Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

so you finally got to the point.... but again you manage to not quote... the source.

so I will give it to you again for the 30th time (or so).


"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
3See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological
spacetimes.1"


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


Is the reason you refuse to cite that source because it explains that according to hawking gravity selects your line of histories in a top down cosmology framework. a framework which is completely speculative?

---

Why don't you cite you tell us where you found your quote...

Is it because if you read a few paragraph up you realize it is made within the context of top down cosmology?

you have been trolling the same bullshit of years.



Quote from stu:

It's because you are unable to rationally discuss any of this you still come up with the same version of wrong after dozens of threads.

Evangelical christians are often found to be fundamentally dishonest. Using anything from them as information is almost guaranteed to be misleading. Commenting on the blogger in this case is valid and frankly the messenger deserves to be shot when they themselves, change the message.

What does Freeman Dyson's comment mean? I'd suggest it means anything you want it to because no matter what is said about it, irrespectively you'll repeat the same again and again in your usual version of wrong. However, no comment has ever been forwarded or supported scientifically.


Did Stephen Hawking make the statement they quoted? The answer is no.
Of course adding in some extra wording to push the quote further out of context than clipping it has already done, the evangelical christians complete their deception.

Inserting "..a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes.." into Stephen Hawking's quote when he says no such thing, is no doubt their attempt at trying to match the inclusion of the word Christ where it wasn't originally written into certain ancient documents by others of their ilk.

Dishonesty very often comes as second nature to evangelical christians.


Here's a quote from a scientist. How come you don't repeat post this one in the same way...

  • "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

    Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

    It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
More...
 
wikipedia now states what I have been telling you for years about your quote...

you present it out of context...
the idea of gravity creating the universe is presented inside the the theory of a multiverse and top down cosmology.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)


The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe. It starts with the Ionian Greeks, who claimed that nature works by laws, and not by the will of the gods. It later presents the work of Nicolaus Copernicus, who advocated the concept that the Earth is not located in the center of the universe.[11]
The authors then describe the theory of quantum mechanics using, as an example, the probable movement of an electron around a room. The presentation has been described as easy to understand by some reviewers, but also as sometimes "impenetrable," by others.[8][11]
The central claim of the book is that the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.[11]
The authors write:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[12]
The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.[11]
The book concludes with the statement that only some universes of the multiple universes (or multiverse) support life forms. We, of course, are located in one of those universes. The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain (see Anthropic principle).[11]
Reactions
 
if einstein did not say that, its too bad because it is a really good quote.

what is your source for saying the quote is not real?


Quote from kut2k2:

It shouldn't be surprising that the so-called Einstein quote written by jem is fake.

Ironically the quote comes from a book called The Problem of Religion

There are so many quotes falsely attributed to Einstein that if he really said all of them, he wouldn't have had time to develop the theories of relativity.

It's just amazing how utter bullshit takes on a life of its own.
More...
 
I did not see this before.

People keep putting up straw man arguments inserting religion into the science of the fine tuning of the universe.

I am not injecting religion into the fine tuning argument.
The fine tuning argument is based on science and I am dealing strictly with the science in that area.

If you wish to argue the science go for it.

But cut the shit about the religion. That is an entirely different argument.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Quote from piezoe:

Jem, It seems you have brought up Einstein's name in conjunction with this "creator" business a time or too, as though to suggest that Einstein believed in a God as the creator of the Universe. And, of course, the palliative argument invoking "intelligent design" had not been dreamed up before his death.

To save you possible future embarrassment, I think I should let you know that Einstein did not believe in anything like the Christian concept of a creator of the Universe, or a divine God, or a personal God. He said on more than one occasion that he was an agnostic. He also said his beliefs were similar to those of Spinoza. He had, admittedly somewhat late in his life, commented on how some of his remarks had been entirely misconstrued. One of those remarks was, "God does not play dice" which of course has been many times wrongly interpreted as indicating Einstein believed in the God of the religious masses.

Here taken from the Wiki article (link below) is an interesting comment attributed to Einstein by his biographer:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

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

On a related matter, wouldn't our own Universe be sufficient to assure a probability of virtually 1 that lifeforms like those on our own planet exist somewhere else in our Universe? I don't understand why one needs to invoke the multiverse concept for this to be true.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

if einstein did not say that, its too bad because it is a really good quote.

what is your source for saying the quote is not real?
More...
Do you know how to click on a link? It's right there.

The quote is real but Einstein didn't say it, which pretty much deflates the heavy significance you tried to pump into it by saying/insinuating "the great Einstein said thus and thus.". No, somebody else (a non scientist) said thus and thus, to which the general response would be a yawn.
 
Jem, as far as I am aware, the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was never satisfactorily resolved. You might, at the same time you're dealing with these other weighty issues, want to weigh in on the angels on a pin head issue -- or should it be the pinhead angel issue? I'd be interested in your opinion as to how many angels it should be possible to place on the head of a pin, leaving the minimum room necessary for dancing of course, and whether this is a "finely tuned number." I'm thinking for starters that it needs to be a whole number. Am I on the right track?
 
A summary of the video. Scientist says the odds are astronomical that the universe was the way it was at the time of the big bang, we don't know what happened or how it happened...must be Jesus.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

A summary of the video. Scientist says the odds are astronomical that the universe was the way it was at the time of the big bang, we don't know what happened or how it happened...must be Jesus.
More...
:)
 
I agree you have now reasonably raised a question...

but you want me to read through an excerpt to a fricken ebook....

to what purpose. who is the writter. what is he claiming... does anyone else agree.

I looked a few pages and did not see your quote.



Quote from kut2k2:

Do you know how to click on a link? It's right there.

The quote is real but Einstein didn't say it, which pretty much deflates the heavy significance you tried to pump into it by saying/insinuating "the great Einstein said thus and thus.". No, somebody else (a non scientist) said thus and thus, to which the general response would be a yawn.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top