Search results

Your obvious sarcasm above just reinforces your intent to degrade and harass. Now, you're expanding your contempt to the entire legal profession. jem called me a liar. I reminded him of his ethical duties. You found my reminder to be inappropriate. I explained that I found being called a liar...

Why do you insist on taking every opportunity to degrade and harrass me?

If you actually cared about acquiring knowledge, rather than merely winning a ridiculous argument in this stupid forum, you would write Dr. Susskind yourself, and ask him your own questions. Because, no matter what evidence I produce here, you will simply claim my comments are untrustworthy...

Are you calling me a liar?

It must be comforting to you that San Diego liquor stores are open late.

I'm not surprised that you would crack up at things that rational people would not find amusing.

Pardon me if I substituted "talked" for "communicated via email." Grow up, little boy.

I don't care. I've talked directly with the source of your quote. He says you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding the subject matter. Game over.

Susskind was your expert witness. Up until now, he was sufficient for your purposes. Now that he's testified against you, you want to use some other experts. I'm satisfied that my understanding of Anthropic Principle is correct and yours is not. That's really the end of the argument for me...

I think you're just trying to start a new argument, because the original one is losing steam.

Good news! Everyone in the physics biz is waiting for the CERN collider to come online. Hopefully, it will answer current questions about the universe. Undoubtedly, it will create more new questions than it answers.

I'll assume the above post was directed at me. I wrote an email to Dr. Leonard Susskind, Ph.D yesterday, complimented him on his book, restated the basic concept and asked him if I understood it. The professor said that "you've got it." Obviously, I can't prove this transaction, but...

And the same to you.

The billions of vacuums do not combat the inference of design, because anthropic principle does not stand for a choice between design and chance. Your entire argument is based on an incorrect assumption. Susskind/Weinberg/Polchinski, et. al., define Anthropic Principle as nothing more...

Responses below... Quote from jem: KJ do you you think you made a significant point here. Response: Apparently so, as you are talking to me again -- something which you said you would no longer do. Does that mean you've changed your mind, or does it make you a liar? ---- As has...

The "Landscape," per Susskind, is the set of "all possible vacuum states." "It doesn't exist in space or time at all." And, it's not a separate universe. "It is a space of possibilities." Susskind then goes on to describe that the vacuum state (i.e., the cosmological constant) inside the...

Seems as though the thread has gone right into the Bermuda Triangle with respect to the subject matter. So, allow me to turn on the lighthouse lantern and guide us back to safer waters. On Page 380 of Leonard Susskind's 2006 edition of "The Cosmic Landscape -- String Theory and the Illusion...

I have an imagination, and it's not limited by the requirement of a scientific experiment. That is, I don't say to myself, that because my scientific mind recognizes no verifiable test for the existence of a magical land, located at the second star to the right and straight on till' morning...

Responses below... Quote from Ether64: You know...I like you. I really appreciate that you have taken all this time (from your boredom) to explain this to me. You are the second atheist I've ever spoken to that was willing to communicate reasonably to try to get mutual understanding, so I...

Assuming that this view is correct, then is there any reason why man cannot scientifically measure God? And, if so, then is there any reason why man cannot model God -- and from there become equal to God?