Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

[stu]

Quote from jem:
1. its stu against the written word of hawking.

The written word of Hawking it is then....

"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."

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Quote from jem:

Hawking says this in the end of the paper quote...

"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."

So what do you imagine Stephen Hawking means by .."one envisions a set of alternative universes"..?

You’re the dictionary dictator, so you should practice what you preach and accept without question the dictionary meaning of the word universe which is - everything that exists everywhere.
So ask yourself in that case, what is it Hawking is getting at by including the word envisioned here? A multiple -everything that exists everywhere- can't be right. Could you possibly bring yourself to consider you're missing something ?
No of course not, you'd never be able to do that.
Hawking, like God, only means what you want him to.

"A central idea that underlies the top down approach is the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe. In top down cosmology, the structure and complexity of alternative universes in the landscape is predictable from first principles to some extent, but also determined by the outcome of quantum accidents over the course of their histories."

... so these "alternative universes" in string theory are the quantum state of all alternative histories for the universe.
Oh and don’t forget the written word of Hawking. The top down proposal says the universe is …
"the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe."

Quote from jem:

2. Stu you got the entire point of the paper incorrect. Hawkings paper is multiverse coupled with a top down approach.

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.

Lol.
What multiverse.

Quote from jem:
3. Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape,
based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum
sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally
leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the
universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision
a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no
boundary path integral [13].

So?
Like I said earlier, string theory is not sufficiently falsifiable. Hawking is proposing the top down approach is a better way to take it further.

No divine creator in this anywhere. Pathetic how you're always trying to stuff one in.

 

[jem]

That has to be the most useless piece of garbage I have seen from you in 24 hours.


1. Envisioned is used by Hawking because he is honest.
He has no proof there are other universes or histories.
Its just speculation, Penrose said it does not even qualify as a theory.
As of now there is no way to show there is another universe or history.


2. "A central idea that underlies the top down approach is the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe. In top down cosmology, the structure and complexity of alternative universes in the landscape is predictable from first principles to some extent, but also determined by the outcome of quantum accidents over the course of their histories."

---
answer... taken down to an elementary level for you stu....

This is the model Hawking uses to try and turn the speculative pseudo science of the multiverse into a theory. (recall many scientists including Penrose have called the multiverse. less than a theory. We have presented videos on this subject, including the one you posted from Weinberg in which he says the multiverse is not up to the level of theory.)

The multiverse explains the fine tunings of our universe by saying almost everything can happen in some universe, we just happen to be in the lucky universe.

That is not really a theory, because such an idea can not be used to predict results. Everything happens in an almost infinite amount of universes)

So Hawking's (and co author) mental workaround suggests you could make predictions if you have a multiverse coupled with a top down approach.

in a multiverse coupled with a top down approach we can sum up outcomes of quantum accidents (and considering first principles), we can make predictions and do experiments which have meaning.

---

Note... we are all very lucky that the sums of the quantum histories are just like the results we get with the bottom up approach -- in ONE finely tuned universe.

Quote from stu:

The written word of Hawking it is then....

"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."

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."



So what do you imagine Stephen Hawking means by .."one envisions a set of alternative universes"..?

You’re the dictionary dictator, so you should practice what you preach and accept without question the dictionary meaning of the word universe which is - everything that exists everywhere.
So ask yourself in that case, what is it Hawking is getting at by including the word envisioned here? A multiple -everything that exists everywhere- can't be right. Could you possibly bring yourself to consider you're missing something ?
No of course not, you'd never be able to do that.
Hawking, like God, only means what you want him to.

"A central idea that underlies the top down approach is the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe. In top down cosmology, the structure and complexity of alternative universes in the landscape is predictable from first principles to some extent, but also determined by the outcome of quantum accidents over the course of their histories."

... so these "alternative universes" are the quantum state of all alternative histories for the universe.
Oh and don’t forget the written word of Hawking. The top down proposal says the universe is …
"the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe."


Lol.
What multiverse.


So?
Like I said earlier, string theory is not sufficiently falsifiable. Hawking is proposing the top down approach is a better way to take it further.

No divine creator in this anywhere. Pathetic how you're always trying to stuff one in.

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:


---
Note... we are all very lucky that the sums of the quantum histories are just like the results we get with the bottom up approach -- in ONE finely tuned universe.

Question... isn't it funny we are in a universe which always matches up perfectly with the sum of quantum histories?

What are the odds of that ?

Wouldn't that be a crazy fine tuning. What sort of "amplitudes" might we see in the sum of each quantum history of each constant? How about when we sum all those together. To be consistent with those all that time... That seems like it could be an off the charts big number. 10 to the what?

professor...

Good questions but in the top down model... because you asked the question you are now in the line of universes whose constants match up perfectly with the sum of quantum histories.

answer

Wow that is fortunate... I did not realize how close I was to wiping myself out by asking the wrong question.


I think luckily, therefore I am.
I question luckily therefore, I am.
I question unluckly therefore........ zap.

 

[futurecurrents]

So I guess jem is trying to say nearly all the top scientists in cosmology and physics think a God had a hand in the whole thing.

Of course, it's just the opposite.

You guys can stop the debate now.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

That has to be the most useless piece of garbage I have seen from you in 24 hours.


1. Envisioned is used by Hawking because he is honest.
He has no proof there are other universes or histories.
Its just speculation, Penrose said it does not even qualify as a theory.
As of now there is no way to show there is another universe or history.


2. "A central idea that underlies the top down approach is the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe. In top down cosmology, the structure and complexity of alternative universes in the landscape is predictable from first principles to some extent, but also determined by the outcome of quantum accidents over the course of their histories."

---
answer... taken down to an elementary level for you stu....

This is the model Hawking uses to try and turn the speculative pseudo science of the multiverse into a theory. (recall many scientists including Penrose have called the multiverse. less than a theory. We have presented videos on this subject, including the one you posted from Weinberg in which he says the multiverse is not up to the level of theory.)

The multiverse explains the fine tunings of our universe by saying almost everything can happen in some universe, we just happen to be in the lucky universe.

That is not really a theory, because such an idea can not be used to predict results. Everything happens in an almost infinite amount of universes)

So Hawking's (and co author) mental workaround suggests you could make predictions if you have a multiverse coupled with a top down approach.

in a multiverse coupled with a top down approach we can sum up outcomes of quantum accidents (and considering first principles), we can make predictions and do experiments which have meaning.

---

Note... we are all very lucky that the sums of the quantum histories are just like the results we get with the bottom up approach -- in ONE finely tuned universe.

Calling quantum mechanics and theoretical physics pseudoscience, is one of the endless reasons why your creator designer fine tuning God nonsense won't even make to up to the level of speculation.

The Weinberg vid?.. oh yes that... where he said "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."

 

[jem]

This is a comparison between a rabid et atheist and a true scientist who may be an atheist....

This is science as imagined by Hawking....

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.


This fraud and troll detritus as spewed by Stu...

"Calling quantum mechanics and theoretical physics pseudoscience, is one of the endless reasons why your creator designer fine tuning God nonsense won't even make to up to the level of speculation.

The Weinberg vid?.. oh yes that... where he said "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."

(nobody called quantum mechanics and theoretical physics pseudoscience. Other scientists quoted on et say multiverse is not even a scientific theory... and its not as weinberg said in the video and so has penrose.)

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
This is the model Hawking uses to try and turn the speculative pseudo science of the multiverse into a theory.

Quote from jem:
nobody called quantum mechanics and theoretical physics pseudoscience.

Science, physics, math, quantum mechanics suggest a Multiverse model. You call that "pseudo science"

At least try and get yourself and your own rubbish to agree with themselves.

Quote from jem:
This is science as imagined by Hawking....

Yes it is, and as he states, it's the science of Gravity not of God.

 

[Optional]

What a bunch of buffoons. 27 pages of virtually the same argument. I will side with Stu though, because a) Jem has misused the term troll about 500 times. And b) anyone who thinks there is a 'divine creator' is a religious nutter butter who is so brainwashed that there is simply no help for them.

PS. I believe in the Sun.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Optional:

What a bunch of buffoons. 27 pages of virtually the same argument. I will side with Stu though, because a) Jem has misused the term troll about 500 times. And b) anyone who thinks there is a 'divine creator' is a religious nutter butter who is so brainwashed that there is simply no help for them.

PS. I believe in the Sun.

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.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Science, physics, math, quantum mechanics suggest a Multiverse model. You call that "pseudo science"

At least try and get yourself and your own rubbish to agree with themselves.



Yes it is, and as he states, it's the science of Gravity not of God.

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.