Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

[jem]

Read what Hawking says you fucking clown.
Here is another quote from the paper.


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


"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]."

---

See that asshole..... "we thus envision a set of alternate universes....."

which means more than one fricken universe.

see that troll...

Quote from stu:

What a load of utter horseshit. Where do you get that crap?

Hawking specifically does not include -the multiverse- or versions of -the multiverse- in top down.

In top down, Hawking proposes an initial condition for the universe as a quantum superimposition of all possible conditions. Theoretically possible for all the universe's properties to exist simultaneously but which only a very few contribute, similar thinking as in respect to Feynman’s sum-over-paths quantum theory and electrons for example.
So the outcome of the universe is made inevitable as past conditions must lead to the present observed universe. An anthropic account without the multiverse.

You might as well say electrons are -the multiverse-. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

First you try to shoehorn God into top down. Having failed you seem to think if you can at least shoehorn a multiverse in so you can shout "speculation", that would be better than nothing.

 

[bigarrow]

After doing a meta analysis of all the posts on ET the conclusion is there is no proof of a god/gods it is ONLY speculation that their may be a god/gods. Further analysis showed that the probably of a one god creating a universe as opposed to multiple gods creating is 10 to the 866 power decimal places. The consensus is that it would would take between 20,000 to 100,000 gods to create the universe, if gods did create the universe.

 

[jem]

here is another quote form the paper your troll..
showing his models considers more than one universe...


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

page 17


A central idea that underlies the top down approach is the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe. In top down cosmology, the structure and complexity of alternative universes in the landscape is predictable from first principles to some extent, but also determined by the outcome of quantum accidents over the course of their histories.


see that troll

"the structure and complexity of alternate universes in the landscape."

 

[jem]

In the delusion troll world Stu said...

"Hawking specifically does not include -the multiverse- or versions of -the multiverse- in top down."

However in real life....

Hawking said in the very last sentence of the paper...

"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 different
values for various effective coupling constants."



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

page 18.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you are such a fucking troll on this issue.
See that asshole.....
see that troll...
you troll..

Dude you get so frustrated annoyed and angry trying to lever a God into everything where it doesn't belong.

Quote from jem:

here is another quote form the paper your troll..
showing his models considers more than one universe...

"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 different values for various effective coupling constants.".

sheesh.....
All you are doing is demonstrating how much you don't understand.

Alternative...one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen.
Hawking would have used the description Multiverse if he meant the Multiverse or wanted to suggest something that fits a Multiverse model.

Look .....it even confirms No Multiverse in a link YOU GAVE!! Jeezus you can't even understand what YOUR own links say.

• "The universe’s initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. 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 current existence of a multiverse."

If you comprehended anything of what top-down proposes you would rightly ascertain no need for Multiverse.
A quantum fart does not count as Multiverse. Calling a history of quantum farting events a Multiverse, even if you had the intellect to do so, would only be desperation.

I suggest if you were at all genuinely interested in understanding, go educate yourself better by reading that document properly, without always trying to get it to say things it doesn't or push your imaginary Tuner/Designer/God into it.

 

[jem]

1. first of all you are again mis representing what was written by Hawking.

Hawking goes out of his way in the first line and the last line of the paper to say his model involves a mulitverse.

That link you are quoting...(notice you did not give the link) was probably written by some clown on wikipedia.



2. you were using ad homs so I used them back troll.
secondly if you watched Susskind's video he tells you the String Landscape is a multiverse.

The only person denying that fact is you troll.

So in the paper... at least 4 times Hawking says 4 times the universe with alternate histories are within a multiverse but you have the troll ignorance to say Hawking is incorrect about his own model?

Quote from stu:

Dude you get so frustrated annoyed and angry trying to lever a God into everything where it doesn't belong.




sheesh.....
All you are doing is demonstrating how much you don't understand.

Alternative...one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen.
Hawking would have used the description Multiverse if he meant the Multiverse or wanted to suggest something that fits a Multiverse model.

Look .....it even confirms No Multiverse in a link YOU GAVE!! Jeezus you can't even understand what YOUR own links say.

• "The universe’s initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. 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 current existence of a multiverse."

If you comprehended anything of what top-down proposes you would rightly ascertain no need for Multiverse.
A quantum fart does not count as Multiverse. Calling a history of quantum farting events a Multiverse, even if you had the intellect to do so, would only be desperation.

I suggest if you were at all genuinely interested in understanding, go educate yourself better by reading that document properly, without always trying to get it to say things it doesn't or push your imaginary Tuner/Designer/God into it.

 

[jem]

I can see why you did not have the guts to provide the linke.

that link you quoted is on wikipedia.

the footnote supporting it is number 31.
if you click on it in brings you to this.


http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091

"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

 

[jem]

where does hawking specifically does not include the mulitiverse - or versions of the multiverse in top down.


In really would like to see you give us a citation to where Hawking "specifically" does not include.

Were you just lying your ass off?
Did you have a psychotic break when you typed that?

wtf how can you lie like that?

specifically does not include the multiverse....

where are those specifics from Hawking?
what a troll you are...

you just lied your ass off.

Quote from jem:

In the delusion troll world Stu said...

"Hawking specifically does not include -the multiverse- or versions of -the multiverse- in top down."

However in real life....

Hawking said in the very last sentence of the paper...

"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 different
values for various effective coupling constants."



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

page 18.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
1. Hawking goes out of his way in the first line and the last line of the paper to say his model involves a mulitverse.

Nowhere in the paper does it mention the word multiverse. That's because it actually doesn't call for the multiverse.

As per usual you go out of your way to try to make people say, in this case Stephen Hawking, something they don't say or even suggest. Mainly because you don't know what you're talking about and are way out of your depth.

Quote from jem:
2. you were using ad homs so I used them back troll.

Difference being, you use ad homs when no ad homes were being used.

Quote from jem:
secondly if you watched Susskind's video he tells you the String Landscape is a multiverse.

Listen.....Susskind is not Hawking. Get it?

Hawking doesn't mention multiverse in top down.. Alternate histories is not multiverse. Scientifically those terms do not mean the same thing.

In any case Susskind said he prefers the term Megaverse. There's good reason for that. It has different connotations to multiverse. A separate issue.

Quote from jem:
I can see why you did not have the guts to provide the linke.

that link you quoted is on wikipedia.

the footnote supporting it is number 31.
if you click on it in brings you to this.

Me provide the link !!???
I already told you....IT IS YOUR LINK !!! YOU MADE THAT LINK and were relying on it .

Lol you don't even know what the hell your own links are .

Quote from jem:
where does hawking specifically does not include the mulitiverse - or versions of the multiverse in top down.

There is no multiverse or versions of multiverse ANYWHERE as a component of top down . Wave function is not multiverse.

Quote from jem:
In really would like to see you give us a citation to where Hawking "specifically" does not include.

You want me to show you where he doesn't include multiverse. Lol Let's face it, you just don't have the intellectual capacity for this.

He specifically does not include multiverse in top down ANYWHERE.

Is that a big enough citation for you.



Now you're even seeing a multiverse AND a Tuner God where there's no need for either.
Talk about delusional.

 

[jem]

what a bunch of pure horseshit you wrote stu.

go to 11 minutes on the video and watch to the end.
it is an great explanation of the multiverse.
a huge blueprint of possibilites and way to populate.

tying the landscape and the multiverse up perfectly.

Susskind explains.
Pocket universe, mega verse, multiverse... all the same thing.
Then he clarifies he created the term landscape.

Stu your entire argument is based on your troll ignorance.
You have been lying about this science for 5 years.



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

Quote from stu:

Nowhere in the paper does it mention the word multiverse. That's because it actually doesn't call for the multiverse.

As per usual you go out of your way to try to make people say, in this case Stephen Hawking, something they don't say or even suggest. Mainly because you don't know what you're talking about and are way out of your depth.


Difference being, you use ad homs when no ad homes were being used.


Listen.....Susskind is not Hawking. Get it?

Hawking doesn't mention multiverse in top down.. Alternate histories is not multiverse. Scientifically those terms do not mean the same thing.

In any case Susskind said he prefers Megaverse. There's good reason for that. It has different connotations to multiverse. A separate issue.


Me provide the link !!???
I already told you....IT IS YOUR LINK !!! YOU MADE THAT LINK and were relying on it .

Lol you don't even know what the hell your own links are .


There is no multiverse or versions of multiverse ANYWHERE as a component of top down .


You want me to show you where he doesn't include multiverse. Lol Let's face it, you just don't have the intellectual capacity for this.

He specifically does not include multiverse in top down ANYWHERE.

Is that a big enough citation for you.



Now you're even seeing a multiverse AND a Tuner God where there's no need for either.
Talk about delusional.