Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!news.unit0.net!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.70.MISMATCH!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.fr7!futter-mich.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx20.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Jeff-Relf.Me @. Message-ID: References: Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,sci.physics,alt.checkmate Subject: Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. User-Agent: Jeff-Relf.Me/X.HTM Lines: 64 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blocknews.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:09:41 UTC Organization: blocknews - www.blocknews.net Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 05:09:42 -0800 (Seattle) X-Received-Bytes: 3681 X-Received-Body-CRC: 4035867385 X-Original-Bytes: 3498 Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:480273 sci.physics:715686 alt.checkmate:231662 Kensi replied: > > "Shut up and calculate" and the cosmological constant are mainstream. > > So was geocentrism, once. You're making useless, unfalsifiable assumptions ( bullshit worlds ), and you're straying far from accepted science ( Lambda, CDM ). > > You should edit the WikiPedia entry, then, > > as if being 120 orders of magnitude off were better. > > Where are you getting that from? You keep harping on it, kO0k, > without actually explaining WTF you're burbling about. From " Dark Energy and the Preposterous Universe " by Sean M. Carroll, Enrico Fermi Institute ( YouTube.COM/user/seancarroll/videos ): ...the potential energy of the Higgs field... ...the condensate of quark bilinears... ...zero-point vacuum fluctuations... This is the famous 120-orders-of-magnitude discrepancy that makes the cosmological constant problem such a glaring embarrassment. WikiPedia: << If the cosmological constant is positive, -- as appears to be the case in recent observations --, the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value, and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy. >> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Gravity is residual exergy, entropy ( negative pressure ) is killing it off. > > qBism is a combination of AgreedUpon (SI) probabilities and > > "Shut up and calculate"; as such, it's far more economical > > and effective than hiding in bullshit worlds, as you do. > > Get real. It's one of those interpretations that says there's something > magical about blobs of carbon atoms if they happen to be arranged in a > manner sufficiently resembling brains. "magical blobs" ? ! Where did you hear that, Twitter ? Maximal consumption has been programmed into us ( by nature ). Ways to do it: 1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast. 2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume longer ). 3. Sacrifice yourself for the tribe, so they can consume more, longer. Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume. We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our options. "Shut up and calculate" works best because it doesn't conjure up bullshit worlds nor bullshit SuperPositions. Our ignorance ( not the cat's "randomness" ) is _ REAL; we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. > A quick run-down makes it clear that the only *rational* choices are > MWI, Relational, Cosmological (if they can figure out how that can > produce wave interference, that is), and *maybe*, as dark horse > candidates *at best*, the nonlocal hidden variable ones like Transactional. The Copenhagen Interpretation was right; and it still is.