But every new fossil fuel plant only somewhat adds to already existing air pollution so it *feels* like it's not a big deal even though the aggregate effect is massive over enough time
It's a fascinating exercise in human understanding of health and mortality. Nuclear is objectively safer, but because dying from radiation or a Chernobyl blast is so direct and scary to imagine, we as a society are scared of nuclear.
Wikipedia is making me feel less bad about the confusing names for optics terminology
Woooo! Proud of you! ❤️
seems we may be headed toward what political scientists refer to as a "bruh moment"
What kind of person is in the top right?
Your argument is that dogs bred for hunting animals can't distinguish between animals and small humans. Are you walking that back now?
Most types of terriers and hounds
So then by this logic, all hunting breeds must have the same innate desire to hurt children, right?
Are pitbulls bred to kill children?
How precisely are they bred more dangerous than they "need" to be?
Given that most small dogs are physically incapable of killing humans, it's not surprising that the most common large dog is also responsible for the most human deaths. And that's without considering other confounding factors like abuse, neglect, lack of training, etc
I read up as far as I could and I saw no evidence given that pitbulls are inherently more likely to attack children.
Given how loosely "pitbull" is defined, they make a large majority of all large dogs.
Pulling out my lyfe scanner
I care only in the sense that we should make it much faster to become citizens
Ummm everyone is naming known conspiracy theorist characters in real world settings so that's not really fun. I'm going to go with Galadriel. She'd be like no no eat this leaf that's the tears of an ancient hero
Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhhhh
Lyfe???
Why is it that only universes with regular observers can be infinite? Why wouldn't we have a universe that has the same infinite geometry but with a higher initial entropy? Or is this just the "other" BB problem you mentioned before?
For example, I don't think Trump is a Christian even if he claims to be.
True but I'd argue that being Christian should at least involve a little bit of actually following Jesus' teachings. Like, you know, the whole bit about loving others, caring for the vulnerable, etc. if someone constantly flouts that then I can understand if some people question the label
I still don't understand how to go from "it appears infinite for a given observers" (subjective) to "it is infinite" (objective) but for the sake of argument, why is it that BB universes must be finite?
Time and space trading off to make the universe appear to be infinite for a given observer does not entail an actually infinite amount of observers
Taking this approach, the only way to solve BB problem is to somehow show that *only* natural universes are infinitely large AND that they don't flucutate once it reaches equilibrium. (3/3)
A boltzmann bubble is just a local region of order within a surrounding area of disorder. In an infinitely large universe with high entropy, there would be an infinite amount of boltzmann bubbles of various size, with the smaller ones being more numerous. (2/3)
Guth describes our universe as appearing to be unbounded and possibly indefinitely expanding, but I don't think he suggests our universe is actually infinite in extent. However, even if there are somehow infinite ROs, that would likely imply infinite BBs as well. (1/3)
I'm also not a cosmology expert, but it doesn't seem like Guth's arguments provide for such a multiverse
Setting aside the nuances with measuring over infinities, the crux of the problem is the number of BBs vs ROs in your multiverse. It seems the only solution is to get a multiverse that somehow produces a huge number of low-entropy "natural" universes AND one that doesn't fluctuate out of equilibrium
Right, the reason that BBs are a problem is that everything from a single brain with false memories to an entire galaxy but with deceptive external photons can produce the exact same observations as a natural universe.
Ah ok I agree with that. So then this leads back to Guth's apparent response to this. Positing some sort of selection effect for universe size doesn't seem to solve the Boltzmann problem in its entirety.
