<html><head></head><body><div><span data-mailaddress="dennislmay@yahoo.com" data-contactname="Dennis May" class="clickable"><span title="dennislmay@yahoo.com">Dennis May</span><span class="detail"> <dennislmay@yahoo.com></span></span> , 16/6/2014 3:57 AM:<br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:18pt;"><div><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are required in the orthodox</span></div><div>model of cosmology. The problem is there is no General Relativity</div><div>plus Dark Matter model which satisfies the basic statistical mechanical</div><div>observations of spiral galaxies. Given that several competing models</div><div>produce statistically valid results while GR + DM does not indicates</div><div>there is no valid basis for assuming the general validity of either GR</div><div>or DM as currently being used in cosmology. Hence any thermodynamic</div><div>results from those theories are also suspect since they rely upon an</div><div>observationally invalid foundation.</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Sorry, but this doesn't work as an argument. The Landauer issue is a local thermodynamics issue; the only cosmological aspects that really matter to my models are whether there is an eventual finite horizon temperature and how much acceleration the expansion has. If one argues that any discrepancies in observations invalidates predictions or analysis, then clearly we cannot say anything about fluid dynamics (we have no good turbulence theory that fits data) nor about climate (lots of mildly contradictory parametrisations). That stuff will have to be updated as cosmology is refined is fine. </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:18pt;"><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size: 18pt;">"Singleton civilizations also prevent internal adversaries."</span></div><div><br></div><div>I
do not see an argument in support of this statement. All present known life began</div><div>as a singleton event yet immediately spawned countless adversarial relationships. No</div><div>example in nature or human civilization would seem to support this.</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I used the word singleton in the technical sense http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/singleton.pdf - indeed, no singleton has so far come into being, but that does not mean such systems cannot exist or will not be achieved. </div><br><br><br>Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University</body></html>