Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

[stu]

Quote from jem:

In these two paragraphs Hawking will disabuse you of all your misrepresentations.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
Here hawking explains that if you work with the standard model that we have the universe is carefully fine tuned or you have to invoke the notion of eternal inflation (infinite universes.)
1.
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain
cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one
from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Here - Hawking disabuses Stu of his other bullshit. We see Hawking clearly speak of alternate universes.
2. page 2.
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].

It's no good to keep reposting the same quotes as if you were making some point or other rather than just being more and more absurd, which you are.

I asked you a long time ago what YOU meant by multiverse / alternate universes.

One universe in which a cosmic natural selection occurs, is what Hawking describes.
He is talking of false vacua in quantum field theory. Quantum burps affected by gravity and a form of cosmic natural selection with the inevitable outcome that makes things how they are.

You think that fits with YOUR idea of the description *multiverse* or not ?

*Fine tuning* in this case, is what appears to be a value, although not fully explained, which seems to be incredibly precise, but which scientists want to properly account for when much needed information becomes available.

You think that fits with YOUR description of *fine tuning* or not ?

In that respect BOTH are speculative, which means any grounding for an argument you might have thought you had , never existed.

Instead of just re-quoting stuff that you clearly don't understand, you could try for once to reason.

 

[jem]

your are so ignorant... try reading the paper.


he does speak of one universe in which all histories of that universe are available in the early times... and at end times you will find yourself in a universe which was shaped (selected) by the constants which work for life.

But, you have to understand not all post big bang universes could even shape up for life in their end times. (according to the speculation of top down cosmology)

So you need a massive and vast landscape of vacua or a multiverse to have a few universes which might wind up allowing for life.

Read the fricken paper. Stop bullshitting your ass off.

You think Hawking does not mean alternate universes when he says alternate universes...

your lies are ridiculous.

Quote from stu:

It's no good to keep reposting the same quotes as if you were making some point or other rather than just being more and more absurd, which you are.

I asked you a long time ago what YOU meant by multiverse / alternate universes.

One universe in which a cosmic natural selection occurs, is what Hawking describes.
He is talking of false vacua in quantum field theory. Quantum burps affected by gravity and a form of cosmic natural selection with the inevitable outcome that makes things how they are.

You think that fits with YOUR idea of the description *multiverse* or not ?

*Fine tuning* in this case, is what appears to be a value, although not fully explained, which seems to be incredibly precise, but which scientists want to properly account for when much needed information becomes available.

You think that fits with YOUR description of *fine tuning* or not ?

In that respect BOTH are speculative, which means any grounding for an argument you might have thought you had , never existed.

Instead of just re-quoting stuff that you clearly don't understand, you could try for once to reason.

 

[jem]

here is the last paragraph of the conclusion... dont forget to read the last sentence.

I quote it again because you keep misrepresenting the science of this paper.




The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view
of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a
framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike
surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend
on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique,
observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent
17a sum over all possible initial states. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up
approach, where one assumes there is a single history with a well defined starting point
and evolution. Our comparison with eternal inflation provides a clear illustration of
this. 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.


Stu keep arguing for eternal inflation type thoughts.
But Hawking is downplaying that idea because it does not allow for prediction because everything happens.

Top down was created to allow Hawking to say we are living within the multiverse in a set of homogeneous universes which have a sub class of histories which are susceptible to prediction by feynmans sum over histories and can support life.

You really do not seem to understand the paper stu. or you are a troll moron.

you can do atheist cartwheels all you like.
but according to classical physics our universe is very fine tuned.
now if you do not wish to accept classical physics and the standard model fine.

but stop being a troll.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
he does speak of one universe in which all histories of that universe are available in the early times... and at end times you will find yourself in a universe which was shaped (selected) by the constants which work for life.

But, you have to understand not all post big bang universes could even shape up for life in their end times. (according to the speculation of top down cosmology)

So you need a massive and vast landscape of vacua or a multiverse to have a few universes which might wind up allowing for life.

Read the fricken paper. Stop bullshitting your ass off.

You think Hawking does not mean alternate universes when he says alternate universes...

Once again, because you don't understand Hawking but keep posting his stuff trying to give an appearance that you do , is not me misrepresenting or bullshitting.
Attempting to, unwittingly or not, project your shit onto me doesn't work.


You seem to be holding the uninformed assumption that *alternative universes* means multiverse.
I've already pointed out which you've still apparently failed to notice, *multiverse* is not even mentioned, required, nor called upon in that paper.

So I'll ask again.
Do you think, well you are obviously not doing that, but nevertheless, do you consider, quantum fields fit with YOUR idea of the description *multiverse* or not ?

Is YOUR idea of *multiverse* a mathematically calculated wave function or not?
Virtual particles, not speculative by the way, dropping into and out of existence from nothing in the tiniest measurable flickers of time and influenced by gravity in the quantum scale is *multiverse* or not?

If not, the multiverse you imagine is nothing like what the physicists and scientists you are always posting are talking of.

You do realize, well no, you still mustn't realize, if top down cosmology is speculation as you say it is, then that must include any so called fine tuning it mentions.

Just to be clear, you want to change your argument that you never had ... to what ? That fine tuning is speculation ? A universe fine tuned by naturally selecting certain values is speculation too now.

Or do you just like having the delusion you'll decide for Stephen Hawking what is and isn't speculative.

Your whole batty idea has been to suggest multiverse is speculative but act as if so called fine tuning wasn't. But for nothing sensible ...just hoping to allow your imaginary friend in for no good reason.

Quote from jem:
but according to classical physics our universe is very fine tuned.
now if you do not wish to accept classical physics and the standard model fine.

That is what's Bullshit.

There is not one iota of classical physics nor indeed any other science, except your make-believe version of some theistically driven pseudoscience that claims , "our universe is very fine tuned."

The problem is not with science that you don't understand anyway, it is with the unfounded wild assertions and conclusions you draw from stuff it's obvious you don't even begin to understand.

 

[jem]

what a troll you are..

as I have told you... the name of Hawkings paper is Populating the Landscape.

the Landscape was coined by Susskind.

as Susskind states in the video The landscape is the 10 to the 500 solutions to string theory polchinsky calculated.

your are the dumbest science troll on the planet.
you keep trolling the same shit...
even though I have video proving your are a lying troll.


watch the video... Susskind tells you the landscape is a multiverse or megaverse or whatever you choose to call it.

he calls you out as a fool at 11 minutes...


as for fine tuning watch him explain the knifes edge fine tuning earlier in the video.

as for fine tunings in a multiverse... and yes... if there is a multiverse of almost infinite tries than our one universe being so fine tuned might arguably be expected... although some scientists argue against eve that as being a sufficient explaination for our fine tuning.






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

Quote from stu:

Once again, because you don't understand Hawking but keep posting his stuff trying to give an appearance that you do , is not me misrepresenting or bullshitting.
Attempting to, unwittingly or not, project your shit onto me doesn't work.


You seem to be holding the uninformed assumption that *alternative universes* means multiverse.
I've already pointed out which you've still apparently failed to notice, *multiverse* is not even mentioned, required, nor called upon in that paper.

So I'll ask again.
Do you think, well you are obviously not doing that, but nevertheless, do you consider, quantum fields fit with YOUR idea of the description *multiverse* or not ?

Is YOUR idea of *multiverse* a mathematically calculated wave function or not?
Virtual particles, not speculative by the way, dropping into and out of existence from nothing in the tiniest measurable flickers of time and influenced by gravity in the quantum scale is *multiverse* or not?

If not, the multiverse you imagine is nothing like what the physicists and scientists you are always posting are talking of.

You do realize, well no, you still mustn't realize, if top down cosmology is speculation as you say it is, then that must include any so called fine tuning it mentions.

Just to be clear, you want to change your argument that you never had ... to what ? That fine tuning is speculation ? A universe fine tuned by naturally selecting certain values is speculation too now.

Or do you just like having the delusion you'll decide for Stephen Hawking what is and isn't speculative.

Your whole batty idea has been to suggest multiverse is speculative but act as if so called fine tuning wasn't. But for nothing sensible ...just hoping to allow your imaginary friend in for no good reason.



That is what's Bullshit.

There is not one iota of classical physics nor indeed any other science, except your make-believe version of some theistically driven pseudoscience that claims , "our universe is very fine tuned."

The problem is not with science that you don't understand anyway, it is with the unfounded wild assertions and conclusions you draw from stuff it's obvious you don't even begin to understand.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
what a troll you are..

as I have told you... the name of Hawkings paper is Populating the Landscape.

the Landscape was coined by Susskind.

as Susskind states in the video The landscape is the 10 to the 500 solutions to string theory polchinsky calculated.

your are the dumbest science troll on the planet.
you keep trolling the same shit...
even though I have video proving your are a lying troll.


watch the video... Susskind tells you the landscape is a multiverse or megaverse or whatever you choose to call it.

he calls you out as a fool at 11 minutes...


as for fine tuning watch him explain the knifes edge fine tuning earlier in the video.

as for fine tunings in a multiverse... and yes... if there is a multiverse of almost infinite tries than our one universe being so fine tuned might arguably be expected... although some scientists argue against eve that as being a sufficient explaination for our fine tuning.

To be expected and true to form, you started with the insults.

You're getting angry again most likely because you're beginning to get an inkling of why you are wrong.

Populating the Landscape IS NOT multiverse. sheesh how many times.

Intrinsic to string theory is 'landscape'. Multiverse is NOT intrinsic to string theory or its 'landscape'. Multiverse is an extrapolation of string theory and 'landscape'.

You haven't a clue what you're saying.
You must imagine whatever you want multiverse to be, then that's what Susskind, Hawking and science in general will mean by the word.

Well I have news for you. You're wrong. That won't happen.

As far as an explanation for the appearance of fine tuning goes, inevitable consequence ("because of Gravity..") that a value will be what it is as Hawking points out.

Susskind states in the video....

• the universe is extremely big...
  It is diverse....
  different places have differnt properties...
  there is good theoretical reason for some places where gravity is stronger .... some places where the cosmological constant may be much bigger..

There you have it. The appearance of knife edge fine tuning (so speculative fine tuning) explained anyway by a gigantic universe where within vast numbers of pockets the cosmological constant could vary, such that would make this pocket of it inevitable.
Hardly warrants the phrase 'finly tuned'. Unavoidable outcome would do more justice.

If that explanation is speculative, the fine tuning is anyway. Oh look, you don't actually have an argument nevermind a rational one, and never did.

There is nothing that Susskind says in that video that contradicts what I'm saying to you. Only what you say to me.

Scientists say APPEARS fine tuned. So the more wacky theists like yourself say IS fine tuned.
Trying to make up an argument from willful ignorance, taking phrases or even a single word out of context to attach your own meaning to it as you do, is what idiots do.

 

[jem]

know fricken kidding the knifes edge fine tuning can be explained away if we have infinite other universes. or vacuaa with other constants... since they are the same thing.

I have been telling you that Susskinds says that for 7 years.
That is what I have been saying.

very good.

 

[stu]

Susskind doesn't say... the fine tuning.
Susskind says... an appearance of fine tuning.

So for 7 years you've been wrong about what Susskind says.


Congratulations.

 

[jem]

for seven years you have denied that one explanation for the appearance of fine tuning could be a Tuner.

now you can't because it is on tape and it kills your 1950s atheist mindset.

Everything you else you have said has been either a misrepresentation of what science has found or what I have said.

If you search on jem and type in appearance you will see 5 pages of quotes in which I have said the appearance of fine tuning.

Quote from stu:

Susskind doesn't say... the fine tuning.
Susskind says... an appearance of fine tuning.

So for 7 years you've been wrong about what Susskind says.


Congratulations.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
for seven years you have denied that one explanation for the appearance of fine tuning could be a Tuner.

now you can't because it is on tape and it kills your 1950s atheist mindset.

Everything you else you have said has been either a misrepresentation of what science has found or what I have said.

If you search on jem and type in appearance you will see 5 pages of quotes in which I have said the appearance of fine tuning.

I only have to look back one post out of the countless ones to see where you don't say appearance of fine tuning. You're always trying to misrepresent . It's clearly the only way you know.

On tape or not, an explanation given no explanation is not really an explanation, except that is, in your iron-age theist mindset.

For seven years you've goosed your own argument because basically it's a dishonest one.