You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
High School Student, Forbidden From Wearing Rosary For His Grandma
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
Quote from stu:
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.
Are you picturing endless universes like this one or something different?
What do you think multiverse means when you keep saying it?
or can't you even manage that?
Why don't you. Inflationary universes have proponents but just about all scientists would agree they need a multiverse (or almost infinite regions with different constants) to explain the tunings. So I have no idea why the hell you are arguing this point.
If there is only one homogeneous universe arguing for inflation does not really explain away the fine tunings.
Arguing the universe is not homogeneous is arguing multiverse. See your weinberg video.
last month stu said the tunings could be explained by inevitable consequences... but not random chance or a theory of everthing.
this month stu is arguing the tunigs can be explained by eternal inflation but not multiverse. (but you watch he will change the subject.)
On a humorous note... for years Stu has been arguing Penrose does not understand probability. It seems like a pyschotic break... Stu lecturing Penrose about probability. (as if no fellows or profs exist in the stats dept over at oxford or cambridge or when he is giving lectures.)
---
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
this month stu is arguing the tunigs can be explained by eternal inflation but not multiverse. (but you watch he will change the subject.)
On a humorous note... for years Stu has been arguing Penrose does not understand probability. It seems like a pyschotic break... Stu lecturing Penrose about probability. (as if no fellows or profs exist in the stats dept over at oxford or cambridge or when he is giving lectures.)
---
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Quote from stu:
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 circles here, repeating the same bullshit a million times, ignoring most all refutation, as if doing so changed the ways in which he's wrong.
Forums eh..who'd join 'em.
Quote from jem:
you are so emotional you do not even understand what is happening in science even though I spoon feed it to you.
Go back and read the quote from Bernard Carr.
Or read the quotes from the Hawking paper.
Or understand Susskind.
The scientists state our one universe appears fine tuned..however, they hold out hope the tunings can be explained. Right now most are hoping that we someday find out we live in a multiverse.
But, yes the some scientists, including hawking are brave enough to admit that it does appear as if tuned by an outside agency if you go with traditional approaches.
I don't have to read any of that or try to parse meanings out of it. I know the vast majority of relevant scientists are atheists, thus they do not believe in any fine tuner in the conventional God sense.
But I agree, some of them say it appears as if fine tuned.
Some would also say a spiral galaxy appears to be fine tuned. Yet all that is needed is basic physical constants.
the vast majority of scientist are agnostic, using traditional definitions.
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
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.Quote from jem:
last month stu said the tunings could be explained by inevitable consequences... but not random chance or a theory of everthing.
this month stu is arguing the tunigs can be explained by eternal inflation but not multiverse. (but you watch he will change the subject.)
On a humorous note... for years Stu has been arguing Penrose does not understand probability. It seems like a pyschotic break... Stu lecturing Penrose about probability. (as if no fellows or profs exist in the stats dept over at oxford or cambridge or when he is giving lectures.)
But then that's what you need to be, pushing religious inference and conclusion. Ignorant.
Why the hell am I arguing this point? Why the hell with you indeed, but it's more like - what the hell are you talking about most of the time?Quote from jem:
Why don't you. Inflationary universes have proponents but just about all scientists would agree they need a multiverse (or almost infinite regions with different constants) to explain the tunings. So I have no idea why the hell you are arguing this point.
I see you didn't manage to answer that straightforward question after all.
Can't you explain what you think scientists mean by a multiverse or even, what you imagine they mean when they say multiverse?
Do you even understand what is meant by cosmological inflation? Obviously you don't. Why am I asking.
Quote from jem:
If there is only one homogeneous universe arguing for inflation does not really explain away the fine tunings.
Arguing the universe is not homogeneous is arguing multiverse. See your weinberg video.
Throwing red herrings won't help you.
There are various models for inflation. Don't you think the scientist you chose to refer to, Professor Steven Weinberg, is aware of inflation and any associatated questions about cosmological constants?
So why then do you think he stated ... "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."
It must be because you just pick out stuff to misunderstand, and ignore the stuff he clearly understands about cosmic inflation you don't.
As far as homogeneous goes, The early universe could not have been homogeneous or exactly uniform according to quantum mechanics. That is not an argument for multiverse.
You're trying to assert the multiverse proposal would explain so called 'fine tunings' but it isn't even science. No better than a guess. In place you prefer a no science, no information, no knowledge, imaginary fantasy to take its place.
Yet the scientists YOU brought up, one being Professor Stephen Hawking, describes the multiverse as a "..consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology".
Professor Weinberg says "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."
All the scientists you have referred to including Penrose do not accept fine tuning is anything else but an appearance which can be explained almost entirely by science.
'Almost' is just enough for you try to force a magic tuner/creator/designer where it won't go and doesn't fit. That is simply pathetic for anyone considering themselves adult.
Penrose --
Sir Roger Penrose OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.
this is what I say and this is what Penrose means...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sir Roger Penrose OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.
this is what I say and this is what Penrose means...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from stu:
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 this point? Why the hell with you indeed, but it's more like - what the hell are you talking about most of the time?
I see you didn't manage to answer that straightforward question after all.
Can't you explain what you think scientists mean by a multiverse or even, what you imagine they mean when they say multiverse?
Do you even understand what is meant by cosmological inflation? Obviously you don't. Why am I asking.
Throwing red herrings won't help you.
There are various models for inflation. Don't you think the scientist you chose to refer to, Professor Steven Weinberg, is aware of inflation and any associatated questions about cosmological constants?
So why then do you think he stated ... "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."
It must be because you just pick out stuff to misunderstand, and ignore the stuff he clearly understands about cosmic inflation you don't.
As far as homogeneous goes, The early universe could not have been homogeneous or exactly uniform according to quantum mechanics. That is not an argument for multiverse.
You're trying to assert the multiverse proposal would explain so called 'fine tunings' but it isn't even science. No better than a guess. In place you prefer a no science, no information, no knowledge, imaginary fantasy to take its place.
Yet the scientists YOU brought up, one being Professor Stephen Hawking, describes the multiverse as a "..consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology".
Professor Weinberg says "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."
All the scientists you have referred to including Penrose do not accept fine tuning is anything else but an appearance which can be explained almost entirely by science.
'Almost' is just enough for you try to force a magic tuner/creator/designer where it won't go and doesn't fit. That is simply pathetic for anyone considering themselves adult.
1. Non scientific. All about religion the supernatural. Not science.Quote from jem:
the vast majority of scientist are agnostic, using traditional definitions.
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
2. The word is noncommittal . Get merriam webster to look that up for you.
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.
He's not likely to be wrong. You on the other hand are.
Quote from jem:
Penrose --
Sir Roger Penrose OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.
this is what I say and this is what Penrose means...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>