this really is over your head - I am sorry you do not understand articles such as these....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825305.800-is-string-theory-in-trouble.html?full=true
This is the second paragraph...
"But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours."
and the last paragraph
question
"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
response from susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."
----------
read it again and again until you understand it.
if it turns out his speculations about the multiverse or landscapes are never proven - then he will be hardpressed to answer the ID critics.
As Susskind says one might argue that the hope for a solution to the fine tuning argument is as faith based as ID.
Now the thing you did not understand STU is that Susskind admits all those other universes or landscapes are speculation and that they have not been proven.
He is a scientist and lives by the truth.
you are full of shit.
We are lottery winners and the lottery was so impossible that leading scientists are not willing to say it was chance. They therefore have to speculate there were trillions and of other universes. But they have the brains to admit those other universes are speculation.
You apparently have know idea about the likelyhood of the fine tunings and like to talk out your arse.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825305.800-is-string-theory-in-trouble.html?full=true
This is the second paragraph...
"But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours."
and the last paragraph
question
"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
response from susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."
----------
read it again and again until you understand it.
if it turns out his speculations about the multiverse or landscapes are never proven - then he will be hardpressed to answer the ID critics.
As Susskind says one might argue that the hope for a solution to the fine tuning argument is as faith based as ID.
Now the thing you did not understand STU is that Susskind admits all those other universes or landscapes are speculation and that they have not been proven.
He is a scientist and lives by the truth.
you are full of shit.
We are lottery winners and the lottery was so impossible that leading scientists are not willing to say it was chance. They therefore have to speculate there were trillions and of other universes. But they have the brains to admit those other universes are speculation.
You apparently have know idea about the likelyhood of the fine tunings and like to talk out your arse.
