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.
Revelation is starting to make some sense..
- Thread starter Fractals 'R Us
- Start date
For years I have been saying top scientists say our universe appears fine tuned....
Hawking plainly states our universe is extremely fine tuned.
"The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned."
He then speculates about the cause.
He does not state there are infinite universes and gravity created the one we are in. He speculates that could be an answer.
Even you are not stupid enough or troll enough to say we have proof of alternate universes.
======
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.
Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatââ¬ânow the entire observable universeââ¬âis just one of many.
Hawking plainly states our universe is extremely fine tuned.
"The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned."
He then speculates about the cause.
He does not state there are infinite universes and gravity created the one we are in. He speculates that could be an answer.
Even you are not stupid enough or troll enough to say we have proof of alternate universes.
======
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.
Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatââ¬ânow the entire observable universeââ¬âis just one of many.
Quote from stu:
Yes, that's what he really said, in context. You're either pleading to his authority or you are not.
You want to say he does confirm your "fine tuning" when he doesn't, and doesn't confirm gravity is the reason for the universe when he does.
Typical creationist confusion.
"our universe appears fine tuned" is by definition, a speculative statement. None of your top scientists are saying "the universe is fine tuned"Quote from jem:
For years I have been saying top scientists say our universe appears fine tuned....
In fact they are saying quite the opposite.
yet you ignore the fact that he states even more plainly.... "That is not the answer of modern science."Quote from jem:
Hawking plainly states our universe is extremely fine tuned.
He's your appeal to authority. He is either speculating or he is not.Quote from jem:
He then speculates about the cause.
He does not state there are infinite universes and gravity created the one we are in. He speculates that could be an answer.
"The universe appears fine tuned " is speculation. If the rest is speculation too, then really, wtf is your argument exactly?
He states even more plainly ...
- "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Exactly why have you been cutting and pasting great globs of text for years that don't even support what you say they do is anyone's guess.
There you go distorting science and scientists again.
Hawking stated our system is extremely fine tuned.
"The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences?"
That does not appear to be speculation on Hawking's part.
When you understand higgs boson was predicted and found by taking 20 constants to 32 places... you can not deny the fine tuned nature of our universe. You would have brilliant (and we know you are not a brilliant physicist) and off your rocker or a bozo to make such a claim.
But you can ask what is responsible for the fine tuning.
lets pin your bullshit down.
Does Hawking say this:
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.
..
so what does hawking say about the laws of gravity.
That they allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing
or
that they did actually create a universe spontaneously from nothing.
..
And you are damn right I cite Hawking as I have dozens of other top scientists in the field who have stated that our universe appears designed. Why to I do that because I simply state many top scientists state our universe appears designed.
You are the emotional atheist who can not even acknowledge a simple fact.
Hawking stated our system is extremely fine tuned.
"The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences?"
That does not appear to be speculation on Hawking's part.
When you understand higgs boson was predicted and found by taking 20 constants to 32 places... you can not deny the fine tuned nature of our universe. You would have brilliant (and we know you are not a brilliant physicist) and off your rocker or a bozo to make such a claim.
But you can ask what is responsible for the fine tuning.
lets pin your bullshit down.
Does Hawking say this:
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.
..
so what does hawking say about the laws of gravity.
That they allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing
or
that they did actually create a universe spontaneously from nothing.
..
And you are damn right I cite Hawking as I have dozens of other top scientists in the field who have stated that our universe appears designed. Why to I do that because I simply state many top scientists state our universe appears designed.
You are the emotional atheist who can not even acknowledge a simple fact.
Once again stu... before you lie...
understand... this paper is what the book was about.
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 cosmologyâs 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.
understand... this paper is what the book was about.
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 cosmologyâs 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.
Well if that is not speculation, you've just shown Hawking is not speculating about what's being called "extremely fine-tuned". It is no more than a coincidence.Quote from jem:
"The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences?"
That does not appear to be speculation on Hawking's part.
The whole nine yards right there.. The laws of gravity and quantum theory are all that is required for this coincidence to appear.
So by the same token it does not appear to be speculation on Hawking's part.....
- "As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
A universe and its so called fine tuning from nothing, therefore inevitable through coincidence.
Why do you keep putting up stuff that refutes your own assertions.
Hawking is the authority you are pleading to.Quote from jem:
But you can ask what is responsible for the fine tuning.
You say he doesn't appear to be speculating.
He isn't speculating then when he states it is the coincidence of the laws of gravity and quantum theory (The laws of nature) are responsible for the universe and the other coincidence, which is the so called fine-tuning.
Circular reasoning is right because circular reasoning is right because......dear me Jem you get worse.Quote from jem:
And you are damn right I cite Hawking as I have dozens of other top scientists in the field who have stated that our universe appears designed. Why to I do that because I simply state many top scientists state our universe appears designed.
Stephen Hawking illustrates how any design is copyright and patent belonging to a what he states are coincidences of The laws of nature (quantum gravity), and any seeming appearances of so called "fine-tuning", which again he states is a coincidence.
More like you simplistically state the universe appears designed and attempt to make scientists say things they don't about it for no other reason that you want to support your personal non-rational religious beliefs for the imaginary god-designer.
But stu, we have to admit that further back than the big bang we cannot know. Perhaps God lit the fuse. Of course, since then he has had no input whatsoever.
It's like God is a deadbeat dad.
It's like God is a deadbeat dad.
since you just completely misrepresented what Hawking was explaining...
you clearly do not understand the difference between speculation or even theory and fact.
Everything Hawking states about alternative universes and gravity being sufficient -- is theory.
A theory which could explain the extreme fine tunings.
He does not state gravity caused the big bang... he is saying that within a certain framework... if it existed... gravity would select our history.
you clearly do not understand the difference between speculation or even theory and fact.
Everything Hawking states about alternative universes and gravity being sufficient -- is theory.
A theory which could explain the extreme fine tunings.
He does not state gravity caused the big bang... he is saying that within a certain framework... if it existed... gravity would select our history.
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 cosmologyâs 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.
Indeed.Quote from futurecurrents:
But stu, we have to admit that further back than the big bang we cannot know. Perhaps God lit the fuse. Of course, since then he has had no input whatsoever.
It's like God is a deadbeat dad.
The laws of physics are all that is required to create the universe.
So big bang need only have occurred as the result of natural laws. A consequence, a coincidence of them. Scientifically it's all that's required.
The term fine tuning of the universe is nothing but an idiomatic expression for values, which are not some other values, due to natural laws. The Laws of physics.
The big question is, how exactly the laws of physics are what they are and do what they do in every respect.
That's the tiny gap where god is now obliged to sit after being found to be as necessary in creating the universe, or fiddling about with it, as the Spaghetti monster is.
Jem being in a state of permanent denial and confusion of it all, chooses to wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent everything as a form of perverse argument for divine intervention by constantly asserting such and such scientists say one thing, when it's clear scientists are actually saying something else altogether.
A duplicitous imaginary designer, where real and natural laws have already done any designing.
the question is why are those laws so extremely fine tuned.
by the way you are misrepresenting.
the laws have not been found to be the only thing required.
There was a very strong criticism of the multiverse explanation for the fine tuning.
The critique was claiming anything and everything could happen is not a scientific explanation.
So Hawking and his co author created a theory...
A theory to explain how it is that you can make predictions in our universe.
The theory is called top down cosmology.
And in it the laws of our universe self selected our history.
So hawking can claim gravity created a universe in a sense.
Its is all unsupported conjecture and takes more faith than a Tuner.
by the way you are misrepresenting.
the laws have not been found to be the only thing required.
There was a very strong criticism of the multiverse explanation for the fine tuning.
The critique was claiming anything and everything could happen is not a scientific explanation.
So Hawking and his co author created a theory...
A theory to explain how it is that you can make predictions in our universe.
The theory is called top down cosmology.
And in it the laws of our universe self selected our history.
So hawking can claim gravity created a universe in a sense.
Its is all unsupported conjecture and takes more faith than a Tuner.
Quote from stu:
Indeed.
The laws of physics are all that is required to create the universe.
So big bang need only have occurred as the result of natural laws. A consequence, a coincidence of them. Scientifically it's all that's required.
The term fine tuning of the universe is nothing but an idiomatic expression for values, which are not some other values, due to natural laws. The Laws of physics.
The big question is, how exactly the laws of physics are what they are and do what they do in every respect.
That's the tiny gap where god is now obliged to sit after being found to be as necessary in creating the universe, or fiddling about with it, as the Spaghetti monster is.
Jem being in a state of permanent denial and confusion of it all, chooses to wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent everything as a form of perverse argument for divine intervention by constantly asserting such and such scientists say one thing, when it's clear scientists are actually saying something else altogether.
A duplicitous imaginary designer, where real and natural laws have already done any designing.