Quote from jem:
You are such the troll you do not realize you how ignorant you sound.
...proving the lie....
"Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you.
Quote from jem:
If you understood Weinberg or even Dawkins above... you would understand they hold out hope that someday science could explain why those values turn out to be so fine tuned.. but as of now they cannot.
No, you hold the hope that they hold that hope. They don't.
Those values have no more turned out to be fine tuned than the earth has turned out to be flat.
They are scientists, they will look to science to discover more information about the values.
Basing hope on unfounded appearances of something is what religious people like you do. Which just goes to show how confused you really are about this.
Quote from jem:
Explain why the values turn out the way they are and you become more famous than Einstein.
Why? the Nobel prize... because you will have created the much desired... Theory of Everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
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
Rubbish.
One of your favorite name drops has already told you why essentially the values turn out the way they are. Due entirely to the laws of physics.
The religious 'fine tuning argument' is based on creationists arriving at spurious assumptions after hearing about mathematical models that put a value to the fundamental physical constants of the universe.
They rely on a lack of information quite separate from the values.
Once there is more information and fundamental physical constants of the universe are understood, the religious 'fine tuning' argument dies a death like every other lack-of-information-pseudo-scientific creationist claim has before it.
The Theory of Everything is a suggestion that there will be, as part of theoretical physics (you know, that stuff which makes the truly extraordinary possible), a principle that will explain the principles that unify all principles.
That you think it is only to do with string theory just shows exactly how little you understand any of this.
But not understanding is what you rely on, push your groundless religious belief upon, post the sheer nonsense and misinformation you do, and maintain the delusions you hold.
You are pretending scientists and science says something they don't from which you form the unreasoned fantasy that doing so makes a case for an unexplained and unexplainable imaginary creator. Of course it doesn't, and doesn't even make it to pathetic either.
