Search results

Not sure where you're getting somewhere from, except by confusing things. The constants are observed. They are not observed to be tuned for life, except by some, mostly creationists, who merely claim they are tuned. There is no scientific bases on which it is said the constants are tuned...

...the best you could manage.

It's the best Jem could manage.

As I say, any normal person would find no reason to go off on one like you do over something so straightforward. Is this some sort of creationist tactic to make crude and ignorant bullshit comment in place of arguments they don't have? There is nothing inconsistent in that statement and in...

The answer is none. The constants appear fine tuned The constants are fine tuned. Were you ever able to distinguish between those two statements like any normal person would, well.... come to think of it, the way you go about stuff... you still wouldn't have much of a clue actually.

That is, afterall, what's often said at the end of all types of not exactly true stories.

You're being weird Jem. You haven't a clue what Hawking is saying. You can only cut and paste it. Then you imagine it's to do with Multiverses, when it's about quantum field theory and he clearly says he doesn't even go along with the word Multiverse. Then you argue yourself into having...

I'd suggest it's quite possible his later recollection of an extreme situation was not the actual scenario.

What's up with that is..how do you handle all the mind numbing adverts on Bloomberg for 10 secs of information?

I didn't mention string theory. I haven't even talked of "other universes and vacuaa" If your education is only ever going to be arrived at by clipping parts of text from places like wiki, then you'll just have to remain ignorant. The bit you did grab is connected with first experimental...

you confuse fact with conjecture. the constants are observed. That they are tuned is conjecture. The explanation of multiverse is a science based hypotheses Whereas arguing for a Creator is imaginary based speculation.

Quite clear. You said they are natural . Then they are not supernatural. The definition of natural is not supernatural. Do you really not see how comical that is? seriously. Imaginary supernatural set ups means stuff would not be natural. sheesh. Supernatural is not science based. You...

...aren't you just. Though I'm not sure it's purposely in your case. Is this yet another sentence you didn't intend to write? Something natural isn't subject to anything supernatural, like a so called 'Tuner' for instance. If it were, it wouldn't be natural. The appearance of fine tuning...

All answered, refuted and debunked. Supernatural suppositions are not science based. Your frantic desire to push them at science is just that, nothing more.

It's as if despite your belligerent, aggressive and arrogant manner, you slowly start to understand, whilst at the same time, get it all together wrong. I'll put it down to religion just makes you weird overall. I can see you find it a stretch. What I don't get is why you think not being...

What IS humerous... is that you can't even agree with your own sentences. The thing is, you don't want any explanations that do away with all those tortured misrepresentations you keep repeating. Envisioned does not mean speculation. What have I proposed? You mean what your authority...

A sentence is not a dependant clause. There are no dependent clauses in your sentence. Apparently Hawking's clear language encouraged you to write your sentence which said "the constants 'sort of' self selected". So why are you still arguing with me about something you said, with which I don't...

Jem, It is clear Hawking/Hartle does not invoke a Multiverse. I said why. Address that instead of just endlessly repeating the same blocks of text like a madman. Quote from jem: "Hawkings solution is saying that in a top down cosmology we can make predictions because we can be assured that...

Your own sentence described constants as self selecting, therefore their values inevitable. Take it up with yourself. Hawking/Hartle is based on Richard Feynman's sum over histories. That is superposition. Superposition is not Multiverse. I said why not. Hawking speaks of the universe...

That's an anthropic point. It is not the point you made in your own sentence, where you stumbled upon an inevitability for cosmological constant values. I've already answered all those separately. You are the one jumbling them into another strawman. Can you really think of nothing better...