Jem I was able to understand his own words without your interpretation. My point is your whole argument seems to be based on Susskind's comments yet his comments in the clip I posted do not support your views. His conclusion is much different than yours. You admit to his intelligence and knowledge on the subject, why do you stop short on trusting his conclusions then?
Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
My argument comes from the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields who note that the constants of our universe are amazingly tuned for life.
I point to Susskind because he wrote a book about this in 2005 and stu always lies about what Susskind says and what Susskind means.
but... on other threads I quote Hawking, Rees, Carr, Weinberg, Penrose and tons of others. Now most of these scientists speculate that the multiverse explains the fine tunings but they no doubt write about the existence of the fine tuning.
In short...
The standard model of physics contains at least 20 constants and those constants are incredibly fine tuned.
Now what causes those fine tunings since the tuning seems to be far beyond what random chance or luck could do.
The answers are...
1. the tunings could be explained by the multiverse
2. a Tuner or Creator...note as the OP stated this is an argument for a Creator... not necesarily a particular Creator.
3. there is hope some theory of everything could one day explain why all these numbers are so fine tuned... but even that might not explain why.
So my argument is supported by what Susskind writes and says...as well as many other scientists...... Because I am repeating the science from scientists.
I point to Susskind because he wrote a book about this in 2005 and stu always lies about what Susskind says and what Susskind means.
but... on other threads I quote Hawking, Rees, Carr, Weinberg, Penrose and tons of others. Now most of these scientists speculate that the multiverse explains the fine tunings but they no doubt write about the existence of the fine tuning.
In short...
The standard model of physics contains at least 20 constants and those constants are incredibly fine tuned.
Now what causes those fine tunings since the tuning seems to be far beyond what random chance or luck could do.
The answers are...
1. the tunings could be explained by the multiverse
2. a Tuner or Creator...note as the OP stated this is an argument for a Creator... not necesarily a particular Creator.
3. there is hope some theory of everything could one day explain why all these numbers are so fine tuned... but even that might not explain why.
So my argument is supported by what Susskind writes and says...as well as many other scientists...... Because I am repeating the science from scientists.
...and so you don't have an argument.
No scientist has any science to confirm the constants of the universe are amazingly tuned for life.
Maybe your universe, the one in which Elvis lives they do, but the real one - they don't.
Tuner/Creator/God:
No science, non-scientific and contrary to the laws of physics.
Multiverse:
Scientific, conforms with the laws of physics.
You're going with the science?....then if you're with Susskind, you're going with multiverse.
"The Bible is the word of God".
"The Bible is the word from God."
Generally speaking it's blindingly obvious for Christians the bible is both the word 'of' and 'from' God.
Any very simple sentence that can have any meaning you want it to depending on how you want to interpret it...means it is a pointless sentence.
The bible, the word, god ... not only full of contradictions, but sentences in them, or to do with them, rendered pointless. They can mean anything.
I see what you mean!
there you go again Stu lying your ass off with no links to any type of science whatsoever... just troll lies...
How could you lie about the standard model of physics you fricken troll.
Current science states the standard model has about 25 constants. Martin Rees wrote a book about 6 of them being very highly tuned. I have quoted him in videos.
here is wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Martin Rees[12] formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:
N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
Epsilon (ε
= strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
Omega (ω = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
Lambda (λ = cosmological constant;
Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.
The most highly tuned constant is the cosmological constant.
I have provided video with top scientists showing you the cc is tuned to 120 decimal places.
I will provide Susskind explaining it again.
How could you lie about the standard model of physics you fricken troll.
Current science states the standard model has about 25 constants. Martin Rees wrote a book about 6 of them being very highly tuned. I have quoted him in videos.
here is wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Martin Rees[12] formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:
N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
Epsilon (ε
= strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;Omega (ω
= relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;Lambda (λ
= cosmological constant;Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.
The most highly tuned constant is the cosmological constant.
I have provided video with top scientists showing you the cc is tuned to 120 decimal places.
I will provide Susskind explaining it again.
It's the last hope for the God believers, so jerm is fighting tooth and nail. It's the last place god could be. Everything else attributed to "god" has been explained by science. This is his last hiding hole.
I am fighting tooth and nail? Its the lying troll trying to uphold his and your 1950 world view that are fighting without any science.
Do you even understand the science?
The Science is stating the constants of our universe are tuned for life.
repeat..
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate
"One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- 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:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."
Do you even understand the science?
The Science is stating the constants of our universe are tuned for life.
repeat..
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate
"One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- 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:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."
And why you can't understand that just because something APPEARS to be fine tuned for life doe not it WAS fine tuned for life, is perhaps a bigger mystery than how the universe came to be. LOL