davar55's cosmo-autohagiography: Worth its weight in Dunning-Kruggerands - Page 23

davar55 · 2014-09-13, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by only_human

I do not feel that dismissing your theory endorses another theory. My primary complaint has been and still is that your theory sounds to me like a "just so" theory like Rudyard Kipling's stories: how the elephant got its trunk,etc.

Meaning it's not scientific and is wrong? I call its level of
discussion "descriptive" and barely mathematical. But it's
arguments and explanations are not beyond validatability.

It's not dismissal but dismissiveness that is objectionable.

CRGreathouse · 2014-09-14, 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Meaning it's not scientific and is wrong?

That sounds like an accurate summary.

davar55 · 2014-09-14, 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

That sounds like an accurate summary.

Of the comment, not of the monograph, which I defend.

Let me prove a point. The cosmology begins with the line:

"The Universe contains all that is. It has always existed. It will always exist."

It then goes on to explain, justify, and prove these points. I personally don't
consider these facts even controversial, let alone false. But the multi-verse
believers and the Big Bang origin believers believe their opposites, so these
categorical refutations of multi-versism and temporal finitism in just a few pages
should be a challenge. Instead, someone throws around the tr*ll word. That's
not discussion or refutation, it's personalizing. But he probably never read it.

CRGreathouse · 2014-09-14, 03:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

It then goes on to explain, justify, and prove these points.

I didn't see a single point in your 'monograph' that was proven. But there I go again, feeding the troll. Sigh.

davar55 · 2014-09-14, 20:35

Well, there were proven points.

Such as the co-existence and co-necessity of Substance, Space and Time.
Such as the infinite regress of time.
Such as the finiteness of space.
Others.

Perhaps one shouldn't be name-calling.
The work is worth more than you're granting it.

science_man_88 · 2014-09-14, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Well, there were proven points.

Such as the co-existence and co-necessity of Substance, Space and Time.
Such as the infinite regress of time.
Such as the finiteness of space.
Others.

Perhaps one shouldn't be name-calling.
The work is worth more than you're granting it.

Do you have better answers to my PM about what your theory changes from what I read in Hawking's book? I have read part of cosmo1.txt but I guess I don't get how you change it yet don't seem to affect anything else to your knowledge. I mean I know people can interpret things differently but I'm still not seeing it.

CRGreathouse · 2014-09-14, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Well, there were proven points.

Such as the co-existence and co-necessity of Substance, Space and Time.
Such as the infinite regress of time.
Such as the finiteness of space.

I don't believe that you proved any one of these.

xilman · 2014-09-15, 06:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I don't believe that you proved any one of these.

Seconded.

Asserted, yes.

xilman · 2014-09-15, 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Of the comment, not of the monograph, which I defend.

Let me prove a point. The cosmology begins with the line:

"The Universe contains all that is. It has always existed. It will always exist."

It then goes on to explain, justify, and prove these points. I personally don't
consider these facts even controversial, let alone false. But the multi-verse
believers and the Big Bang origin believers believe their opposites, so these
categorical refutations of multi-versism and temporal finitism in just a few pages
should be a challenge.

As I have already pointed out, what you call "multi-versism" is compatible with your ideas with a very simple change of nomenclature without changing by one iota either philosophy.

Whenever you read "multiverse", translate it into "universe". When reading a tract which supports the multiverse concept and come across the word "universe" translate it into "portion of the universe".

There, what is so difficult about that?

davar55 · 2014-09-15, 10:02

Alright, I'll bite. Put your logic where your mind is.

The Universe either always existed, or it had a beginning.

How do you argue or justify the latter viewpoint?

CRGreathouse · 2014-09-15, 13:42

Onus probandi, what fun.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Explaining gnfs to davar55 in words of one sound	davar55	Factoring	18	2015-07-20 12:48
Dunning-Krugerrands for Jesus	jasong	Soap Box	70	2013-12-22 04:45
Operation Dunning-Kruger-Krieg	Raman	Operation Kibibit	2	2012-07-25 14:44
Does it worth it?	victor	Lounge	30	2009-05-30 21:53
Worth thrice their weight in disc space	fivemack	Hardware	0	2007-05-01 08:48

2014-09-14, 20:35	#247
davar55 May 2004 New York City 5·7·11² Posts	Well, there were proven points. Such as the co-existence and co-necessity of Substance, Space and Time. Such as the infinite regress of time. Such as the finiteness of space. Others. Perhaps one shouldn't be name-calling. The work is worth more than you're granting it.

2014-09-15, 10:02	#252
davar55 May 2004 New York City 5×7×11² Posts	Alright, I'll bite. Put your logic where your mind is. The Universe either always existed, or it had a beginning. How do you argue or justify the latter viewpoint?

2014-09-15, 13:42	#253
CRGreathouse Aug 2006 3×1,993 Posts	Onus probandi, what fun.