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
"Susskind's insider perspective also lends an air of smugness to the whole affair. He falls prey to the common error of Whig history: interpreting past events as if they were inevitable stepping stones to the present. He allows remarkably little doubt about string theory considering that it has, as yet, not a whit of observational support. "As much as I would very much like to balance things by explaining the opposing side, I simply can't find that other side," he writes in his concluding chapter.
Such braggadocio begs for an anthropic question of its own. Humans have been around in more or less their present form for about 150,000 years; detailed stories of the origin of the world run as far back as the first written languages and surely existed in oral form much earlier still. How likely is it that this generation, right now, is the lucky one that has discovered the final answer?
I'm not a physicist, but if I were putting money on the table, I wouldn't take those odds.
Corey S. Powell is a senior editor at Discover magazine and author of "God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
Such braggadocio begs for an anthropic question of its own. Humans have been around in more or less their present form for about 150,000 years; detailed stories of the origin of the world run as far back as the first written languages and surely existed in oral form much earlier still. How likely is it that this generation, right now, is the lucky one that has discovered the final answer?
I'm not a physicist, but if I were putting money on the table, I wouldn't take those odds.
Corey S. Powell is a senior editor at Discover magazine and author of "God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
1. Tuner... reasonable speculation if you see tuning.
If you see tuning, you see an assumed appearance based on too little information..
2. Luck - all agree it is ridiculous given what we know now.
Gravity then as Hawking states, not luck.
3. Multiverse... pure speculation...no observable proof.
Speculation backed to a substantial degree by math and physics. Not pure speculation, and not the "speculative pseudo science" you started out with.
4. Hope of a Theory of that explains why we are tuned... which is most likely a Theory of Everything... again speculation.
There is no such thing as "we are tuned" You are making an unwarranted supposition. Theory of Everything would answer much more than just some presumptions about so called tuning.
If you see tuning, you see an assumed appearance based on too little information..
2. Luck - all agree it is ridiculous given what we know now.
Gravity then as Hawking states, not luck.
3. Multiverse... pure speculation...no observable proof.
Speculation backed to a substantial degree by math and physics. Not pure speculation, and not the "speculative pseudo science" you started out with.
4. Hope of a Theory of that explains why we are tuned... which is most likely a Theory of Everything... again speculation.
There is no such thing as "we are tuned" You are making an unwarranted supposition. Theory of Everything would answer much more than just some presumptions about so called tuning.
Quote from jem:
their explanations are they following... either
1. Tuner... reasonable speculation if you see tuning.
2. Luck - all agree it is ridiculous given what we know now
3. Multiverse... pure speculation...no observable proof.
4. Hope of a Theory of that explains why we are tuned... which is most likely a Theory of Everything... again speculation.
wow --- nice find f/c...
so when it comes to explaining the fine tunings... you suspect you should discount the validity of string theory and its predictions about the multiverse.
but stu just implied the opposite about string theory... he seemed to imply the multiverse was real science or close to it... do we have atheists running around with their heads cut off?
so when it comes to explaining the fine tunings... you suspect you should discount the validity of string theory and its predictions about the multiverse.
but stu just implied the opposite about string theory... he seemed to imply the multiverse was real science or close to it... do we have atheists running around with their heads cut off?
Quote from futurecurrents:
"Susskind's insider perspective also lends an air of smugness to the whole affair. He falls prey to the common error of Whig history: interpreting past events as if they were inevitable stepping stones to the present. He allows remarkably little doubt about string theory considering that it has, as yet, not a whit of observational support. "As much as I would very much like to balance things by explaining the opposing side, I simply can't find that other side," he writes in his concluding chapter.
Such braggadocio begs for an anthropic question of its own. Humans have been around in more or less their present form for about 150,000 years; detailed stories of the origin of the world run as far back as the first written languages and surely existed in oral form much earlier still. How likely is it that this generation, right now, is the lucky one that has discovered the final answer?
I'm not a physicist, but if I were putting money on the table, I wouldn't take those odds.
Corey S. Powell is a senior editor at Discover magazine and author of "God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
One minute you're swooning over Stephen Hawking who says one thing. The next wetting yourself over The New York Times that says another. You're the one running headless around here.
Quote from jem:
wow --- nice find f/c...
so when it comes to explaining the fine tunings... you suspect you should discount the validity of string theory and its predictions about the multiverse.
but stu just implied the opposite about string theory... he seemed to imply the multiverse was real science or close to it... do we have atheists running around with their heads cut off?
an analysis of stu's augmentations
1. maybe... maybe not... you see tunings which can be explained in one of 4 ways according to Susskind and many other top scientists... that is the point of using science instead of your b.s..
2. complete not sequitor about gravity.
3. When Weinberg told you on the video it was not a theory because there is no proof and Penrose told you M theory is just a collection of idea... I wonder who the hell are you to pretend you know more than them.
4. Unsubstantiated conclusions. this seems to be the hallmark of your posts on this subject for 7 years.
1. maybe... maybe not... you see tunings which can be explained in one of 4 ways according to Susskind and many other top scientists... that is the point of using science instead of your b.s..
2. complete not sequitor about gravity.
3. When Weinberg told you on the video it was not a theory because there is no proof and Penrose told you M theory is just a collection of idea... I wonder who the hell are you to pretend you know more than them.
4. Unsubstantiated conclusions. this seems to be the hallmark of your posts on this subject for 7 years.
Quote from stu:
1. Tuner... reasonable speculation if you see tuning.
If you see tuning, you see an assumed appearance based on too little information..
2. Luck - all agree it is ridiculous given what we know now.
Gravity then as Hawking states, not luck.
3. Multiverse... pure speculation...no observable proof.
Speculation backed to a substantial degree by math and physics. Not pure speculation, and not the "speculative pseudo science" you started out with.
4. Hope of a Theory of that explains why we are tuned... which is most likely a Theory of Everything... again speculation.
There is no such thing as "we are tuned" You are making an unwarranted supposition. Theory of Everything would answer much more than just some presumptions about so called tuning.
Quote from jem:
wow --- nice find f/c...
so when it comes to explaining the fine tunings... you suspect you should discount the validity of string theory and its predictions about the multiverse.
but stu just implied the opposite about string theory... he seemed to imply the multiverse was real science or close to it... do we have atheists running around with their heads cut off?
There are no fine tunings. It only appears that way. It appears that way because it all fits together. It all fits together because it was all one at the start. And it still is all one, thus it still fits together.
String theory? Who knows.