Search results

Indeed he does continue to state clearly what he means...and it's not what you say he means. There is no math or mathematical calculation, only an assumption being lunged at by creationist types such as yourself, from a set of values…so probably best if you didn't say anything more...

there is jem struggling with reasoning again. What you say he means, can't be what he, as a mathematician, means. Neither is he presenting math that is explaining a probability. When someone says chances are... whatever... that is not explaining the math. sheesh The vid is truncated...

What you say he means, can't be what he as a mathematician means. He's not likely to be wrong. You on the other hand are.

1. Non scientific. All about religion the supernatural. Not science. 2. The word is noncommittal . Get merriam webster to look that up for you.

As long as you keep making up things I don't say, and try to make Penrose mean something as a mathematician he can't mean, then you'll remain ignorant in the those things. But then that's what you need to be, pushing religious inference and conclusion. Ignorant. Why the hell am I arguing...

yep, a convenient distraction. But way past the end of his repertoire on this subject I'd say. Maybe his tenacity will keep him going for while longer with GW, but inevitably he'll probably just start getting more and more angry with that too. He's chasing himself around in ever decreasing...

First I suggest you stop being so angry and defensive all the time and answer a question I asked you way back. You actually haven't "explained the eternal inflation models" to me or anyone lol, so just deal with one thing at a time. What do you imagine multiverse is? Let me help you with it...

nah. Jem's cut and pasting , poor rhetoric, bad spelling and copious amounts of general abuse ..... smart? really?

....what a load of dribble. Not the multiverse, not a megaverse but the universe and ".. the no boundary proposal, can account for all the complicated structure that we see around us." Stephen Hawking That's what the man said. Neither is he arguing against string theory. He's...

Straight from the authority you chose - states one universe; 'no boundary'; all possible histories; allows this particular universe to come about. The problem is Jem, you are obviously not au fait on the subject. As long as you're cutting and pasting stuff others have written about Stephen...

It's a dead beat cheap and unintelligent tactic trying to keep blaming me for the things you are doing. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe...

Agnostic doesn't fit with science. So you're equally irascible when you concede. No surprise there. Now you agree with what I wrote, which disagrees with what you were trying to 'claim by dictionary', so you think what I wrote - was what you said. Lol. honestly, You couldn't make this up...

You prefer to troll the conclusions of philosophical bullshit over science.

You mean just let there be a complete failure of human reasoning. Proof and belief are two different things. I don't think the former should be sacrificed to the latter.

Yet possibly the most famous of all says even if you want to describe the universe as fine tuned or designed, then it is done so by gravity. No god or other forms of tuner required. Another very famous one says there doesn't seem to be any and even if there did it could be explained by other...

Lol Congratulations. Neither of those definitions apply. Science isn't about stating anything is unknowable. Quite the opposite. So that one's a non starter. Neither is there anything rational that commits science to be willing or unwilling to consider the supernatural. The mythical isn't...

I know what you stated and you were wrong. Agnostic in it's formal term is can't know. The antithesis of science. Science is no more agnostic about a creator than it is agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. Science has no concern with supernatural things. "Most" will also tell...

So wtf? Tell Penrose / The New York Times whatever - to talk with Hawking and Susskind. What the hell point are you trying to make? It's YOU who keeps referring to them all as authoritative. The one thing they are all clearly demonstrating is, whatever the science that suggests string and...

That’s ok I won’t listen to you. One minute you're misquoting Leonard Susskind like he is your hero. A brilliant theoretical physicist and as you described him in that usual clumsy way, a "great minds of science", whose research in quantum field theory statistical mechanics and cosmology...

How does it explain why the universe appears so perfectly tuned for human life when all it says is - the universe has to accomodate human life for human life to observe the universe appears tuned for human life :confused: The constants and ranges are the so called "tuning" for human life. So...