Higgs...

[andy_s]

mattnunn said:

So let me get this straight, you're saying the probability of humans existing is incredibly tiny, tinnier than the 5 sigma probability of the Higgs Boson existing. But as we know humans do exist (for arguments sake) the chance of me existing rather than some other human is equal?

So your saying we're just a placemarker for a generic human life?

No. You're bringing human life into it, which I did to serve as an example, but human life isn't the point. You can apply the principle to a carbon atom or a dog hair.
What your seeing is the end result of a number of events, however those events unravel to put us/a dog hair/ a carbon atom where we/they are today, it had to end up in some resultant state, that is certain, a 1:1 chance.

In a way, to take your coin toss analogy, it's like someone saying it's 50/50 whether it's heads or tails and someone else arguing that it is the incredibly tiny probability that the coin is there to be tossed in the first place multiplied by 50:50.

To take you second point, I don't accept that it always comes down to those three things; science yes, philosophy perhaps but religion no, personally.

From a humancentric point of view, some would like to introduce theology into the argument I'm sure, but I've never seen a convincing argument for this personally, much alone seen evidence of course. As suggested, it may be better to start a new thread on that subject, not to be funny, but "divine agency" in the above quote is a whole different subject by itself, or at least one so big as to swamp this discussion.

[Derek Smith]

mattnunn said:

So let me get this straight, you're saying the probability of humans existing is incredibly tiny, tinnier than the 5 sigma probability of the Higgs Boson existing. But as we know humans do exist (for arguments sake) the chance of me existing rather than some other human is equal?

So your saying we're just a placemarker for a generic human life?

I read that the fact that we humans exist is overwhelming proof of an infinite universe whereas my understanding is that if the universe is infinite then I must exist.

I think, therefore I am confused.

[over_the_hill]

mattnunn said:

So let me get this straight, you're saying the probability of humans existing is incredibly tiny, tinnier than the 5 sigma probability of the Higgs Boson existing. But as we know humans do exist (for arguments sake) the chance of me existing rather than some other human is equal?

So your saying we're just a placemarker for a generic human life?

The chance of you picking out next weeks lottery numbers is very small.
However, the chance of any six numbers turning up is exactly the same as any other set of six numbers - about 1 in 14 million.

[MiseryStreak]

mattnunn said:

it comes back to Science, Religion and philosophy every time!

No it doesn't, despite your efforts. Please leave religion out of this discussion on the Higgs Boson (possible) discovery. It is totally irrelevant.

mattnunn said:

Where are my friends from the God thread anyway

I don't recall you having any friends on that thread, despite this I wish you well in your return there.

[ewenm]

over_the_hill said:

The chance of you picking out next weeks lottery numbers is very small.
However, the chance of any six numbers turning up is exactly the same as any other set of six numbers - about 1 in 14 million.

And the chance of 6 numbers being picked given the initial conditions of the lottery is 1:1.

[Jinx]

ewenm said:

And the chance of 6 numbers being picked given the initial conditions of the lottery is 1:1.

I would say slightly less given the probability of mechanical failure.

[ewenm]

Jinx said:

ewenm said:

And the chance of 6 numbers being picked given the initial conditions of the lottery is 1:1.

I would say slightly less given the probability of mechanical failure.

Yeah, I thought about that but then decided that the rules of the lottery probably mean that a draw isn't complete until 6 balls (plus the bonus) have been selected. Self-fulfilling situation y'see

[MiseryStreak]

Derek Smith said:

I read that the fact that we humans exist is overwhelming proof of an infinite universe

Are you talking about the Anthropic Principle? It doesn't require that the Universe is infinite.

Derek Smith said:

whereas my understanding is that if the universe is infinite then I must exist.

If the Universe were infinite, which it is not, there would be an infinite number of yous on an infinite number of planets identical in every way to the Earth. This is the nature of infinity and why applying it to physical quantities is so patently absurd. Not only would a chimpanzee bang out the complete works of Shakespeare, there would be an infinite number of such works, along with an infinite number of every other set of publications and an infinite number of chimpanzees that upon hitting the final key of their completed works would instantly transform into the Bard.

[Derek Smith]

MiseryStreak said:

Derek Smith said:

I read that the fact that we humans exist is overwhelming proof of an infinite universe

Are you talking about the Anthropic Principle? It doesn't require that the Universe is infinite.

Derek Smith said:

whereas my understanding is that if the universe is infinite then I must exist.

If the Universe were infinite, which it is not, there would be an infinite number of yous on an infinite number of planets identical in every way to the Earth. This is the nature of infinity and why applying it to physical quantities is so patently absurd. Not only would a chimpanzee bang out the complete works of Shakespeare, there would be an infinite number of such works, along with an infinite number of every other set of publications and an infinite number of chimpanzees that upon hitting the final key of their completed works would instantly transform into the Bard.

Your logic is flawed. There are not enough typewriters left.

All I ever read about or see are scientists giving ideas about what the math means, could mean, or might mean. It is apparent that there are no absolutes. The universe might well be infinite and then again it might just be a donut. What we must do is await a concensus where all but a few scientists and mathmaticians agree and then we at least will know that one theory is absolutely naff.

One assumption that many make is that the universe is one thing.

Do you accept that the universe is big, really big?

[wormburner]

Derek Smith said:

Do you accept that the universe is big, really big?

With respect, that is a pointless question. To what known item are you comparing it, and why, and what use will a denial or agreement be?

[Derek Smith]

wormburner said:

Derek Smith said:

Do you accept that the universe is big, really big?

With respect, that is a pointless question. To what known item are you comparing it, and why, and what use will a denial or agreement be?

It was a joke. It is a quote from Hitchhiker.

[wormburner]

Derek Smith said:

wormburner said:

Derek Smith said:

Do you accept that the universe is big, really big?

With respect, that is a pointless question. To what known item are you comparing it, and why, and what use will a denial or agreement be?

It was a joke. It is a quote from Hitchhiker.

I did think it was a rather facile question for you to be asking!

Where's my towel?

[chrisobrien54]

Am I thinking this right?

Windows sits on DOS, and DOS runs on a Bios.

As self aware little f uckers, we're existing in Windows, very happy with our screen savers and free porn.

But some 'out there' thinkers discovered Windows must be the consequence of something more - and developed a pretty accurate idea of what 'DOS' would be without ever actually seeing it... But 'while their 'DOS' model appears to work, it's missing the underlying foundation - evidence of.... Dun dun duuurn! A Bios?

Have CERN just discovered our Bios in the Higgs Boson?

Is this why the media have labelled it the 'God' particle? (and from what I have read, is bks)

Who the fk is talking about philosophy in this thread?!

[andy_s]

Just to mention again, that the media didn't label it the 'God particle', Higgs' fellow scientist (name escapes me) wanted to call it 'the goddamn particle', but his editor didn't allow it and truncated it to 'god'.

[Derek Smith]

wormburner said:

I did think it was a rather facile question for you to be asking!

Where's my towel?

I had to teach Home Defence to a chosen few and the prescribed script included megatonne bombs and such, completely meaningless to your average bod, me for instance. I used to ask if anyone had seen one tonne of TNT explode. The result was what you expected. I would then put up the following overhead.

Space, is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

with a credit at the end.

This was followed by a second overhead.

A 1 megatonne explosion is big. A 10-magatonne explosion is really big but in essence it is just big as well.

I would then ask: Anyone got any questions about how big megatonne explosions are?

That put a stop to what was normally 10 minutes of fruitless explanation.

[dodgyviper]

MiseryStreak said:

If the Universe were infinite, which it is not, there would be an infinite number of yous on an infinite number of planets identical in every way to the Earth. This is the nature of infinity and why applying it to physical quantities is so patently absurd. Not only would a chimpanzee bang out the complete works of Shakespeare, there would be an infinite number of such works, along with an infinite number of every other set of publications and an infinite number of chimpanzees that upon hitting the final key of their completed works would instantly transform into the Bard.

But even if it were infinite - there'd only be one Chuck Norris, right?

[thehawk]

dodgyviper said:

But even if it were infinite - there'd only be one Chuck Norris, right?

I heard he started the big bang

[Guvernator]

thehawk said:

dodgyviper said:

But even if it were infinite - there'd only be one Chuck Norris, right?

I heard he started the big bang

There is another Boson which hasn't been discovered yet called the Norris Boson which is actually responsible for the whole she-bang. The only problem is as soon as we discover it, Chuck will perform a roundhouse kick which will end this universe and cause another big bang...probably.

[over_the_hill]

Guvernator said:

thehawk said:

dodgyviper said:

But even if it were infinite - there'd only be one Chuck Norris, right?

I heard he started the big bang

There is another Boson which hasn't been discovered yet called the Norris Boson which is actually responsible for the whole she-bang. The only problem is as soon as we discover it, Chuck will perform a roundhouse kick which will end this universe and cause another big bang...probably.

Chuck Norris Approves the Higgs

[Guvernator]

On a slightly more serious note, I keep hearing mention that these experiments are creating conditions which were last seen a few milliseconds after the big bang. My questions are

1) What stops these experiments from causing another big bang (and wiping as all out in the process)?

2) By carrying out these experiments have Higgs and co actually created another universe?

3) If this is a few milliseconds after the big bang, is the possibility there for them to rewind a bit more and actually find out what caused the big bang in the first place?

4) Following on from 3, do these clever scientists have any theories on what existed before the big bang?