Yes that's exactly what I'm telling you.
Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Is it really difficult for you to accept the idea string theory is a theory?
I have told you many times... God is one explanation for the observed fine tunings.
And although I consider it unlikely, I agree that a Multiverse is a possible explanation. Susskind explained it to you in the quotes I gave you from his book 5 years ago.
string theory through polchinsky's calculations at stanford, found there could be 10 to the 500 solutions.
Susskind said hey those solutions might be real bubble universe environments. Is there any good reasons why a possible solution from string theory is real alternate universe.
No... but its possible.
I have no problem with science.... you do.
I have told you many times... God is one explanation for the observed fine tunings.
And although I consider it unlikely, I agree that a Multiverse is a possible explanation. Susskind explained it to you in the quotes I gave you from his book 5 years ago.
string theory through polchinsky's calculations at stanford, found there could be 10 to the 500 solutions.
Susskind said hey those solutions might be real bubble universe environments. Is there any good reasons why a possible solution from string theory is real alternate universe.
No... but its possible.
I have no problem with science.... you do.
Ok, so you're telling me you are not reasoning.Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Yes that's exactly what I'm telling you.
You really didn't need bother.
Still posting even though you said you "don't give a fuck".
You could add attention disorder to the list of others you portray.
You are saying string theory is an explanation. A scientific explanation. It is supported by science. It is also underpinned in math, all of which puts string theory into scientific hypothesis.
You are trying to say god is equally an explanation.
It isn't.
Susskind does not explain god. He leaves it in the same realm of explanation as The Flying Speghetti Monster. An explanation given no explanation. No support, nothing in science.
Your authority is, according to you, speculating. Therefore as your authority, you are stuck with all his explanations as speculation, including any god explanation which he doesn't explain.
What type of argument except a ridiculous one do you think you've made?
You certainly do have problem with science in the way you're constantly trying to force god in where it doesn't go.
string theory is a thought experiment.
of course it is consistent with math it is an evolving thought experiment. It is unproven and exceedingly speculative.
Let me know when you locate another universe... yet alone almost infinite ones.
String theory has not been proven out like the standard model.
Finding the Higgs boson went a long way to proving the standard model. No such success for String Theory.
I have no intention of debating the next issue.
This next part is more philosophy...
Occams Razor augers in favor of the fine tuned universe being the responsibility of a Tuner.
Using unproven scientific theory to speculate there need be almost infinite other universes is neither simple, nor efficient.
The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.
Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.[1][10][11]
caps were not intended by me.
of course it is consistent with math it is an evolving thought experiment. It is unproven and exceedingly speculative.
Let me know when you locate another universe... yet alone almost infinite ones.
String theory has not been proven out like the standard model.
Finding the Higgs boson went a long way to proving the standard model. No such success for String Theory.
I have no intention of debating the next issue.
This next part is more philosophy...
Occams Razor augers in favor of the fine tuned universe being the responsibility of a Tuner.
Using unproven scientific theory to speculate there need be almost infinite other universes is neither simple, nor efficient.
The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.
Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.[1][10][11]
caps were not intended by me.
Well fine. All you are demonstrating is - there are things , like the FSM and god for instance, that are worse than speculation. Things that don't have any science, math, laws of physics to support them.
Why are you wrecking your own non-argument again?
Occam's Razor doesn't work any better than this
".... the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
No need for fine tuning or a tuner. It's the best type of Occam's you can get.
Why are you wrecking your own non-argument again?
Occam's Razor doesn't work any better than this
".... the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
No need for fine tuning or a tuner. It's the best type of Occam's you can get.
I just thought about your out of context fraudulent use of Hawking statement which is conditioned on the multiverse and alternate histories.
For the sake of argument... lets say Hawking did mean that gravity did create our universe out of nothing all by itself.
Q. Stu please tell us why gravity did not collapse the universe back into a big crunch.
Answer... it was offset by the cosomological constant.
Q. to what degree was the cosmological constant tuned....
Answer. It is incredibly tuned ...
Please see the video i posted on the first post of this thread.
below.
"Physicists Prove God Existence"
You'd think, if you thought at all, just the title alone would raise some serious alarm bells in the -what an obvious utter load of bollocks- department.
I've never said "random chance is what created the universe". It's inevitable consequence. The best you can hope is that you have a very severe form of dyslexia. More likely, you just can't help lying about stuff.
You've declared what Susskind says is speculation.
So then, by your standard, what he says about fine tuning is also speculation.
So anything he says about god , which of course does not have any science, math, laws of physics to support it , is going to be worse than speculation.
You destroyed your ridiculous assertion with your own false appeal to authority. Do you really like being that unintelligent?
Your: "a great minds of science" authority.
Your: "There is nothing wrong with scientific speculation." authority.
Apart from the absurd claims you make, trying to invoke god against your own authority, is never going to make it look like you have the least kind of a clue.
You'd think, if you thought at all, just the title alone would raise some serious alarm bells in the -what an obvious utter load of bollocks- department.
I can see you have learned nothing.
I've never said "random chance is what created the universe". It's inevitable consequence. The best you can hope is that you have a very severe form of dyslexia. More likely, you just can't help lying about stuff.
False. My remarks are not out of context or fraudulent and Hawking's statement is not conditioned on the multiverse. However much in denial you are of your own links which state not multiverse, may I suggest you first stop lying. It really won't help you.
That just goes to show how embarrassingly little you understand about what Hawking says or means. The thing that obviously creates your universe is a perpetual sheer willful ignorance about what is being said.
According to what you dreamed up above, it would be "incredibly tuned" ....by gravity. You keep crashing your own silly nonsense. Why?
You've declared what Susskind says is speculation.
So then, by your standard, what he says about fine tuning is also speculation.
So anything he says about god , which of course does not have any science, math, laws of physics to support it , is going to be worse than speculation.
You destroyed your ridiculous assertion with your own false appeal to authority. Do you really like being that unintelligent?
- ".... the universe can and will create itself from nothing.... It is not necessary to invoke God.."
Your: "a great minds of science" authority.
Your: "There is nothing wrong with scientific speculation." authority.
Apart from the absurd claims you make, trying to invoke god against your own authority, is never going to make it look like you have the least kind of a clue.