Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

stu · Mar 9, 2013

Quote from jem:
1. you keep lying about the context of Hawkings statements.

Now THAT, is a lie. I've already said, his statement in plain English is unequivocal and therefore its context couldn't be more clear.

Quote from jem:
2. Susskind is the the man who wrote the book and who cofounded string theory which is a major part of this multiverse speculation.

It is being said Hawking is consistent with M-theory. The M in M-Theory does not represent the word multiverse as you are using it for an infinity of universes. M-Theory is about supersymmetry/ string theory.
How is it any way in context for you to keep switching to Susskind when it is Hawking's statement .... a universe from NOTHING which is the issue?

Quote from jem:
The paper which preceded the book.

That sure is confusing you. In that paper he explains a quantum gravity approach used to arrive at his statement "...a universe from nothing"
There is no mention in "Populating the Landscape" of multiverse as an approach, or fine tuning as being any kind of scientific proposal.

The type of universe that may take shape due to multiverse , string theory, cyclic or other proposals, has to come after the spontaneous creation, not before.
Fine tuning and so called "Tuners" are not being invoked in Hawking's very clear statement.
That is what's in context. No God Tuner or Designer required.

jem · Mar 9, 2013

the issue troll is....

You claim that the Hawking claims as a fact that our universe was started by Gravity... or however you want to troll the parsing of Hawkings conditional statement...

And I am telling you... that is a fraudlent lie by you.

Hawkings conditions that statement on a multiverse. In a multiverse... gravity with a life sustaining constant will self select the line of histories to survive. This is obviously a massive bit of conjecture by Hawking.

.....

Luckily for us we can see you are completely bullshitting and lying about the science

and hawkings explains in this paper..

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

as anyone who comprehends science can read in the abstract at the very front of the paper...

Abstract
We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with ﬁnal boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the
observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape,
and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model
landscape that admits several alternative inﬂationary histories for the universe.
Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also
discuss in what respect the top down approach diﬀers from other approaches
to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inﬂation.

and in the paper we see this.

The author writes:

Because there is a law such as gravity, 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.[12]
The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.[11]
The book concludes with the statement that only some universes of the multiple universes (or multiverse) support life forms. We, of course, are located in one of those universes. The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain (see Anthropic Principle).[11] [/B][/QUOTE]

Quote from stu:

Now THAT, is a lie. I've already said, his statement in plain English is unequivocal and therefore its context couldn't be more clear.

It is being said Hawking is consistent with M-theory. The M in M-Theory does not represent the word multiverse as you are using it for an infinity of universes. M-Theory is about supersymmetry/ string theory.
How is it any way in context for you to keep switching to Susskind when it is Hawking's statement .... a universe from NOTHING which is the issue?

That sure is confusing you. In that paper he explains a quantum gravity approach used to arrive at his statement "...a universe from nothing"
There is no mention in "Populating the Landscape" of multiverse as an approach, or fine tuning as being any kind of scientific proposal.

The type of universe that may take shape due to multiverse , string theory, cyclic or other proposals, has to come after the spontaneous creation, not before.
Fine tuning and so called "Tuners" are not being invoked in Hawking's very clear statement.
That is what's in context. No God Tuner or Designer required.

jem · Mar 9, 2013

I link to this video again... because it explains the science brilliantly
and shows Stu what troll he is.

God... a Tuner, A designer is quite clearly one possible answer for the fine tunigs.

And that is being told you by the guy who wrote the book whom I believe is an atheist.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

stu · Mar 9, 2013

Quote from jem:

Hawkings conditions that statement on a multiverse. In a multiverse... gravity with a life sustaining constant will self select the line of histories to survive. This is obviously a massive bit of conjecture by Hawking.

He does no such thing. Show where he even mentions the word multiverse in the paper you keep linking to.

It's blatantly obvious everything to do with evolving, or multiverse, or whatever else, would have to be AFTER the event of the universe coming into existence.
Hawking states the universe can and will create itself from nothing, not from or because of a multiverse!!

Quote from jem:

I link to this video again... because

....you like to draw ridiculous conclusions from it and can't address the points I make about Hawking. Goodness knows you get confused by one unequivocal statement from Hawking that holds just a couple of quite clear sentences.
A video offers you all sorts of opportunities to get things totally wrong even though the faulty comments and flawed assertions you keep making from it have already been debunked .

jem · Mar 9, 2013

I gave you the beginning the paper where he talks about alternate universes...

Now how about the last sentence....

How the heck you enjoy looking so ignorant is beyond me.

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 differerent values for various effective coupling constants."

and before you go lying your ass off troll, read the paper.

The paper is about Hawking and Hartle proposing top down cosmology.

Top down cosmology is premised on alternate universes and alternate histories.

jem · Mar 9, 2013

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].
The measure on the landscape provided by no boundary initial conditions allows
one to derive predictions for observations. This is done by evaluating probabilities
for alternative histories that obey a set of constraints at late times. The constraints
provide information that is supplementary to the fundamental laws and act as a
selection principle. In particular, they select the subclass of histories that contribute
to the amplitude of interest. One then identiﬁes alternatives within this subclass
that have probabilities near one. These include, in particular, predictions of future
observations. The framework we propose is thus more like a top down approach to
cosmology, where the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked.
We illustrate our framework in a model landscape that admits several distinct
classes of inﬂationary histories for the universe. In this model, we predict several
properties of the subclass of histories that are three-dimensional, expanding and approximately ﬂat at late times. We also discuss in general terms the predictions of top
down cosmology in more complicated models like the string landscape.
Finally we discuss in what respect the top down approach diﬀers from other
(bottom-up) approaches to cosmology in the string landscape, such as eternal in-
ﬂation or pre-big bang cosmology

stu · Mar 10, 2013

Quote from jem:
The paper is about Hawking and Hartle proposing top down cosmology.

Top down cosmology is premised on alternate universes and alternate histories.

The statement... "it is not necessary to invoke God" is premised by a fact.... "Because there is a law such as gravity.."

Unless or until you are prepared to come to terms with that straight forward statement, you are not going to be capable of getting to grips with what Hawking and Hartle propose with top down cosmology in more technical documents about alternate universes and alternate histories.

I've asked you a thousand times what you take the word multiverse to mean but you can't or won't answer. Alternate universes and alternate histories do not necessitate a multiverse.

From your own wiki link....

Top-down cosmology

According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our Universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current Universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the existence of the Multiverse.[30]

Even though you posted that link a million times, did you even read it once, or just see the words "fine tuning" and decide to blind yourself to everything else in it.

One universe, selecting its own past histories [evolution of the cosmos], spontaneously created because there is... a fact... a law such as gravity.
That is what your authority in science says.

Why you want to look so ignorant is not beyond me. It's ignorance for the sake of just trying to force a god/tuner/designer into a place it can't go, is not needed, and doesn't belong.

jem · Mar 10, 2013

Whether Hawkings idea that gravity could create the universe requires a multiverse or one universe with alternate histories is a distinction without a difference for our purposes...

both concepts are unproven, so far un testable and highly speculative.

So, you can put still put your faith in a Tuner or multiple alternate universeses ore histories..

But, let me show you why you were completely wrong again Stu.

Top down cosmology posits a multiverse and withing that multiverse... are universes with alternate histories or no boundry initial conditions...

How do I know this?

I read the first sentence in the paper. And I have told you this exact thing before. You are just troll your ass off and showing your ignorance.

Here is the first sentence....

"We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with ﬁnal boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked."

There is not a person on the planet but you who reads science who does not know the string landscape is the same as a multiverse.

I have proven this to you before.

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

Quote from stu:

The statement... "it is not necessary to invoke God" is premised by a fact.... "Because there is a law such as gravity.."

Unless or until you are prepared to come to terms with that straight forward statement, you are not going to be capable of getting to grips with what Hawking and Hartle propose with top down cosmology in more technical documents about alternate universes and alternate histories.

I've asked you a thousand times what you take the word multiverse to mean but you can't or won't answer. Alternate universes and alternate histories do not necessitate a multiverse.

From your own wiki link....

Top-down cosmology

According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our Universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current Universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the existence of the Multiverse.[30]

Even though you posted that link a million times, did you even read it once, or just see the words "fine tuning" and decide to blind yourself to everything else in it.

One universe, selecting its own past histories [evolution of the cosmos], spontaneously created because there is... a fact... a law such as gravity.
That is what your authority in science says.

Why you want to look so ignorant is not beyond me. It's ignorance for the sake of just trying to force a god/tuner/designer into a place it can't go, is not needed, and doesn't belong.

stu · Mar 11, 2013

That's all well and good but you still really just don't see the fundamental contradiction in what you are trying to argue.

You make an appeal to the authority of science and scientists. Then you call everything they say "pure speculation". Wrong...but ok.

However, should they merely mention the words god/intelligent designer, or say something in a vid or webpage that can be translated into god/intelligent designer or so called "Tuner", all that pure speculation magically disappears and you appeal to that authority unquestioningly.

You can't have it both ways.

There is no mention of multiverse in top-down. Even your own link states top-down does not call for a multiverse.
Why do you insist upon fundamentally contradicting the authorities you appeal to?

jem · Mar 11, 2013

The fine tuning of the fundamentals are observed.

The Landscape of bubble universes or Multiverse explanation for the fine tunings is just pure speculation.

When Susskind, Hawking Carr, Rees and many others say that a Tuner (God) could be a reason for the tunings. That is not really speculation as much as it is just logical.

If something appears finely tuned... you logically presume Tuner unless you find evidence to the contrary.

---
Multiverse and Landscape are the same.
See the Susskind video... about 11 minutes in... when he said he does not like the name multiverse vs... because it reminds him of multiplex and he likes small cinemas. But he says the landscape and multiverse are the same thing.

Susskind wrote the book which named the Landscape. You can see that in the video too.

----
My... link is to the paper and the author... which / created Top Down Cosmology. The paper is therefore as a authoritative as can be on the subject. (unless you have Hawking on Video saying he was wrong).

Quote from stu:

That's all well and good but you still really just don't see the fundamental contradiction in what you are trying to argue.

You make an appeal to the authority of science and scientists. Then you call everything they say "pure speculation". Wrong...but ok.

However, should they merely mention the words god/intelligent designer, or say something in a vid or webpage that can be translated into god/intelligent designer or so called "Tuner", all that pure speculation magically disappears and you appeal to that authority unquestioningly.

You can't have it both ways.

There is no mention of multiverse in top-down. Even your own link states top-down does not call for a multiverse.
Why do you insist upon fundamentally contradicting the authorities you appeal to?