Tlaloc_Temporal

We can see exoplanets though, and we know there are trillions in just this galaxy. This is more like Planet X in our solar system; there’s some observations that might suggest the existence of a large planet in the Kuiper belt, but we have no direct evidence whatsoever. Hardly anything we see would change one way of the other, according to our current understanding of solar system development.

I found this bug report thread for KDE, and Chris posted a couple possible solution in there. Seems like a good starting point.

Hi, new person in this conversation. I hope you don’t mind if I drop my two cents here.

Cherry Picking is the practice of choosing evidence that supports your argument while ignoring evidence against it. It is also almost always intentional, or a result of ignorance, and the term carries negative connotations. Cherry picking is an accusation of bad faith arguing, and people will interpret it that way regardless of your intent.

For ones own experiences, which are inherently anecdotal, the ancedotal fallacy might be more applicable. But it’s only a fallacy if that narrow view is used to make a broad claim. I don’t think pointing out the existence of a certain kind of conversation is very broad, and in the context of this thread just a few instances can have a large effect.

I would even go so far as to argue that you are commiting an argument from ancedote when you dismiss the claim that harrassment exists with only your ancedotal evidence of not having seen it yourself. They brought sources, and you dismissed their experience as not good enough with no supporting evidence. If you really want to dismiss the notion that their evidence is significant, you could try seeing how many people interacted with those posts compared to average interactions for those communities, or checking how often you visit those communities to put your own experiences in context. Anything but dismissing them and refusing to engage with the intent of the message.

It’s true that everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias and dozens of other faults of logic, and it’s also true that recognizing those faults is important for improving, but being so aggressive in the specifics of data validation can be alienating and will likely miss the intended message.

Just my two cents, dismiss as you please. I do hope this ends up being useful to someone though.

Sure, BBT doesn’t preclude other universes exsiting, and some details may even suggest other universes, but that’s outside the scope of BBT cosmology, and I’d hardly call that evidence when we still have inflation and axion theories floating around ready to radically change our idea of the early universe.

We have more evidence for Dark Matter, and we can’t even agree that that’s matter!

Ooo, look at you with your fancy infrastructure. I bet you even have commercial flights!

In all seriousness, some airstrips have only a paved runway, and it’s just dirt for everything else.

Ah, so not just every possible universe, and not just every conceivable universe, and not just every coherent idea of a universe, and not just every arbitrary state of a universe, but every collection of arbitrary notions about any form of existence no matter if those notions are compatable in any way with anything.

In that case, the vast majority of universes are not possible to understand by our laws of logic. Most of them no longer exist either, as half of them spontaneously ended in 1602 and another half fell to false vacuum decay a billion years ago, and an infinite number of other things. Yet since we’re disregarding all logic and taking every arbitrary position, there are infinite universes where they spontaneously stopped existing every second since they started existing yet continue to exist, are one dimensional yet are made of nothing but triangles, have nothing but paradoxes yet are perfectly understandable by us, and are also in a multiverse where no other universes exist.

It’s a useless concept, as you can posit that any point at all is true. It’s also self-defeating, as our continued existence proves that there are no universes that have destroyed our universe permanently, and thus not every conceivable state can exist simultaneously.

Is there some use I am missing?

What if there are more ways to not have triangles than to have triangles? If every possibility is represented equally, that would mean there are more universes without triangles. The possibility of triangles isn’t the variables that’s changing, it’s a side effect of other variables.

I just rolled two six-sided dice. If we take that action as truely random and that every possibility is represented in some universe, then there are universes were I rolled 2 and universes where I rolled 7. However, there are more universes where I rolled 7, simply because there are more ways to roll 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1).

And that’s assuming that my roll was truely random, and not significantly biased by how I threw the dice. It’s also completely impossible that I rolled a 13, and universes where triangles are impossible might not exist. Every possible universe still exists, but there are more universes where I rolled 7, and none where I can’t draw a triangle. Infinite improbability doesn’t make the impossible possible.

Does it? As far as I am aware, the Big Bang modle only describes how the early universe developed, not how it began.

That’s the airstrip.

Can you walk 24 hours a day though? Your body automatically breathes during sleep, but you need to be awake to walk and not be doing anything that requires you to sit still.

Sleeping, a sit down meal, commuting, office work, even exercise like biking and swimming, all require breathing and not taking steps.

Temporaculture