Le 2011/04/25 19:32, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 4/24/2011 9:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:44:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/23/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>>>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an
>>>>> extend contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any
>>>>> evidence(, hence my reference to that book of my father). I think you
>>>>> will find that true for other atheists as well.
>>>>
>>>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>>>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it? I find that *highly*
>>>> unusual.
>>>>
>>> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing
>>> at god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they
>>> "are" god in any real sense. Hell, to most of the people over thousands
>>> of years a Jedi would constitute a god, but we would, if any such person
>>> showed up, be looking at blood samples to work out how the hell they did
>>> it, not bowing to them in worship, a fact true even for most religious
>>> people. First, you need a coherent definition of god, then you can talk
>>> about what constitutes evidence.
>>
>> Interesting, I hadn't looked at it that way, but that makes a lot of
>> sense to me (andrel, is this the sort of thing you're talking about?)
>>
>>> Since most of the stuff in religious texts fall into these categories:
>>>
>>> 1. Things any two bit magician can replicate. 2. Things we could
>>> replicate now, with preparation. 3. Things we could at least imagine
>>> replicating, if we had certain technologies.
>>> 4. Things we couldn't replicate, like making a new universe, and then
>>> showing someone around in it, and which are probably not possible.
>>
>> The first three things you state are things that make sense to me. #4,
>> though, I'm not sure 'probably not possible' seems a little wishy-washy
>> to me.
>>
>> Jim
> Well, probably not possible due to the fact that most theories about
> multiple universes seem to imply that you can't get there from here,
> even if you managed to somehow make one. The laws of physics in, never
> mind between, them would tend to preclude it.

There is a model that say that it may be possible to create many 
universes in your common high school lab... The experiment could be 
explosive, but the energy would instead be channeled at an angle 
relative to this universe and result in the creation of one or several 
distinct universes. Each of those would have it's own physical laws, 
maybe tinted by those from our universe.

It's only a mather of concentrating enough energy (a few mega joules) in 
a small enough volume (per cubic milimeter) for a short time (less than 
0.0000001s is enough).


That model states that we may already, albey accidently, have created 
thousands to trillions of new universes.

As there is, at least now, now way to prove or disprove that, it should 
stay at the theoretical model stage.

Post a reply to this message