Is there an order in the Universe?

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"So No 'order' in the universe is my opinion."

Yep, that's your opinion all righty...

and clearly your faith as well...

Quote from stu:

My dear Cuban,

look, just who the f*k asked you

let jem do the dirty work...."Look troll "
"You are a little slime ball"
"you choose to argue like a little kid "
"You are a piece of work."
"As far as the rest of you non-responsive mush minded crap.... "






So jem's argument summed up (after sifting through all his abusive language) appears to be this..

"the best minds" ( one top notch physicist) postulates the landscape idea, which he thinks likely can be observed and tested through the large scale microwave background.
He just needs to see past the great pile of ribs someone left in there.

But the "best minds" physicist says that - should it not be possible to do that, although he thinks it likely it can be done, then he does not consider it possible to demonstrate the landscape idea with mathematics.

Under those circumstances - were they ever to come about, - he comments.... " 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.


Right then, without physical observation and testing he says math won't do it and so from his viewpoint and in his opinion (not science) there will be no result and therefore awkward to give ID'ers an answer.
Note that he won't make something up in place like introducing some hair-brained pseudo science to save face as ID often does.
He axknowledges no result is no answer.


Without any evidence of the following being substantiated in anything the one physicist states, jem misconstrues his way to the many conclusions he provides:

• 
  the universe is designed.
  the anthropic principle says "fine tuning" so it is science
  the anthropic principle means designed
  physicists in general are worried
  the "best minds" (one single physicist) of physics are saying design.
  without multiverses all physicists must conclude design.
  the creator of string theory was Susskind

To avoid any criticism of the ridiculous assumptions made in the name of design or ID, it is common practice now for jem to inevitably disregard substance by quickly reverting back to screaming, stamping feet , weeing his pants and wretching all over the the carpet and walls as the only answer to things he doesn't like.



The 'Order' in the universe is simply what we see and can make sense of. Patterns and symmetries from the sublime to the ugly which enable sentient living things to navigate a way around the conditions which pertain within the circumstances consciousness and life finds itself.

If there were any design, it need only be completely natural. There is no separate or equal evidence of intelligent design for life. Complexity of life and matter need only have come about by slow gradual cumulative development from the most simple and basic natural elements.
So No 'order' in the universe is my opinion.

yours
go Cardinals Go
stu

 

[jem]

Quote from 2cents:

i've had a read... nothing extraordinary here... u seem to not notice the following points made by susskind:

"I:Is it premature to invoke anthropic arguments - which assume that the conditions for life are extremely improbable - when we don't know how to define life?

S: The logic of the anthropic principle requires the strong assumption that our kind of life is the only kind possible. Why should we presume that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments? If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a valid objection. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black hole.

I: Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation?

S: One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved, meaning the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or like the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our current vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state with a much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum to another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest scales of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in principle, is testable."

and the fact that the cosmological 'constant' is v.likely anything but a constant, and in any case no more than an arbitrary, albeit convenient, parameter in a set of equations...

anyway... not trying to 'convince' you of anything... as long as you don't try to enforce some purely faith-based dogma on unsuspecting ppl ;-)

This first point tests the validity of the anthropic principle...

In answering he gave an exception that could defeat the principle. (it is highly speculative) He says its a valid objection but he is just not buying that life can live inside a star.

This is an honest man assessing the strenghth of the anthropic principle. His conclusion can be understood to be -- hey if ours is the only universe - wow it does look designed. But I am letting you know there are valid objections to that conclusion - i just dont think they are very persuasive.

fortunately for him he believes there are more than a million universes.

The second point tests the validity of the multiverse (landscape speculation). He states that if (if) you were to find support for the fact that another universe came out of one universe -- space would have a negative curve.

So if you observed this curve then it is unlikely the cosmological constant would be constant. Therefore (with multiple universes) the anthropic principle would not amount to much. Because our Constant would only be a constant in one of trilions of universes.

---
Not trying to force anthropic or multiverse down anyones throat. It is your choice. I am just telling you what the state of physics is right now. When boneheads like Stu choose to engage in wordplay instead of constructive criticism I get annoyed. here you did what I would expect any thinking person to do.

Your response here should serve as a model for Stu. You took the material and challenged me internally with the material. You could have also challenged me with authority from outside the material. Stu prefers to misrepresent the material, lie about what I have said and in general remain ignorant of the facts.

 

[stu]

straight question jem,

what do YOU mean by a universe designed?

 

[2cents]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe not much wiggle room for 'design' in there... even less if one considers that we are pretty much confined to a minuscule sub-section, ie the observable universe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

lets add to that that on earth alone we have evidence of (tens of?) millions of species http://www.canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/species/index.htm

not a big surprise that in a tough competitive environment one particular species, arrangement of organic matter shld have come on top at various stages of evolution... again, where's the grand 'design'?

and same diversity in terms of known galactic structures, eg, just for personal enjoyment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/

huh, 'design'??

 

[ultranet]

well i think, the universe is within our minds..
It is how we think of it is..., we are the part of universe.. if we change universe changes and if universe change , we change...
so its even....

 

[2cents]

the Universe just told me it doesn't give a rat's arse about u, sorry mate...

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:



---
Not trying to force anthropic or multiverse down anyones throat. It is your choice. I am just telling you what the state of physics is right now. When boneheads like Stu choose to engage in wordplay instead of constructive criticism I get annoyed. here you did what I would expect any thinking person to do.

Your response here should serve as a model for Stu. You took the material and challenged me internally with the material. You could have also challenged me with authority from outside the material. Stu prefers to misrepresent the material, lie about what I have said and in general remain ignorant of the facts.

What you do not like jem, is to be pinned down to specifically explain the misrepresented material which is already your claim .
You display a preference for grabbing quotes and spinning them to fit your own tune as you have done in this thread, but when called to account , that is when you get to throw a fit.


Your noises are all about being able to argue back & forth by matching quotes of which you have already made or altered any conclusions to your own personal interpretation. To start out with a false argument. So long as no one tries nails you on the substance of your misrepresentation, you are happy .


Here I will show you what you are doing with a few simple examples .....

Here is Susskind talking to National Science :

"To me the whole thing does not look like the product of an elegant mathematical theory," said Susskind. "It doesn't look like beautiful numbers like e or pi or v2; it looks like a Rube Goldberg machine! It looks like something that was designed by a rather poor engineer for some purpose. It works, but it's hardly elegant."

Now to apply some jem type home spun spin to it.....

here is an honest man telling how he feels about the universe and letting ID'ers down gently. Obviously the best minds in physics have concluded there is no designer so they are actually describing how bad design is no design.

There is enough false argument in there to fill a black hole , but were it your argument and should anyone try to question you on it, you would get very stroppy very quickly .


Here's another...
National Science again ......

In fact, Susskind's theories have drawn the ire of some prominent scientists. Stanford professor Burton Richter, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Physics, has accused Susskind of having "given up" on the effort to find a theory that explains all the properties of fundamental particles and forces, bringing to an end the "reductionist voyage that has taken physics so far."


then some jem spun spin......

Susskind is where the state of physics is right now that is where the best minds are. He's saying hey if ours is the only universe - wow it does look designed. String theory proves the anthropic principle is true. Everyone including Richter knows the universe must be fine tuned.

Would you not directly question that simplistic bullshit? Or would you prefer to swap quotes with just more pre-formed personalized false conclusions attached to them. So far all you have done is to produce the latter.


Wanting to sound authoritative you’re making yourself look silly. "Go read Hawking" "Check out the anthropic principle in wikipedia - and do the research."
Yet if one should do that, without adding some jem spin to it, it can be plainly seen you do not know what you are talking about. But then again, should some 'research' in wikipedia be against your own presumption, then it is "out of date" or just wrong. wikipedia ok it seems, just as long as it fits with your own pre-conclusions.


Then there is the sheer dishonesty and mindlessness in your posts which are only desperately trying to use science to fit God between the gaps that science has not yet done answering ....


First you say this before anything to do with religion is mentioned....

Quote from jem:
If you really understand what the best minds in physics are saying - it is this ......

"Hey we know that is screwy but otherwise we have to admit some entity designed this universe which we cant do - we are faith based atheists."

followed immediately by this....

Quote from jem:
" Check out the Irony here. A faith based atheist criticising scientific arguments by trying to associate them with religion and throwing in a little Catholic bashing. When religion was not even mentioned."

You first mention it then you say it was not mentioned. Well done.



So here ya go jem, lets see what a quote will do to help in your use of jem spun pseudo-science religiously flavored arguments.....

"Religious figures, on the other hand, abhor Susskind's views because they contradict the idea that God created the universe. The Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christof Schonborn, wrote in The New York Times that the multiverse hypothesis was "invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science."

You are defending Susskind and string theory against the church. Now check that for irony.


Oh and one more thing, that strightforward question I asked you in my previous post. Any ideas?

By your usual method you will want a quote to doctor around from something you find in wikipeadia or on the netweb, although I must say I think 2cents has already rather conclusively covered all the angles on that.

Ah but, you don't like dealing with the actual substance of what you say do you? Better to stay quiet before you do your credibility anymore damage- as if that were possible. Lest you throw another fit of abuse.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

What you do not like jem, is to be pinned down to specifically explain the misrepresented material which is already your claim .
You display a preference for grabbing quotes and spinning them to fit your own tune as you have done in this thread, but when called to account , that is when you get to throw a fit.


Your noises are all about being able to argue back & forth by matching quotes of which you have already made or altered any conclusions to your own personal interpretation. To start out with a false argument. So long as no one tries nails you on the substance of your misrepresentation, you are happy .


Here I will show you what you are doing with a few simple examples .....

Here is Susskind talking to National Science :

"To me the whole thing does not look like the product of an elegant mathematical theory," said Susskind. "It doesn't look like beautiful numbers like e or pi or v2; it looks like a Rube Goldberg machine! It looks like something that was designed by a rather poor engineer for some purpose. It works, but it's hardly elegant."

Now to apply some jem type home spun spin to it.....

here is an honest man telling how he feels about the universe and letting ID'ers down gently. Obviously the best minds in physics have concluded there is no designer so they are actually describing how bad design is no design.

There is enough false argument in there to fill a black hole , but were it your argument and should anyone try to question you on it, you would get very stroppy very quickly .


Here's another...
National Science again ......

In fact, Susskind's theories have drawn the ire of some prominent scientists. Stanford professor Burton Richter, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Physics, has accused Susskind of having "given up" on the effort to find a theory that explains all the properties of fundamental particles and forces, bringing to an end the "reductionist voyage that has taken physics so far."


then some jem spun spin......

Susskind is where the state of physics is right now that is where the best minds are. He's saying hey if ours is the only universe - wow it does look designed. String theory proves the anthropic principle is true. Everyone including Richter knows the universe must be fine tuned.

Would you not directly question that simplistic bullshit? Or would you prefer to swap quotes with just more pre-formed personalized false conclusions attached to them. So far all you have done is to produce the latter.


Wanting to sound authoritative you’re making yourself look silly. "Go read Hawking" "Check out the anthropic principle in wikipedia - and do the research."
Yet if one should do that, without adding some jem spin to it, it can be plainly seen you do not know what you are talking about. But then again, should some 'research' in wikipedia be against your own presumption, then it is "out of date" or just wrong. wikipedia ok it seems, just as long as it fits with your own pre-conclusions.


Then there is the sheer dishonesty and mindlessness in your posts which are only desperately trying to use science to fit God between the gaps that science has not yet done answering ....


First you say this before anything to do with religion is mentioned....

Quote from jem:
If you really understand what the best minds in physics are saying - it is this ......

"Hey we know that is screwy but otherwise we have to admit some entity designed this universe which we cant do - we are faith based atheists."

followed immediately by this....

Quote from jem:
" Check out the Irony here. A faith based atheist criticising scientific arguments by trying to associate them with religion and throwing in a little Catholic bashing. When religion was not even mentioned."

You first mention it then you say it was not mentioned. Well done.



So here ya go jem, lets see what a quote will do to help in your use of jem spun pseudo-science religiously flavored arguments.....

"Religious figures, on the other hand, abhor Susskind's views because they contradict the idea that God created the universe. The Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christof Schonborn, wrote in The New York Times that the multiverse hypothesis was "invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science."

You are defending Susskind and string theory against the church. Now check that for irony.


Oh and one more thing, that strightforward question I asked you in my previous post. Any ideas?

By your usual method you will want a quote to doctor around from something you find in wikipeadia or on the netweb, although I must say I think 2cents has already rather conclusively covered all the angles on that.

Ah but, you don't like dealing with the actual substance of what you say do you? Better to stay quiet before you do your credibility anymore damage- as if that were possible. Lest you throw another fit of abuse.

Stu - I mean axeman -- is that what your you call a debate - mostly irrelvant quotes and lies about what I posted.


--
warning irrelevent relgious argument below --

First Stu - I do not agree with the Catholic Chruch on everything nor does the church say that I should. If you were actually watching what was going on in the papers some Cardinals were lining up on one side and some on the other side in recent debates abou physics.

Secondly in general a Catholic (by the way I go to Catholic Church for Communion but I will not say I am Catholic until they drive the filthy stench of the molesting priests and supporting bishops out.) is only supposed to fall in line with the church on matters of faith in morals in which the church declares itself or the pope infallible. ( I know of about 8 examples of such declarations).

So no irony there. Beside I think in this matter the Cardinal might be right. You clearly have not grasped the material or my arguments.



Next - you absolutely brought religion into play in your post. I think you mentioned something about the Pope.
You are a disingenuous liar.


=
warning response to irrelevant attemp at an argument about physics, below.


next- of course, the universe is not elegant to an atheist physicist who has not figured out how to unify the mathmatics. String theory is about as inelegant a concept as I could conceive after quantum physics. Why do you think Einstein said God doesn't throw dice. When and if they derive a unified field theory (or I think now they have problems with Gravity weak and strong) I am sure they will see the Universe as elegant.

----

warning -- non response to a big juvnile waste of time arguments below


Now Stu since the rest of your crap is even more misrepresentative of my work - why don't you try - refuting my points or mr. Susskinds point about physics.

----

warning
attempt to get STU to respond to the point below


RIGHT NOW THE BEST MINDS IN PHYSICS SAY THAT YOU MUST EITHER BELIEVE WE HAVE TRILLIONS OF MULITPLE UNIVERSES OR WE HAVE ONE UNIVERSE THAT SCIECNE CURRENLTY SAY LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DESIGNED.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from jem:


RIGHT NOW THE BEST MINDS IN PHYSICS SAY THAT YOU MUST EITHER BELIEVE WE HAVE TRILLIONS OF MULITPLE UNIVERSES OR WE HAVE ONE UNIVERSE THAT SCIECNE CURRENLTY SAY LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DESIGNED.

interesting....trillions would leam more towards chance and one would lean more towards design...no?

 

[jem]

Quote from ElCubano:

interesting....trillions would leam more towards chance and one would lean more towards design...no?

yes senor cubano - you get the gist of this argument in one sentence.