If you watch the video... Susskind explained the razor edge fine tuning of the cosmological constant.
Susskind then explains there can be 4 explanations of the fine tuning.
Not only are you a liar for implying those statements or inconsistent...
you do not realize that it is possible that we have a multiverse and still have Creator, a theory of everything and still have a Creator...
and it is also possible we got here by random chance and still have a Creator...
Science does not have enough info to rule out a Creator... everyone with brain understands that.
That you could try and distort realize to support your rabid atheist beliefs is twisted.
Stu... lies as much as you wish... science is at best agnostic not atheist as to a Creator. And science has been finding more an more support for a Creator...
...
1. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
from the hawking and hartle paper...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
2. "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:
The two are incompatible.
My first statement is true. The second you own and it is not true.
Now you've even started lying to yourself.
It's all about god with you. It's all you're ever trying on is to do with bs god behind everything suggestions, like this one you've just repeated for the umpteenth time ...
Quote from jem:
" here is [Susskind] tells you God is one of the 4 explanations for the razors edge fine tuning"
There is no known existence of fine tunings. Only a description that asserts a highly dubious and questionable appearance.
I have denied no such doubtful appearance. Neither do I deny the doubtful appearance of a flat Earth. Why would anyone deny that. Nevertheless, the Earth is not flat.
Dancing around the words designed and fine tuning to suggest they are consistent with the idea of a Creator is nothing to do with science at all, but everything to do with some very weird wishful thinking.
Now you say he has no opinion about what caused it all , yet you've just been trying again to refer to what you say was his opinion in the form of 4 explanations about what caused it all , one of which he graciously allowed God in for a brief second.
Your absurd irrational nonsense knows no bounds.
