Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

[jem]

1. we just covered this.
What is humorous... is that you cite your own bogus explanations as if they mean something. You have not explained anything.

2. What you have proposed is completely contradictory to an "envisioned ( because its speculation) alternate universes which are morel like homogeneous."

3. If i stated that that Obama thinks more deficit spending will fix the debt problem... you would argue that I want more deficit spending.
You are either a moron or a troll.

4. There is nothing inconsistent about Carr quotes and Hawkings. In fact they are very similar. You simply refuse to accept science.

I give it to you again... from Hawking and hartles paper.

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 - 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 jem:

1. Here is Hawking and Hartle on this subject -- alternate universes, likely homogenous. It could not be more clear, except to a bozo confused by different models.


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

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.

You are now arguing with another expert about what the expert wrote. Luckily we have cited the whole paper.


2. Here is Stu quoting me. Note that my comment about self selecting constants is dependent on being within the top down cosmology model. Yet stu will troll his ass of a few pages later taking only the second part of my statement out of context.

Quote from jem:
Hawkings solution is saying that in a top down cosmology we can make predictions because we can be assured that the constants in our universe sort of self selected those same (allowing conditions or) constants in the previous line of universes that got us here.

you are now arguing with a relative expert ( vs you) about what I wrote. Luckily I have quotes.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
1. we just covered this and you lie on the very next page.
What is humorous... is that you cite your own bogus explanations as if they mean something. You have not explained anything.

What IS humerous... is that you can't even agree with your own sentences. The thing is, you don't want any explanations that do away with all those tortured misrepresentations you keep repeating.

Quote from jem:
2. What you have proposed is completely contradictory to an envisioned ( because its speculation) alternate universes which are morel like homogeneous.

Envisioned does not mean speculation.

What have I proposed? You mean what your authority, Stephen Hawking has proposed!
You like quotes so here is one of Stephen Hawking's, explaining the very point.

"Some people make a great mystery of the multi universe, or the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory, but to me, these are just different expressions of the Feynman path integral."

That's the universe with not one single path, but all possible paths. All paths of the universe envisioned as " ..a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous,.."
That's what you called as authority, top down, states.
Using Feynman path integral does not call for a Multiverse. Reasons already given.

Quote from jem:
3. If i stated that that Obama thinks more deficit spending will fix the debt problem... you would argue that I want more deficit spending.
You are either a moron or a troll.

If you stated that Obama thinks more deficit spending will fix the debt problem... would you want to disagree with your Obama sentence straightaway, like you did with your self-selecting constants sentence?

Your frustration in not being able to hammer a creator into things is made unfailingly evident by the name calling you always stoop to.

 

[jem]

that was pure troll deteritus.


I respect hawkings model, even if I find it be a stretch. So I explained it accurately.
The difference between you and I is that I cite the scientists work in context.

regarding envisioned... it was used in the sense that he was taking his speculative model and contemplating or projecting... alternate homogeneous universes.

note try presenting your reasons with links to science not your own b.s.
you are jumbling eternal inflation models which prevent prediction with Hawkings and Hartles proposal... which allows prediction and calls for a multiverse with likely homogeneous universes.

Get your cosmology straight.... your explanations are garbage.





finally when giving quotes, how about presenting a link so we can see context. We have no problem believing hawking sees universes in terms of equations or path integrals. Cosmology for these guys is math.

Quote from stu:

What IS humerous... is that you can't even agree with your own sentences. The thing is, you don't want any explanations that do away with all those tortured misrepresentations you keep repeating.


Envisioned does not mean speculation.

What have I proposed? You mean what your authority, Stephen Hawking has proposed!
You like quotes so here is one of Stephen Hawking's, explaining the very point.

"Some people make a great mystery of the multi universe, or the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory, but to me, these are just different expressions of the Feynman path integral."

That's the universe with not one single path, but all possible paths. All paths of the universe envisioned as " ..a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous,.."
That's what you called as authority, top down, states.
Using Feynman path integral does not call for a Multiverse. Reasons already given.


If you stated that Obama thinks more deficit spending will fix the debt problem... would you want to disagree with your Obama sentence straightaway, like you did with your self-selecting constants sentence?

Your frustration in not being able to hammer a creator into things is made unfailingly evident by the name calling you always stoop to.

 

[jem]

I can see what Hawkings means about the path integral.

In fact... it answers the questions I posed to you a few pages ago.

hawking is comfortable with this curious speculation that everything is possible because essentially the path integral winds up matching up quite well with the classical realty we exist in.

In a way all this cosmology is just a back door way of saying although we pretend everything is happening or could be happening.... it all matches up well with our reality in this universe because we have math which regresses to our reality or now we are comfortable with a multiverse of homegeneous universes because our top down cosmology has math which yields results like our reality.

you know all this is a bunch of really smart guys dreaming up mathematical consistency for a multiverse.


I am beginning to sense all these guys are hoping to envision reality in there minds the way einstein did... but the problem is although they are really smart.... they are not einstein.

we wait and see if the hadron collider confirms any of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation
Classical action principles are puzzling because of their seemingly teleological quality: given a set of initial and final conditions one is able to find a unique path connecting them, as if the system somehow knows where it's going to end up and how it's going to get there. The path integral explains why this works in terms of quantum superposition. The system doesn't have to know in advance where it's going or what path it'll take: the path integral simply calculates the sum of the probability amplitudes for every possible path to any possible endpoint. After a long enough time, interference effects guarantee that only the contributions from the stationary points of the action give histories with appreciable probabilities.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I can see what Hawkings means about the path integral.

In fact... it answers the questions I posed to you a few pages ago.

hawking is comfortable with this curious speculation that everything is possible because essentially the path integral winds up matching up quite well with the classical realty we exist in.

In a way all this cosmology is just a back door way of saying although we pretend everything is happening or could be happening.... it all matches up well with our reality in this universe because we have math which regresses to our reality or now we are comfortable with a multiverse of homegeneous universes because our top down cosmology has math which yields results like our reality.

you know all this is a bunch of really smart guys dreaming up mathematical consistency for a multiverse.

I am beginning to sense all these guys are hoping to envision reality in there minds the way einstein did... but the problem is although they are really smart.... they are not einstein.

we wait and see if the hadron collider confirms any of this.

It's as if despite your belligerent, aggressive and arrogant manner, you slowly start to understand, whilst at the same time, get it all together wrong.
I'll put it down to religion just makes you weird overall.

Quote from jem:
I respect hawkings model, even if I find it be a stretch. So I explained it accurately.

I can see you find it a stretch. What I don't get is why you think not being able to explain it properly should allow you to imagine it is in any way reasonably justifiable to try and cram a creator/designer/tuner/god into it all.

Stephen Hawking says he does not recognize "the multi universe", so trying to say when he envisions a set of homogeneous universes...he is envisions a Multiverse, is completely contrary to what he said.

Your whole premise boils down to.. the Multiverse is pure speculation (it isn't). Hawking uses the Multiverse (he doesn't). As a creator/designer/tuner is speculation (doesn't even make it to speculation) then god is equally plausible. (It isn't)

It's the creationist's argument, unsupportable confused illogical dishonest.

Still, what you did find although apparently by mistake, are self-selecting constants. Small mercies at least.

 

[jem]

1. My point is our universe appears designed. (almost all of the top scientist agrees with this point.) You had been ignorantly arguing it does not. I presume you have been sufficiently disabused of your stupidity by now.

2. Then you ignorantly argued that a Tuner could not be responsible for the tuning. You were were wrong again.

view again...

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431



3. Now you are trying to say Hawkings didn't mean what he wrote but you refuse to provide links or support.

This is the only support we have seen on this subject. And it completely contradicts your argument.


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

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:

It's as if despite your belligerent, aggressive and arrogant manner, you slowly start to understand, whilst at the same time, get it all together wrong.
I'll put it down to religion just makes you weird overall.



I can see you find it a stretch. What I don't get is why you think not being able to explain it properly should allow you to imagine it is in any way reasonably justifiable to try and cram a creator/designer/tuner/god into it all.

Stephen Hawking says he does not recognize "the multi universe", so trying to say when he envisions a set of homogeneous universes...he is envisions a Multiverse, is completely contrary to what he said.

Your whole premise boils down to.. the Multiverse is pure speculation (it isn't). Hawking uses the Multiverse (he doesn't). As a creator/designer/tuner is speculation (doesn't even make it to speculation) then god is equally plausible. (It isn't)

It's the creationist's argument, unsupportable confused illogical dishonest.

Still, what you did find although apparently by mistake, are self-selecting constants. Small mercies at least.

 

[stu]

All answered, refuted and debunked. Supernatural suppositions are not science based. Your frantic desire to push them at science is just that, nothing more.

Quote from jem:
1. My point is our universe appears designed. (almost all of the top scientist agrees with this point.) You had been ignorantly arguing it does not. I presume you have been sufficiently disabused of your stupidity by now.

2. Then you ignorantly argued that a Tuner could not be responsible for the tuning. You were were wrong again.

view again...

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431

3. Now you are trying to say Hawkings didn't mean what he wrote but you refuse to provide links or support.

This is the only support we have seen on this subject. And it completely contradicts your argument.

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

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.

 

[jem]

You are a purposely playing the buffoon aren't you. That is a fine piece of irony and comedy.

The constants of our universe are natural. The appearance of fine tuning is scientific theory... The proposed explanations (absent observation or other proof) are all supernatural by definition... (at least all the ones we have been discussing... except perhaps luck.)

Multiverses or eternal inflation vacuaa - or different constants are all outside the observable universe.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Quote from stu:

All answered, refuted and debunked. Supernatural suppositions are not science based. Your frantic desire to push them at science is just that, nothing more.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
"You are a purposely playing the buffoon aren't you. That is a fine piece of irony and comedy."

...aren't you just. Though I'm not sure it's purposely in your case.

Quote from jem:
"The constants of our universe are natural."

Is this yet another sentence you didn't intend to write?
Something natural isn't subject to anything supernatural, like a so called 'Tuner' for instance.
If it were, it wouldn't be natural.

Quote from jem:
"The appearance of fine tuning is scientific theory"

The appearance of fine tuning is not scientific theory. Scientific theory is about establishing knowledge and fact about the universe behind any appearance.
Not instituting mere conjecture and unsubstantiated ideas about subjective appearances. That's what creationists do.

Quote from jem:
"The proposed explanations (absent observation or other proof) are all supernatural by definition"

In all your buffoonery, that will be a sentence you did intend to write.

Quote from jem:
"Multiverses or eternal inflation vacuaa - or different constants are all outside the observable universe."

Not enough science to support those assumptions.

But talking of scientific theory, the scientific theory of Special Inconstancy is real, whereas a scientific theory of fine tuning is not.
Special Inconstancy is based on the observation of spatial variation in the fundamental fine-structure constant. It points towards general inconstancy as a theory, whereby all fundamental cosmological physical constants might vary. It is seen as firm evidence how the constants would be environmentally dependant. Science based. Nothing supernatural.

In short, cosmic evolution.
That is going to sound a far more reliable proposition at any stage than the pretence of an unexplained mythical universe tuning god phantom.

 

[jem]

1. You last point is interesting... but it is complete conjecture.

In fact in the video you presented... Weinberg pretty much said its just an idea. He spoke that perhaps the cosmological constant may be approaching zero. but he noted it is just an idea. No proof. he may have even said no real theory.

2. The rest of your points are comical.

Now you just playing stupid games with the definition of natural. as if a Creator could not set up a universe to be consistent with multiverses if he so wished.
As if my point about the constants was not clear.

You have such knee jerk reaction to intelligence its funny. Oh don't dare say the universe could be created because in stu's troll world he goes nuts.

Wake up stu. Science does not deny a creator. Science has little to say about what happened before those fist split seconds after the big bang. It all becomes speculation.

3. Obviously what is scientific theory is always up for debate absent observation. Nothing you have proposed has been observed. At least the constants of a universe have been observed and measured.

If you wish to deny the constants are tuned for life... then go ahead and start citing experts with some other explanations.

I suggest you start with the Susskind video a few pages ago.

Quote from stu:

...aren't you just. Though I'm not sure it's purposely in your case.


Is this yet another sentence you didn't intend to write?
Something natural isn't subject to anything supernatural, like a so called 'Tuner' for instance.
If it were, it wouldn't be natural.


The appearance of fine tuning is not scientific theory. Scientific theory is about establishing knowledge and fact about the universe behind any appearance.
Not instituting mere conjecture and unsubstantiated ideas about subjective appearances. That's what creationists do.


In all your buffoonery, that will be a sentence you did intend to write.


Not enough science to support those assumptions.

But talking of scientific theory, the scientific theory of Special Inconstancy is real, whereas a scientific theory of fine tuning is not.
Special Inconstancy is based on the observation of spatial variation in the fundamental fine-structure constant. It points towards general inconstancy as a theory, whereby all fundamental cosmological physical constants might vary. It is seen as firm evidence how the constants would be environmentally dependant. Science based. Nothing supernatural.

In short, cosmic evolution.
That is going to sound a far more reliable proposition at any stage than the pretence of an unexplained mythical universe tuning god phantom.