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.
Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
"Although string theory resists translation into ordinary language, its central conceit boils down to this: All the different particles and forces in the universe are composed of wriggling strands of energy whose properties depend solely on the mode of their vibration. Understand the properties of those strands, the thinking once went, and you will understand why the universe is the way it is. Recent work, most notably by Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has dashed that hope. The latest version of string theory (now rechristened M-theory for reasons that even the founder of M-theory cannot explain) does not yield a single model of physics. Rather, it yields a gargantuan number of models: about 10 (to the) 500, give or take a few trillion.
Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10 (to the) 500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse.""
Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours. Furthermore, it is inevitable that we would find ourselves in a universe well suited to life, since life can arise only in those types of universes. This circular-sounding argument - that the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for human biology because otherwise we would not be here to see it - is known as the Anthropic Principle and is reviled by many cosmologists as a piece of vacuous sophistry. But if ours is just one of a near-infinite variety of universes, the Anthropic Principle starts to sound more reasonable, akin to saying that we find ourselves on Earth rather than on Jupiter because Earth has the mild temperatures and liquid water needed for our kind of life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10 (to the) 500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse.""
Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours. Furthermore, it is inevitable that we would find ourselves in a universe well suited to life, since life can arise only in those types of universes. This circular-sounding argument - that the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for human biology because otherwise we would not be here to see it - is known as the Anthropic Principle and is reviled by many cosmologists as a piece of vacuous sophistry. But if ours is just one of a near-infinite variety of universes, the Anthropic Principle starts to sound more reasonable, akin to saying that we find ourselves on Earth rather than on Jupiter because Earth has the mild temperatures and liquid water needed for our kind of life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
"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
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
Lol. You've been teaching? Don't make me laugh. Teaching yourself how to be idiotic maybe.Quote from jem:
no, completely wrong, they suggest there are 10 to the 500 possible solutions to how a universe could from using string theory.
it was susskind's complete speculation that they could all be real universes.
I have been teaching this to you for many years and you have been lying your ass off.
"speculative pseudo science of the multiverse" that's what you said.
The underlying structure for both string theory and multiverse is theoretical particle physics. They are scientific hypotheses and as such are based on hard science. Are you really trying to suggest otherwise?
You are always saying Hawking, Weinberg, Susskind, etc. are 'great minds of science'. Now all of a sudden you've decided Susskind's proposals "speculative pseudo science". Your arrogance is born of ignorance and it's all over the place as usual.
Still, there is no divine creator, intelligent designer God job in anything they do, say or suggest however much you misunderstand, misrepresent or wish there were.
It is clearly, quite the contrary.
Quote from jem:
"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
Still forming conclusion by wiki I see.
Anyone relying on the anthropic principle might as well just propose fairies and not bother with any science at all.
You know, like you are.
Stu still being an ignorant troll. Its the multiverse guys pushing the anthropic explanation.
You calling the multiverse real science is like saying saying the underlying science of warp travel is physics so warp travel is science.
There is no proof of even a single other universe. Its all speculation not scientific theory. You a fool for suggesting otherwise. Susskind does not claim it to be scientific theory... you do.
Weren't you the troll who claimed parts of our universe had different constants?
Were you not the troll who said we have plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.
You calling the multiverse real science is like saying saying the underlying science of warp travel is physics so warp travel is science.
There is no proof of even a single other universe. Its all speculation not scientific theory. You a fool for suggesting otherwise. Susskind does not claim it to be scientific theory... you do.
Weren't you the troll who claimed parts of our universe had different constants?
Were you not the troll who said we have plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.
Quote from stu:
Lol. You've been teaching? Don't make me laugh. Teaching yourself how to be idiotic maybe.
"speculative pseudo science of the multiverse" that's what you said.
The underlying structure for both string theory and multiverse is theoretical particle physics. They are scientific hypotheses and as such are based on hard science. Are you really trying to suggest otherwise?
You are always saying Hawking, Weinberg, Susskind, etc. are 'great minds of science'. Now all of a sudden you've decided Susskind's proposals "speculative pseudo science". Your arrogance is born of ignorance and it's all over the place as usual.
Still, there is no divine creator, intelligent designer God job in anything they do, say or suggest however much you misunderstand, misrepresent or wish there were.
It is clearly, quite the contrary.
Quote from bigarrow:
For some reason the back and forth between stu and jem is kinda fun to read.
Jem is nutty in his Jesus shit but other than that a good guy.
I'm sure they are both nice guys. Clearly articulate. But it's like watching 2 university professors debate semantics. It gets tiresome.
Quote from bigarrow:
Ah jem there isn't a shred of proof of a god, let alone the minimum of ten gods it would take to create the universe.
a. That the constants of our universe appear very finely tuned, is evidence of a Tuner. Its is not proof but it is evidence.
That is why Stu tries so hard to lie about the existence of the tunings, he has lost his argument that there is no evidence.
b. Its not semantics... I kept telling stu there is an appearance of fine tunings and stu keeps trying to change the meaning of words so he does not have to admit that an appearance of fine tuning is evidence of a Tuner.
Quote from jem:
a. That the constants of our universe appear very finely tuned, is evidence of a Tuner. Its is not proof but it is evidence.
That is why Stu tries so hard to lie about the existence of the tunings, he has lost his argument that there is no evidence.
b. Its not semantics... I kept telling stu there is an appearance of fine tunings and stu keeps trying to change the meaning of words so he does not have to admit that an appearance of fine tuning is evidence of a Tuner.
There is no evidence of tuning at all, none, nada, zip.
And please stop with the church trained semantics, say god. That's what you believe so say it, and it's really Jesus that you believe is god so just say you think Jesus made the universe.
But you are a diligent cuss, you know how to stay on point.
You might have a career coaching politicians or maybe a press secretary.