Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
...where Susskind is saying multiverse. duh.
Well if I had to be stuck anywhere I'd prefer it to be the 1950s rather than like you, in the middle ages.
The fact that Einstein has the cosmological constant as an arbitrary constant with a value of 0 in his equations of general relativity to typify a static universe, is not misrepresenting anything.
I suppose making fatuous statements, jumping to false conclusions and posting the same post a million times over is all you are ever going to have, as it's clear you know nothing about any of this.
The fine tuning you mean is religious.
The fine tuning scientists mean is not, but an expression for a seemingly tiny positive value which needs explaining.
'God'... un-scientific and doesn't explain anything.
Except as a means by which some like you absolve themselves from understanding much of science at all.
a. you stated the cosmological constant could be zero.
you did not say according to einstein when he was trying to figure out what was incorrect about his theory and the non static universe.
b. âIf there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008)
c. finally if you understood anything about science you would know the problem with the multiverse theory is that if it were true... than you wind up living in a very unscientific place where anything can happen and does depending on the universe you are in.
Hence no predictions... unless you go to (top down comsology.)
you did not say according to einstein when he was trying to figure out what was incorrect about his theory and the non static universe.
b. âIf there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008)
c. finally if you understood anything about science you would know the problem with the multiverse theory is that if it were true... than you wind up living in a very unscientific place where anything can happen and does depending on the universe you are in.
Hence no predictions... unless you go to (top down comsology.)
let me remind stu of part of the first quote of this thread...
"Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, notes that "the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000, but instead:
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe."
Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life. Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science."
"Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, notes that "the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000, but instead:
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe."
Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life. Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science."
How little you obviously understand yet presume to comprehend.
Various supersymmetry theories require the cosmological constant to be at precisely zero.
I also explained thoroughly to you in the context of differences between Susskind and Einstein, why you are wrong . All you can do is regurgitate ignorance that worn out old evangelical beliefs fabricate out of 122 decimal places, as if such values scientifically mean things they don't and cannot.
The fine tuning you mean is religious.
The fine tuning scientists mean is not.
Exactly.
And what's interesting it is not perfection at all, but instead imperfection and randomness that allowed us to be.
I know you understand this stu, and also that it's pointless to try to explain it to jem
ok sock puppet...
why don't tell us what happens to our universe if you change the force cosmological constant by say .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent.
you really think something tuned to 122nd manifests randomness.
I know stu... knows better... he is just trolling.
you simply seem to be another internet leftist drone who refuses to think.
