Revelation is starting to make some sense..

[jem]

answer ---

theoretical speculation by Hawking... from his book...which discussed the contents of this paper...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

which discusses the fine tuning of our universe and how it can be explained.
...

In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. 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 [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

Quote from stu:

Here's a proper one for you then...

• "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."

 

[jem]

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3370256&highlight=gravity#post3370256

Quote from stu:

...
Appearances of fine tuning won't do. There is no science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it.
That'll be why misrepresenting what's actually being said will be all you know about it.


and this was a quote after being presented with overwhelming scientific evidence including quotes from nobel prize winners... on the appearance of fine tuning....

Quote from stu:



...There is only an appearance of tuning.
He has already said the laws of physics, particularly gravity with no need for anything else, explains why there is a universe.
...

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

answer ---

Side stepping into a different issue is no answer. That's the thing. You have no answer.

So you troll up something you can extrapolate twisted and confused conclusions from to show yet again how you really don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
All goes to exhibit how little you understand about any of this.



From what you call " a great minds of science", the circumstances couldn't be less ambiguous or more crystal.

• "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking

I suggest you might try repeating that a few hundred times instead of the crap you repeat post hundreds of times over.

 

[stu]

There is no science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it.
There is only an appearance of tuning.


Both are true statements. What can't you understand? Perhaps it is English comprehension itself you're struggling with.

Quote from jem:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3370256&highlight=gravity#post3370256

Quote from stu:
...
Appearances of fine tuning won't do. There is no science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it.
That'll be why misrepresenting what's actually being said will be all you know about it.

and this was a quote after being presented with overwhelming scientific evidence including quotes from nobel prize winners... on the appearance of fine tuning....

Quote from stu:

...There is only an appearance of tuning.
He has already said the laws of physics, particularly gravity with no need for anything else, explains why there is a universe.
...

 

[jem]

stu tells us there is no science
hawking tells us this...
once again its stu against science

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

...

In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. 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 [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

hawking tells us this...

• "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking

That's perfectly clear.
Looks like it's you who's actually "against science" Jem.

 

[stu]

• "The universe’s initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe’s "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse." Stephen Hawking

So then.....

many possible initial conditions....

only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today

it is inevitable that we find the universe’s "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions

(the ones that can pertain do pertain...so right there is the natural selection you couldn't understand a few pages ago)

all of which would explain any so called "fine tunings"...

and without a multiverse too, which again as you show in other threads, you can't say what is in scientific terms meant by the word, but rather what you can wrongly attribute to it.

Top down cosmology.
Are YOU going to argue against the authority you've been pleading to ?

Oh no wait, the authority you've been pleading are deadbeat conclusions drawn from only part of what those scientists are saying, so you can purposely misrepresent what they actually do say.

Quote from jem:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...

In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. 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 [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from stu:

There is no science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it.
There is only an appearance of tuning.


Both are true statements. What can't you understand? Perhaps it is English comprehension itself you're struggling with.

Is there even any reason to read jem's posts anymore? It's like listening to the homeless guys talking to themselves. Or you show them where the men's room is and they still piss in the corner.

 

[stu]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Is there even any reason to read jem's posts anymore? It's like listening to the homeless guys talking to themselves. Or you show them where the men's room is and they still piss in the corner.

Very good question fc

 

[jem]

you know damn well... those quotes are a theoretical explanation for the fine tuning of our universe. In fact they are conjecture.

Are you too stupid to tell the truth or are you too fraudulent.


here is the intro to the paper.

you might with to pay attention to the part where they explain this is a theory and outlines a test for it.

----
We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the
observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape,
and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model
landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe.
Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also
discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other approaches
to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation.