Quote from jem:
The overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists would have no opinion as to a TOE or Creator. In fact with discovery of the big bang... you could say the faith of scientists change from... the eternal universe to perhaps a creator because the universe had a beginning. When scientist found the background radiation consistent with the big bang... that was a very tough day for eternal universe people. Weinberg was once an eternal universe guy. But the scientific evidence helped pull him off that theory.
You realize you have faith your statement above is correct... Weinberg discussed that in the video...he said we may never find proof that the universe is the way it is (the theory of everything) and weinberg said even if we were to find that the universe is the way it is for natural reasons... that just takes it back part of the way. it does not explain why the universe is the way it is.
Quote from futurecurrents:
What's a TOE ?
A creator? The majority of scientists, and the VAST majority of scientists who matter in this discussion are atheists so I don't think they think there is a creator. Nor do they think there was nothing before the big bang. They simply admit they don't and can't ever know. That knowledge is over the horizon.
Quote from jem:
1. you ignoramus...
he is speculating --- it's possible that would be explained in a way that has nothing to do with the multiverse...
but that is not even a theory... and according to weinberg neither is the mulitiverse.... its just speculation....
at the moment there is no explanation for the appearance of fine tuning with respect to dark energy....
listen to what he says at 3:40 in the video you provided.
2. As I have stated a prerequisite for the Top down approach is the multiverse.... otherwise there would be only one universe and no other universes to proceed from top down.
Not sure what your point is... I do not think you understand the subject matter.
Are you stating hawking was not using a top down approach coupled with the multiverse to suggest that gravity might select the universe you are observing?
3. With respect to explanations of why the universe may appear to be fine tuned -- do you Stu, have any non speculative explanations for the appearance of fine tuning of dark energy?
Quote from jem:
Here is a primer, with an important point made in the sentence halfway down discussing the theory of everything. Note, it fits hand and glove with hawking paper I was citing. In fact if you understand this... you would see hawling or somebody would be compelled to create a top down model of the universe to explain the fine tunings... because even multiverse would not be enough.
"In the late 1990s, it was noted that one problem with several of the candidates for theories of everything (but particularly string theory) was that they did not constrain the characteristics of the predicted universe. For example, many theories of quantum gravity can create universes with arbitrary numbers of dimensions or with arbitrary cosmological constants. Even the "standard" ten-dimensional string theory allows the "curled up" dimensions to be compactified in an enormous number of different ways (one estimate is 10500 ) each of which corresponds to a different collection of fundamental particles and low-energy forces. This array of theories is known as the string theory landscape.
A speculative solution is that many or all of these possibilities are realised in one or another of a huge number of universes, but that only a small number of them are habitable, and hence the fundamental constants of the universe are ultimately the result of the anthropic principle rather than a consequence of the theory of everything. This anthropic approach is often criticised[9] in that, because the theory is flexible enough to encompass almost any observation, it cannot make useful (i.e., original, falsifiable, and verifiable) predictions. In this view, string theory would be considered a pseudoscience, where an unfalsifiable theory is constantly adapted to fit the experimental results."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
In you understand this you would also understand that virtually everything stu has been saying is a deceitful misrepresentation. Because I know Stu is smart enough to understand this.
Quote from stu:
1.
You have described Steven Weinberg as a great scientist. So this great scientist has said,
On one constant in particular which needs much more information than the others , he says about that - it's possible the appearance of 'fine tuning' can be answered without a multiverse explanation .
- "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature."
If this was in Court a chief witness YOU called is an unfriendly one. Always was, and you should never have called him if you wanted the hear the truth of what he actually states.
He's removed all your 'fine tuning' from the natural constants but one, and even on that he sees the possibility it could be explained without a multiverse, the thing YOU keep trolling out as the only alternative.
It's no good you saying he's a great scientist when your chopping him off in mid sentence to create an appearance (how ironic) that he's saying something he isn't, only to suggest the next minute the same great scientist is only speculating. Seems he's speculating when you don't like the upshot of what he's saying.
2.
a. Do you even know what the top down approach means?
b. You obviously don't know top down suggests all or many initial histories (superimposition) and does NOT necessitate the multiverse.
That's what comes of trying to be a smart ass reading only small bites from papers that simply sound like they might fit with what you want to believe.
3.
What I have are justifiable scientific explanations rather than the sheer fantasy bullshit of misinformation and imaginary creators you delude yourself with.
Come on, you can do better...
on second thought you probably can't.
Quote from jem:
1. why dont you provide us with in context links to these statements.
we already did this with weinberg... go to 4 mins 30 seconds on your video.
2. Luckily this is pretty easy to figure out... even for a liar like you. I suggest you go to the first sentence of his paper... I quote it here for you...
"We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions."
Stu... do you know what string landscape is... hint... read the wikipedia quote I presented above. It tells you what the string landscape is... and pretty mush shows you why somebody had to augment it with a top down type approach. In fact the strong landscape is those curled up dimensions... Susskind proposed this theory about those curled up 10 to the 500 possible solutions... could all be real universes. ... We argued about it for years. You were totally fucking wrong... all along.
3. try science instead of emotion... you might learn something. Try reading hawkings paper... which I presented a few pages ago.
Quote from jem:
Stu you truly are a lying troll. Nothing you say is accurate. I taught you all those questions...
Here is the last paragraph of Hawkings paper... showing you to be an extreme fool.
you are such a fricken tool, Hawking states that in his top down cosmology the question selects the previous tree of universes. How could you not need more than one universe. That is the whole point of his paper... he proposes the are no initial boundry conditions and the question selects the line of univereses you are in.
Which is why he can say gravity causes the universe. If you are in the universes with gravity like ours as you go back in time gravity sort of selects where in the amplitude your initial state was.
It is really out of control how ignorant you pretend to be to support your lies.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different viewof cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique,
observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up approach, where one assumes there is a single history with a well defined starting point and evolution. Our comparison with eternal inflation provides a clear illustration of
this. In a cosmology based on eternal inflation there is only one universe with a fractal structure at late times, whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous, but with different values for various effective coupling constants.
Quote from stu:
Just let me decipher that bullshit....
- <strike> Stu you truly are a lying troll. Nothing you say is accurate. I taught you all those questions...</strike>
Here is the last paragraph of Hawkings paper...<strike> showing you to be an extreme fool.</strike>
<strike>you are such a fricken tool,</strike> Hawking states that in his top down cosmology the question selects the previous tree of universes. How could you not need more than one universe. That is the whole point of his paper... he proposes the are no initial boundry conditions and the question selects the line of univereses you are in.
Which is why he can say gravity causes the universe. If you are in the universes with gravity like ours as you go back in time gravity sort of selects where in the amplitude your initial state was.
<strike>It is really out of control how ignorant you pretend to be to support your lies.</strike>
It's hard to envisage how you could be more wrong. If you'd answered my questions, looked up the answers, and thereby tried to understand what was actually being said.... ah, but then you wouldn't need to rant in defence of that illogical creator of yours.
Steven Hawking's top down cosmology proposes how the universe, one universe, began in every way possible.
In top-down cosmology he fundamentally describes how there was no one unique beginning to the universe; not that there were many separate universes at the beginning.
It's basically that all initial histories, all and any natural physical beginnings to the universe are possible.
Explained by wave function, the state in which there is every means for the universe to develop - being present all at once.
A basic principle of quantum mechanics (quantum superposition) where a physical system exists in all possible ways, yet when observed, can only be measured in one of them. That's not about multitudinous systems. Likewise top-down is not about infinite universes.
So the one universe experiences every possible start or beginning, but only one universe can be observed. That's this one. It thereby addresses the anthropic element.
This view isn't string theory as you seem to imagine. It fits with string theory. Neither is it about a multiverse. It doesn't invoke a multiverse.
Top-down doesn't help your idea that every speculation is equal to one particularly absurd speculation of a divine creator.
The only ingredient necessary here for a universe like this one to exist in Hawking's top-down is Gravity and the "path of least resistance" being a resultant observable universe, or not at all.
I asked you what those words meant in scientific terms. I suggest you go away and research the answers but this time, not to some theological website though, which will tell you only what you would like them to mean by inserting the word God into everything.
Then you might start to get a clue, although I wouldn't bet on it.