Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Ugh...context...
I dont understand what you are not getting.
That is exactly what the scientists have been saying, how many times do I have to quote them.
We have one universe we know of.
The constants within it are incredibly tuned?
What is the answer?
well the obvious one is a tuner.
less obvious... infinite other universes...
that is the fricken context...
read the hawking quote above.
Do you get what he is saying if you take a classical approach to physics... you either have carefully tuned universe or you have to speculate infinite histories of universes (which is a cop out ) because then you lose all ability to say anything with scientific accuracy... because everything happens.
What more could you possible want for context.
He's stating that within the context of the previous three paragraphs.
--------
Essentially he's saying that's an inadequate approach.
--------
This is why I harp on the context of your sources/posts...
that is the exact context of the previous 3 paragraphs and the whole paper.
We have theses crazy fudamental constant tunings.
Classical physics makes it look like the universe was tuned.
At first we all speculated that another possible explanation was infinite other universes or histories... but it is not really scientific to say anything can happen at any time.
So after thinking about this...
we propose a way you can still make measurements and predictions in a multiverse environment.
We.. (hawking and hartle) propose a top down cosmology..
The point of our top cosmology is that you can count on the fact your results will match up with the feynman sum over histories... in late stages.
boom.... that is really the whole point of this excercise...
it is a very interesting mind game to make almost infinite universe explanation... scientific.
You saw the Guth video on this thread... they don't have any proof of multiverses and alternate histories.
We have theses crazy fudamental constant tunings.
Classical physics makes it look like the universe was tuned.
At first we all speculated that another possible explanation was infinite other universes or histories... but it is not really scientific to say anything can happen at any time.
So after thinking about this...
we propose a way you can still make measurements and predictions in a multiverse environment.
We.. (hawking and hartle) propose a top down cosmology..
The point of our top cosmology is that you can count on the fact your results will match up with the feynman sum over histories... in late stages.
boom.... that is really the whole point of this excercise...
it is a very interesting mind game to make almost infinite universe explanation... scientific.
You saw the Guth video on this thread... they don't have any proof of multiverses and alternate histories.
Decent summation, but you said "and to the best minds in science... that evidence looks incredibly tuned for life... " in conjunction with that quotation, and it seemed to me you were inferring that Hawkings was actually agreeing with the bottom-up approach to cosmology, which I don't think he would...and apparently doesn't. That's what I meant by context.
As a guy with a science background, I can tell you that pretty much only two things are certain: death and taxes. And you probably don't need a scientist to tell you that.
More seriously though, any speculative cutting edge research is a lot of bunk. It only when it advances to the technological stage (or at least experimental) that you can start taking it seriously.
More seriously though, any speculative cutting edge research is a lot of bunk. It only when it advances to the technological stage (or at least experimental) that you can start taking it seriously.
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...how+life+can+evolve+from+non+life#post3300639
- 'The statement is and always was "there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life"
Because on just about every occasion you can't even write it without changing it, doesn't make the statement itself untrue, it just makes you appear either dishonest or unintelligent or both.'
In a way I'm kinda flattered now, as you change my words and meaning as much as you do all your 'great minds of science'.
Though when it all boils down, you're still a liar.
The tricker part is speculating there is so called fine tuning.
If your 'great minds of science' are speculating about infinite universes, they are certainly speculating about fine tuning .
Neither are confirmed science.
more obvious..... there is no so called fine tuning at all. Values are inevitable...."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."