@kurtking1 Agreed. This is why the 1-per-galaxy theory is more believable than the many-per-galaxy theory.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-16 20:20:27 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107288594160440287
@kurtking1 Agreed. This is why the 1-per-galaxy theory is more believable than the many-per-galaxy theory.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-16 20:20:27 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107288594160440287
@Evidently There are very few other possibilities. It’s possible that there are NO other possibilities. This is simply a matter of the combinatorics of forces, particles, elements, and molecules, in an environment of sufficient free energy, within a narrow temperature range. So just as very little of the universe resulted in mass, less in stars, less in planets, it appears that the number of means of ‘calculating’ stable relations is very narrow.
Every single thing we discover in all the sciences trends to a very simple constitution and organization of the universe, from which a narrow range of evolutionary computation is possible.
Much of the ‘woo woo’ in physics today (and the lack of scientific progress because of it) is due to a misunderstanding of mathematics and a strange taboo in the sciences against producing theoretical systems despite the misunderstanding of mathematics.
It looks like the universe is much more simple than we thought, and that we are currently prisoners of some equivalent of ‘taboos’ from the prevoius century. And the presumption that enisteinian mathematics was other than an approximation that has failed to survive the tests of scale – just as did newton.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-16 18:08:11 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107288074060258515
THE RARITY OF LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE
It’s far harder for a planet to survive in the habitable zone than we think. You need a relatively peaceful galactic neighborhood. And a star that lives long enough and is stable enough for evolution to compute the possibility of complex life. You need a third or fourth-generation star so that there are metal elements available. You need a relatively rare type of star (yellow dwarf) that will provide a stable habitable zone. You need a metallic planet, which requires something like Jupiter or Jupiter AND Saturn to ‘clean the neighborhood’. You need a molten core on that metallic planet, and a large moon to keep it liquid, producing a protective magnetic field. And you need enough atmosphere, and enough water, and enough volcanic activity to start life.
I mean, you’d think that there would be lots of life out there given that under the right conditions it’s going to likely emerge over time. But the bigger problem than calculating life is the environment in which the universe can calculate life.
Tiny possibilities. Tiny. Likely a few per galaxy and they might not overlap in time.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-16 15:46:36 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107287517341531184
The first principle is that the universe has only one cause to work with (pressure) and it alleviates that pressure by computation of possibilities by continuous recursive disambiguation, first by accident (Brownian motion) then by organization(life), the division(sex) then…
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 17:35:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460300319791923205
Reply addressees: @WalterIII
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460291330177863688
-“Galaxy? Maybe 1–5 billion planets around G-stars. Tidally free, rocky, wet, moon, temperate with multicellular and other more complex life is likely much less common; maybe 10 million. And finally, intelligent or even technological life? Max of one hundred thousand or less.”-
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-14 21:04:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459990717514846213
—“Geometric systems are reducible, with 100% predictivity across time and scale”–
Pls explain the difference between Geometric Systems and Conway Systems. I need a clean method of disambiguation.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 22:30:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459287447821561865
Reply addressees: @MichaelSurrago @Thexon7
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459286888133632006
We cannot reduce all possible combinations to a general rule of constant relations. Or “not all states are mathematically reducible, they are only constructable.”
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 20:19:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459254664365494277
Reply addressees: @Thexon7
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459254077846659085
The simple version is that the universe computes but it can’t calculate. Only humans can calculate. The problem we face is that mathematics can calculate constants but it can’t calculate combinatorics. In other words, we can’t predict recombinations. Economics=Recombination.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 20:09:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459252035224850442
RT @Lord__Sousa: We are the universe’s proof-of-work.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 17:36:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459213486286942213
Arvin Ash needs to stop making videos promoting pseudoscience in physics. It’s embarrassing.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 16:40:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459199429479649281