something is, the more powerful one might seem when standing by it. Being an edgelord – a contrarian online provocateur – or outright lying can, in their own odd way, appear “authentic.”

Regarding OP:

As others have noted, whether a discussion makes sense heavily depends on what you want to get out of it. There will be cases of (preciously few) good faith debates. But as outlined above, there are also plenty of cases where the facts deliberately don't matter and it becomes performance theater. And things obviously got worse when folks realized that there is money to be made that way.

16 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

PS: Why was the forum down for so long?

It's an annual tradition, it came round quick this year...