Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

jem · Jul 19, 2013

was this from this thread?

1. the commandment is originally part of the the jewish bible.
2. translating a language from thousands of years ago is likely to be problematic. Especially when if it means that shall not kill instead of thou shall not murder... then self defense is impermissible.
3. I think most Christians believe the bible is inspired by God... I am not sure they expert the bible to be the word of God... word for word.

finally you may be mixing up inerrancy with infallibility and what that means and how many people profess it.

I think the the argument is that the original manuscripts may be inerrant.

Quote from piezoe:

The Christian Bible full of contradictions. This is consistent with and evidence that it is a work of man and NOT the word of a God, as claimed by Christians, and most of those who call themselves Christian.

stu · Jul 20, 2013

Quote from jem:
we agree... on something...

really? and what would that be?

Quote from jem:
Todays bottom up approach... requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned (which is the model of physics which is consistent with the standard model - it is our current reality) however if you are not satisfied with that.... you can speculate that we have eternal inflation... or you can speculate we have almost infinite universes and then if you dream up the top down approach you can say gravity shaped our universe.

Actually no we don't agree, you're wrong. I've said why a thousand times, but here's why you're wrong, again.

Assert fine tuning or assert eternal inflation. You are saying eternal inflation is speculation, but in the form your false argument takes, it must require both fine tuning and eternal inflation to be speculation.
Your false non-argument defeats itself.

Worse still, fine tuning has no valid scientific basis. It is pure unsubstantiated assertion. On the other hand eternal inflation certainly is scientifically based.

All you are doing is making a special pleading false argument for fine tuning, and you are doing that only because you want to say there must be a "Tuner" imputed to be god.

One bad premise stacked upon another is all you got. You are not understanding basic logic nevermind "the science".

Quote from jem:

you see stu... you understand the science you are just too much of a troll to tell the truth.

That's the thing. You particularly don't want to understand 'the science' you are just too much of a religiously motivated fraud to recognize the truth.

kut2k2 · Jul 20, 2013

Quote from stu:

Actually no we don't agree, you're wrong. I've said why a thousand times, but here's why you're wrong, again.

Assert fine tuning or assert eternal inflation. You are saying eternal inflation is speculation, but in the form your false argument takes, it must require both fine tuning and eternal inflation to be speculation.
Your false non-argument defeats itself.

Worse still, fine tuning has no valid scientific basis. It is pure unsubstantiated assertion. On the other hand eternal inflation certainly is scientifically based.

All you are doing is making a special pleading false argument for fine tuning, and you are doing that only because you want to say there must be a "Tuner" imputed to be god.

One bad premise stacked upon another is all you got. You are not understanding basic logic nevermind "the science".

That's the thing. You particularly don't want to understand 'the science' you are just too much of a religiously motivated fraud to recognize the truth.

+10

Moreover, jem seems not to get it that he is arguing for Deism, not for Christianity. Even if he succeeded in establishing evidence for Deism, how does he plan to cross the immeasurable chasm between that and his believed Jesus the Messiah?

jem · Jul 20, 2013

the reader... has to ask themselves... do you believe a troll name stu lying about science or..
the cofounder of string theory.

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

jem · Jul 20, 2013

For years I wrote "appears" because that is what Susskind said.... but now other scientists have said there is no question our universe is fine tuned for life.... that is observed.

So the question really is... what causes the fine tunings.

If you speculate almost infinite universes than you can say "appears".

Quote from Ricter:

You say "are" fine tuned, maybe that's where the argument really begins, as "is fine tuned" is very different from "appears fine tuned".

stu · Jul 20, 2013

Quote from jem:
the reader... has to ask themselves... do you believe a troll name stu lying about science or..
the cofounder of string theory.

Susskind is not a co founder of string theory nor is the version he developed used. The complete ignorance you have of the whole subject doesn't make me a liar.
The reader... really need only ask themselves... wtf crap are you going to drivel out next....

and their question is immediately answered...by this...

Quote from jem:

.... but now other scientists have said there is no question our universe is fine tuned for life.... that is observed.

Utter bullshit. What other scientists? The ones you just invented what they say in your head.

No question ? ...There is no science... anywhere... that shows the universe is fine tuned for life or scientifically observed to be fine tuned for life, period.

For information, you making shit up, is not valid argument.

stu · Jul 20, 2013

Quote from kut2k2:

+10

Moreover, jem seems not to get it that he is arguing for Deism, not for Christianity. Even if he succeeded in establishing evidence for Deism, how does he plan to cross the immeasurable chasm between that and his believed Jesus the Messiah?

I find people like Jem really don't care how unintelligent and even dishonest they are being. They'll say and believe anything, literally, to push their personal religious fantasies.

jem · Jul 21, 2013

Stu's credibility is demonstrated right here.
He lies with a total disregard of a search function.
Can you believe getting so worked up about the subject of fine tuning you lie about everything...

read the 4th sentence or just type susskind founder of string theory into Google... you will see just how seriously you lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

Leonard Susskind (born 1 January 1940)[2] is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests include string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology.[1] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences,[3] and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,[4] an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,[5] and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study.[6]
Susskind is widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory,[7] having, with Yoichiro Nambu and Holger Bech Nielsen, independently introduced the idea that particles could in fact be states of excitation of a relativistic string.[8] He was the first to introduce the idea of the string theory landscape in 2003.[9]
Susskind was awarded the 1998 J. J. Sakurai Prize.[10]

Quote from stu:

Susskind is not a co founder of string theory nor is the version he developed used. The complete ignorance you have of the whole subject doesn't make me a liar.
The reader... really need only ask themselves... wtf crap are you going to drivel out next....

and their question is immediately answered...by this...

Utter bullshit. What other scientists? The ones you just invented what they say in your head.

No question ? ...There is no science... anywhere... that shows the universe is fine tuned for life or scientifically observed to be fine tuned for life, period.

For information, you making shit up, is not valid argument.

stu · Jul 22, 2013

Quote from jem:

Stu's credibility is demonstrated right here.
He lies with a total disregard of a search function.
Can you believe getting so worked up about the subject of fine tuning you lie about everything...

read the 4th sentence or just type susskind founder of string theory into Google... you will see just how seriously you lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

Leonard Susskind (born 1 January 1940)[2] is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests include string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology.[1] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences,[3] and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,[4] an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,[5] and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study.[6]
Susskind is widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory,[7] having, with Yoichiro Nambu and Holger Bech Nielsen, independently introduced the idea that particles could in fact be states of excitation of a relativistic string.[8] He was the first to introduce the idea of the string theory landscape in 2003.[9]
Susskind was awarded the 1998 J. J. Sakurai Prize.[10]

Perfect manifestation of how a loud mouthed ignoramus like you gets information from selective searches on the internet which fit with their prejudices rather than dealing with the facts.

You keep making the same bonehead mistakes. Once again, did you not notice this in your link..."The neutrality of this article is disputed." How many times now have you relied on your education coming from disputed Wiki pages?

Here, you like Wiki so much, at least try looking under the subject matter itself which isn't disputed , rather using a page which is personalizing a particular scientist whom you are only trying to get to say something which he isn't saying anyway ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory
emphasis mine:

String theory is an outgrowth of a research program begun by Werner Heisenberg in 1943, picked up and advocated by many prominent theorists starting in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s ....

[supersting theory]
In 1970, Yoichiro Nambu, Holger Bech Nielsen, and Leonard Susskind presented a physical interpretation of Euler's formula by representing nuclear forces as vibrating, one-dimensional strings. However, this string-based description of the strong force made many predictions that directly contradicted experimental findings. .....

The revolution was started by a discovery of anomaly cancellation in type I string theory via the Green-Schwarz mechanism in 1984.

Leonard Susskind does not rank as co founder of string theory as I said. His string theory landscape describes a state in quantum field theory. Not a founder of it..
If anyone gets the label of founder or co founder of string theory it starts at Heisenberg.

You've previously stated Susskind a Nobel Prize winner (which in your usual display of ignorance kept typing as "noble" prize ) although he isn't.
That would be more than likely misinformation you got from a 'search function' of yours which leads to some kind of christian information to bullshit by webpage.

Face up to it Jem, you're just a rather generally arrogant and ignorant smart ass, spouting bullshit from start to finish to make ridiculous fantasy claims about fine-tuning and a "Tuner".

Sad for you is, you must actually believe all the crap you're so brainlessly posting.

jem · Jul 22, 2013

You are a troll / clown.

I told you to google it as well.
That he is the co founder of string theory is all over the net.

here is another link saying it...

http://www.openculture.com/2012/05/...mly_remembers_his_friend_richard_feynman.html

and another

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/

and another

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/

and the list goes on and on.

and another says he is the founder... in this debate with smolin

http://www.bigmiketrading.com/elite_membership/

and here it is in scientific american...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-boy-of-physics
---

stu you total troll.

Quote from stu:

Perfect manifestation of how a loud mouthed ignoramus like you gets information from selective searches on the internet which fit with their prejudices rather than dealing with the facts.

You keep making the same bonehead mistakes. Once again, did you not notice this in your link..."The neutrality of this article is disputed." How many times now have you relied on your education coming from disputed Wiki pages?

Here, you like Wiki so much, at least try looking under the subject matter itself which isn't disputed , rather using a page which is personalizing a particular scientist whom you are only trying to get to say something which he isn't saying anyway ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory
emphasis mine:

String theory is an outgrowth of a research program begun by Werner Heisenberg in 1943, picked up and advocated by many prominent theorists starting in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s ....

[supersting theory]
In 1970, Yoichiro Nambu, Holger Bech Nielsen, and Leonard Susskind presented a physical interpretation of Euler's formula by representing nuclear forces as vibrating, one-dimensional strings. However, this string-based description of the strong force made many predictions that directly contradicted experimental findings. .....

The revolution was started by a discovery of anomaly cancellation in type I string theory via the Green-Schwarz mechanism in 1984.

Leonard Susskind does not rank as co founder of string theory as I said. His string theory landscape describes a state in quantum field theory. Not a founder of it..
If anyone gets the label of founder or co founder of string theory it starts at Heisenberg.

You've previously stated Susskind a Nobel Prize winner (which in your usual display of ignorance kept typing as "noble" prize ) although he isn't.
That would be more than likely misinformation you got from a 'search function' of yours which leads to some kind of christian information to bullshit by webpage.

Face up to it Jem, you're just a rather generally arrogant and ignorant smart ass, spouting bullshit from start to finish to make ridiculous fantasy claims about fine-tuning and a "Tuner".

Sad for you is, you must actually believe all the crap you're so brainlessly posting.