This is the kind of thing that happens when a society accepts homosexuality

[jem]

Quote from dinn13:

Actually you really need to watch the Susskind video you posted again. He starts answering the question by saying that he believes the universe was not created by an intelligent being and that the universe was created in the same way that life on earth was, via an evolutionary process.

His argument is that prior to Darwin one might look at life on earth and believe that life was intelligently designed by some being. But that after Darwin we now in fact know that there wasn't divine intervention but rather a worldly evolutionary process.

He then extends the argument to our universe and the physical properties that define it. That while one might look at the physical properties and it might appear that they are intelligently designed in fact it is more likely they were created by some evolutionary process like life is.

And he's using the environments to further his point by saying that it only looks like it was designed because we see life only on a very small part of the universe, I dare say infinitesimally small. But in reality if you take the universe as a whole then it doesn't necessarily seem intelligently designed cause so much is lifeless.

And to extend his argument it's like winning the lottery. The chances are so small that if you win you might think god intervened on your behalf cause otherwise what are the chances of you winning! But in reality it only appears that god intervened cause it happened that you won.



And remember, he starts answering the question by saying he doesn't think the universe was intelligently designed!!! and everything after that is to support that view, he doesn't then contradict himself by saying the opposite!!

YOu need to watch the video again.

All of that is stated - based on his speculation there are infinite other "environmments". A word he uses for Universes.

If you speculate there are infinite other universes (as he did in his book) than you counter the inference of design - even though he has said our universe looks designed.

--
question

"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

response from susskind:

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."

 

[dinn13]

Quote from jem:

YOu need to watch the video again.

All of that is stated - based on his speculation there are infinite other "environmments". A word he uses for Universes.

If you speculate there are infinite other universes (as he did in his book) than you counter the inference of design - even though he has said our universe looks designed.

--
question

"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

response from susskind:

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."

Ok wow, watch again.

Here is the transcript regarding environments:

"The universe is exceedingly big. Just like the bush of the tree of life. It has many, many different environments. So many different environments that a very small fraction of them are capable of supporting life. And that small fraction of them happens to be the small fraction that looks as if it's intelligently designed. Incidentally it's the only fraction in which we can exist to ask the question."

For one environments refers to environments within the universe not as a synonym for universe!!

He's only saying that the universe looks designed if one is ignorant. And the fact that we don't have the exact answer as to how physical properties came about just means we are ignorant as to the process not that it was actually intelligently designed.

But I think I understand why you're confused. He's saying that if we can't find the process by which the universe came to it's current state then we will forever be ignorant. Cause there is the real possibility that we can not physically prove everything. For example we currently don't know how to get information to travel faster than the speed of light, and since the universe is expanding at least at the speed of light, it is therefore impossible to know what's outside our universe, and thus potentially impossible to experimentally prove the multiverse theory. It's not to say that he thinks the universe is intelligently designed but rather there is the potential that we can never prove that it wasn't!

 

[jem]

Quote from dinn13:

Ok wow, watch again.

Here is the transcript regarding environments:

"The universe is exceedingly big. Just like the bush of the tree of life. It has many, many different environments. So many different environments that a very small fraction of them are capable of supporting life. And that small fraction of them happens to be the small fraction that looks as if it's intelligently designed. Incidentally it's the only fraction in which we can exist to ask the question."

For one environments refers to environments within the universe not as a synonym for universe!!

He's only saying that the universe looks designed if one is ignorant. And the fact that we don't have the exact answer as to how physical properties came about just means we are ignorant as to the process not that it was actually intelligently designed.

But I think I understand why you're confused. He's saying that if we can't find the process by which the universe came to it's current state then we will forever be ignorant. Cause there is the real possibility that we can not physically prove everything. For example we currently don't know how to get information to travel faster than the speed of light, and since the universe is expanding at least at the speed of light, it is therefore impossible to know what's outside our universe, and thus potentially impossible to experimentally prove the multiverse theory. It's not to say that he thinks the universe is intelligently designed but rather there is the potential that we can never prove that it wasn't!

Susskind has clearly stated that there is no proof of the other environments or landscapes. They are speculation which he feels OK making based on the math findings from a top string theorist from Stanford named Polchinski. Polchinski said his his equations suggest there could be are at least 10 to the 500 other universes.

The Universe or "environment" the tag does not matter. They are speculative regions of space with other physical laws. Regions with different cosmological constants..... their is no proof of their existence.

 

[dinn13]

Quote from jem:

Susskind has clearly stated that there is no proof of the other environments or landscapes. They are speculation which he feels OK making based on the math findings from a top string theorist from Stanford named Polchinski. Polchinski said his his equations suggest there could be are at least 10 to the 500 other universes.

The Universe or "environment" the tag does not matter. They are speculative regions of space with other physical laws. Regions with different cosmological constants..... their is no proof of their existence.

Yes in other parts of the video he does say that he's ok with letting the math speak for itself and doesn't require physical proof of it being true. He gave the example of neutrino's earlier in the video. The guy asking questions on the other hand said that he requires proof and so wouldn't buy into a multiverse scenario as easily.

The tag does matter as it conveys meaning. An environment is not a speculative region of space as he defined it as a region of space in a universe, for example the region of space we live in being the earth. And the earth isn't speculative unless you think we live in the matrix or dream or something.

But remember you used the video originally to state that he was saying the universe looks to be intelligently designed. Now I'm hoping you realize that he doesn't think that because he believes that an evolutionary process created it which might require a multiverse scenario. He merely used the phrase in an analogy to compare the current situation to the worldview prior to darwin proposing evolution.

So debate whether or not he's right all day long but at least state what he's saying correctly.

I of course don't know whether or not he is right as I'm like the person asking questions in the video, I require physical evidence prior to believing it. And thus I don't 'believe' in the multiverse scenario or god for that matter. I'm perfectly ok with saying that I don't know.

 

[jem]

Quote from dinn13:

Yes in other parts of the video he does say that he's ok with letting the math speak for itself and doesn't require physical proof of it being true. He gave the example of neutrino's earlier in the video. The guy asking questions on the other hand said that he requires proof and so wouldn't buy into a multiverse scenario as easily.

The tag does matter as it conveys meaning. An environment is not a speculative region of space as he defined it as a region of space in a universe, for example the region of space we live in being the earth. And the earth isn't speculative unless you think we live in the matrix or dream or something.

But remember you used the video originally to state that he was saying the universe looks to be intelligently designed. Now I'm hoping you realize that he doesn't think that because he believes that an evolutionary process created it which might require a multiverse scenario. He merely used the phrase in an analogy to compare the current situation to the worldview prior to darwin proposing evolution.

So debate whether or not he's right all day long but at least state what he's saying correctly.

I of course don't know whether or not he is right as I'm like the person asking questions in the video, I require physical evidence prior to believing it. And thus I don't 'believe' in the multiverse scenario or god for that matter. I'm perfectly ok with saying that I don't know.

you need to read his book or at least parts of it.

If you wish you can find all the quotes I have provided from him on et.


We have one universe... with the physical laws we know which seem incredibly tuned for life.

if there are other parts of this universe which have other laws... and those other parts are like 10 to the 500 other parts than you can defeat the design inference.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you need to read his book or at least parts of it.

If you wish you can find all the quotes I have provided from him on et.


We have one universe... with the physical laws we know which seem incredibly tuned for life.

if there are other parts of this universe which have other laws... and those other parts are like 10 to the 500 other parts than you can defeat the design inference.

Tuned for life is a cliché creationists like to bandy around.
But even were the universe tuned, certainly it's not tuned for life.

Those physical laws principally give rise to a vast, empty, cold, dark, violent and unimaginably destructive cosmos.
Only at points of hiatus does the total miniscule amount of matter in the universe get to congregate into billions of galaxies over immense periods of time. Eventually and as if by error in an infinitesimally tiny inconsequential diversion to all that, life is known to have emerged. Once.

In my view it's an arrogance born of bloated self-importance (usually religiously based) that would consider life as a finely tuned function of a universe which from the very start, was still, is, and will continue, to function primarily on explosions of unimaginable energy inhospitable to life.

Life appears to be a mere incidental side effect which simply might or might not occur in a universe existing through the many false starts of innumerous others.
Where singularities can produce countless potential universes with incalculable differing physical laws, parameters or constants, the result of which is a natural selection in favor of those parameters or constants that can themselves support and produce black hole singularities. The Origin of Universes by means of Natural Selection.

Tuned for life? No way. If there's any tuning going on , it's for black holes.





What you call the design inference, but is really the intelligent design inference, doesn't need multi-universes or any other parts to be defeated.
It defeats itself. What tuned the tuner?
Kicking the can down the road explains nothing.

 

[nutmeg]

"Dad, do I have to wear a dress to school?" No joke. These conversations went on in kitchens and living rooms around the city, as a top school that educates learning-disabled and autistic children staged a student production of "La Cage aux Folles" -- a cross-dressing, limp-wristed, gay comic romp whose main characters are a pair of "married" men. As the show packs in adult audiences on Broadway with campy star Kelsey Grammer and a cast of drag queens, the kiddie version of "La Cage" was cooked up by the executive director of Child School, a private institution on Roosevelt Island that takes on youngsters from kindergarten through middle school. Some 50 children as young as 10 were cast to play screaming queens, a school assistant told me.

The father, whose boy is autistic, was horrified that his vulnerable child might be made into a spectacle. "I'm outraged!" said the dad, who did not want to be identified for fear his kid would be hurt. "They're advocating for the gay lifestyle, giving them ideas. Saying, 'It's OK. If you're having these feelings, experiment with it.'"


http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-york-students-perform-la-cage-aux.html

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:


Tuned for life is a cliché creationists like to bandy around.
But even were the universe tuned, certainly it's not tuned for life.

Those physical laws principally give rise to a vast, empty, cold, dark, violent and unimaginably destructive cosmos.
Only at points of hiatus does the total miniscule amount of matter in the universe get to congregate into billions of galaxies over immense periods of time. Eventually and as if by error in an infinitesimally tiny inconsequential diversion to all that, life is known to have emerged. Once.

In my view it's an arrogance born of bloated self-importance (usually religiously based) that would consider life as a finely tuned function of a universe which from the very start, was still, is, and will continue, to function primarily on explosions of unimaginable energy inhospitable to life.

Life appears to be a mere incidental side effect which simply might or might not occur in a universe existing through the many false starts of innumerous others.
Where singularities can produce countless potential universes with incalculable differing physical laws, parameters or constants, the result of which is a natural selection in favor of those parameters or constants that can themselves support and produce black hole singularities. The Origin of Universes by means of Natural Selection.

Tuned for life? No way. If there's any tuning going on , it's for black holes.





What you call the design inference, but is really the intelligent design inference, doesn't need multi-universes or any other parts to be defeated.
It defeats itself. What tuned the tuner?
Kicking the can down the road explains nothing.

thats the point Stu... who cares what you think. What you think does not mean squat. Nor does what I think..

I provide quotes from physicists... you provide the ramblings of STU. I do not even read your shit on this subject anymore.

I just post quotes from people who have the education and background to understand the issue. Like Bernard Carr.

Shall I post the quote again.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

thats the point Stu... who cares what you think. What you think does not mean squat. Nor does what I think..

I provide quotes from physicists... you provide the ramblings of STU. I do not even read your shit on this subject anymore.

I just post quotes from people who have the education and background to understand the issue. Like Bernard Carr.

Shall I post the quote again.

If it doesn't matter what you or I think, why do you bother with what scientists think?

Why did you even mention using critical thinking if you cannot reason what physicists actually say in their quotes, why do you make the links in the first place?

You make no sense Jem whichever angle you come at this.

For every quote you want to post from a physicist to supposedly support your so called thinking on the matter, I can post another quote, or even the same quote if you keep posting Susskind, or another physicist , that questions your thinking. That's the point.

Those people who have the education and background to understand the issue, do disagree with what you are trying to say, and with your Bernard Carr quote.

So you don't "read my shit anymore" but you quote it. Pretty much what you did with Susskind.

If you cannot rationally address the points the quotes raise in an ordered and reasoned manner , then your thinking will stay exactly where it is.

Uneducated and ignorant.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

If it doesn't matter what you or I think, why do you bother with what scientists think?

Why did you even mention using critical thinking if you cannot reason what physicists actually say in their quotes, why do you make the links in the first place?

You make no sense Jem whichever angle you come at this.

For every quote you want to post from a physicist to supposedly support your so called thinking on the matter, I can post another quote, or even the same quote if you keep posting Susskind, or another physicist , that questions your thinking. That's the point.

Those people who have the education and background to understand the issue, do disagree with what you are trying to say, and with your Bernard Carr quote.

So you don't "read my shit anymore" but you quote it. Pretty much what you did with Susskind.

If you cannot rationally address the points the quotes raise in an ordered and reasoned manner , then your thinking will stay exactly where it is.

Uneducated and ignorant.

Well I suggest you start posting the opinions of educated people. Because your opinion does not mean squat.



Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ...

But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”



http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137