Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

Stu lies...

Hey stu why don't you cite us to the page of the book where Hawking makes that quote about gravity.

Oh wait, you won't do that because you are quoting out of context.
You leaving out the part about the multiverse.

Everything you write is a lie.

------------

The cosmological constant. What is not to get. You made up a bunch of lies and wrote them without any regard for true science.

Compare what you say to what susskind says in his video. Its tuned to over 100 decimal places... if you change it a tiny bit ... the universe crunches or rips apart.
 
Quote from jem:
Stu lies...

Hey stu why don't you cite us to the page of the book where Hawking makes that quote about gravity.

Oh wait, you won't do that because you are quoting out of context.
You leaving out the part about the multiverse.

Everything you write is a lie.
More...
Stephen Hawking says "Because there is gravity....".
He does not say "Because there is a multiverse...."

You take that statement "Because there is gravity...." out of context by introducing a multiverse context into it, especially as the statement doesn't include 'a part' about multiverse you dope.

Because you can't understand what that means does not mean I'm lying. It means you are an idiot with no real argument who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Quote from jem:
The cosmological constant. What is not to get. You made up a bunch of lies and wrote them without any regard for true science.

Compare what you say to what susskind says in his video. Its tuned to over 100 decimal places... if you change it a tiny bit ... the universe crunches or rips apart.
More...
Susskind does not say it (the cosmological constant) IS tuned. Keep pushing that lie and all you are is a liar anyway, who's doubling down from calling me a liar.

He says he (physicists in general), don't know why it is what he says it is.

Susskind doesn't know yet how, why or what, a particular thing actually is. How come YOU know it IS fine-tuned and not just appearing that way as he states.

How come you don't know it is going to be whatever it actually is because of circumstances that must mean it will be that way? Just as it turns out everything else is that becomes understood knowledge of how the universe works.

Your only concept of fine-tuning is one that is assumed by blindly guessing it already exists and has a tuner/creator god attached to it.


"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" Leonard Susskind

But I'm really not going to listen to you in preference to..... "a great minds of science... 'Noble' prize winner... founder of string theory.." Leonard Susskind, as you have illiterately referred to him..... now am I !?

You must be joking. Sad for you, you're obviously not.
 
"Honest atheists -- scientists and lay people -- must now acknowledge that science itself argues overwhelmingly for a Designing Intelligence. And honest believers must acknowledge that the existence of a Designing Intelligence is not necessarily the same as the existence of benevolent God.

To posit the existence of a Creator requires only reason. "

Biggest pile of steaming bullshit on this subject so far in this thread.
 
.....from Prager, a right wing hack, who wears his religion on his sleeve, pontificates on old chestnut arguments in areas he has no qualifications, on subjects that have long ago been roundly debunked...so no surprise Jem posts it.
 
I cite to the source...
stu just lies his ass off...


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].
 
Quote from bigarrow:

"Honest atheists -- scientists and lay people -- must now acknowledge that science itself argues overwhelmingly for a Designing Intelligence. And honest believers must acknowledge that the existence of a Designing Intelligence is not necessarily the same as the existence of benevolent God.

To posit the existence of a Creator requires only reason. "

Biggest pile of steaming bullshit on this subject so far in this thread.
More...

how do you account for the fact that top scientists like Hawking and Susskind say our universe is finely tuned for life and the question is how to explain that tuning.
 
Quote from DT-waw:

still, you discuss about multiverses, while our beautiful scientists and doctors dont even know why our hair falls out.

:D
More...

I think they know why it falls out they just don't know how to stop it from falling out.
 
Quote from jem:

how do you account for the fact that top scientists like Hawking and Susskind say our universe is finely tuned for life and the question is how to explain that tuning.
More...

Simple. You're ignorant and wrong.
They don't say "our universe is finely tuned for life".

The question for scientists is, as it has always been, how are things the way they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top