this really is over your head - I am sorry you do not understand articles such as these.... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825305.800-is-string-theory-in-trouble.html?full=true This is the second paragraph... "But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours." and the last paragraph question "If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design? response from susskind: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID." ---------- read it again and again until you understand it. if it turns out his speculations about the multiverse or landscapes are never proven - then he will be hardpressed to answer the ID critics. As Susskind says one might argue that the hope for a solution to the fine tuning argument is as faith based as ID. Now the thing you did not understand STU is that Susskind admits all those other universes or landscapes are speculation and that they have not been proven. He is a scientist and lives by the truth. you are full of shit. We are lottery winners and the lottery was so impossible that leading scientists are not willing to say it was chance. They therefore have to speculate there were trillions and of other universes. But they have the brains to admit those other universes are speculation. You apparently have know idea about the likelyhood of the fine tunings and like to talk out your arse.
Whatever questions are asked of Susskind , and whatever his answers , the point is , you dimmuck, how can YOU reconcile any response he gives after the statements he made in that video you supplied...? " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "---Leonard Susskind "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind Whatever he says about so called fine tuning , he has already stated "it wasn't designed by an intelligence". Hello.... any supposed "fine tuning" was not designed by an intelligence. With one or infinite universes Susskind states it was " randomness, statistics and the laws of physics" , not intelligent design. He said so! Even if he thinks in his opinion people are going to have a hard time explaining stuff without multiple universes and whether that's true or not, he has already confirmed his position ... " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "---Leonard Susskind. That says it all. Just wtf do you find so impossibly difficult to understand about that ? I suppose once a brainless religious zealot like you starts down a road of fraudulent misrepresentation, they wouldn't have the wit to change direction anyway.
So what the hell is this then? Here's your own leading scientist saying it was 'chance'. "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind
stu - I am starting to believe your are sincere in you lack of comprehesion... it is up to you to figure it out - obviously you do not understand probablities. so I will copy part of what I just posted and get your started. http://www.newscientist.com/article....html?full=true This is the second paragraph... "But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours." ----- do you get it yet - with an infinite number of universe(s) our fine tunings could be random. perhaps you should consult a trader who designs system and talk about confidence levels and randomness. When is a pattern a pattern and when is it just luck. It may help your trading if you internalize these concepts. I will get you started. If you have infinite trading days. After a 10 point up move in the first hour you might see a 38% pull back to r1 at a 11:15 am in the morning - 20 out of 22 days in a row. Since you had so many data points there would probably be a time when that exact scenario could play out by chance. Therefore that fine tuning could be random. if the market has only had 200 trading days in its history - you might start to think you have a trading idea. Now apparently the fine tunings are even strong than my scenario but: If you have one universe - it is too impossible to be attributed our fine tunings to random chance. If you have infinite universe(s) - you would expect to see one with our fine tunings. therefore could very well be random. So Susskind is implicitly and at times explicitly saying until proven otherwise he posits infinite universes therefore our fine tunings could be random.
stu - I am starting to believe your are sincere in you lack of comprehesion... jem â I already realize you are sincere in your total lack of honesty and integrity whatever Susskind may or may not have said about any cosmological constant, he has stated the universe came about by 'chance'. He has stated it was NOT intelligently designed. No cosmological constant or landscapes according to Susskind was intelligently designed. Do YOU get it yet? Itâs your dishonesty which is beyond all comprehension. ---------------- But he fucking well says it is, you pillock. Have I gotten your attention with that?? It seems to be the only language you understand. Look â¦â¦. "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind Heâs already said this universe is attributed to random chance . Heâs already said it IS random without condition. "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind No. He has already said without proving infinite universes⦠" I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "---Leonard Susskind. You don't have to be Einstein to realize there doesnât have to be landscapes of infinite universes to allow chance . There only has to be an âinfiniteâ number of varying potential / failed universes to expect one will eventually occur with enough parameters to evolve into one. And this universe only need happen to be one of them. Consider this. According to quantum gravity theories, every bit as reasonable if not more so than Susskindâs landscapes, the universe appears to be âfined tunedâ not for life , but for for black holes. Black holes are therefore the parents of universes which either live die or reproduce, depending on the suitability of their parameters. That way as in life itself, the only universe that lives for a while ( countless billions of years for instance) is one that has evolved to survive big bang events initiated by black holes. No âfine tuningâ for life required or necessary. Any universe that can evolve will contain black holes itself to reproduce another universe, and from black holes stars are produced, which due to the countless chances in a universe, elements required for life will inevitably arise from. Then there is no need for any "fine tuning". Cosmological Natural Selection ps whatever, youâre still a tosser . At least there are some stochastics concerned in a fecund proposal so your ridiculous trading allegory finds some infinitesimal relevence, albeit totally by mistake.
I will deal with one issue and the the other: stu said "You don't have to be Einstein to realize there doesnât have to be landscapes of infinite universes to allow chance . There only has to be an âinfiniteâ number of varying potential / failed universes to expect one will eventually occur with enough parameters to evolve into one. And this universe only need happen to be one of them." I am stunned by your mistake.... as it is so large it should be seen as a concession. infinite is infinite who cares if universe(s) exist concurrently or in the past... the point you are missing is is that there is no evidence of any other universe... your concept of infinite other universe(s) is a faith based concept. What Science or at least many top scientists know is that we one universe which looks designed. That is what is observable and testable. That is the state of our science to many top scientists. As Susskind said - if the speculation about infinite other universes proves false then science will be hard pressed to answer IDers. Regarding your other statements about Susskind saying our fine tunings are the result of random chance. Your conclusion is meaningless without support. Your conclusion runs contrary to the theme of his books and the conclusion of his articles. it runs counter to the quotes i gave you from stephen weinberg. It belief runs counter to the point made by the author of the article I just cited: "But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours."
Even with no evidence of any other universe Susskind says... " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence." His ideas are scientifically based but not scientifically proven therefore not faith based. Science does not use faith based concepts as evidence. Religion uses only faith based concepts because it has no evidence. How you can get so mixed up in so few sentences is astonishing. The universe is observable. The universe is testable. Looks designed - is not the same as is designed. Can you really not grasp that simple basic understanding? When science tests the universe , findings are "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind But he has the answer for ID'ers. He has already answered them. " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "---Leonard Susskind. what's more, he can show how it is was "designed"..... "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind Ask yourself why on one hand he says "science will be hard pressed to answer IDers." while on the other he says... "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind (Clue: book sales are in the equation. ) Properly reconcile those two for once instead of blindly and lazily defaulting to your faith based concept with no evidence. A creator designer gives no information and answers nothing. Unfortunately for (no) ID'ers there is a universe full of evidence which shows "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind I made no conclusions, just using Susskind's quotes. How can Susskind's quotes run contrary to the theme of his own books and the conclusion of his own articles from where his quotes come from? What a ridiculous thing for you to say. Susskind says the universe is not designed. Its so called "fine tunings" as an intrinsic part therfore are also not designed. You were talking about Susskind. Not Weinberg. Try to have some consistency. You don't even understand the science or the scientists yet you want to use science and what you call top scientists to try and prop up your faith based concept because science is the only place where there is any credible evidence of and about the universe. But no matter how hard you try to misrepresent and deceive no science will support your creator designer faith based concept. Science does not use faith based concepts as evidence. You've already been shown another equally valid proposition to Susskind's of Cosmological Evolution that requires no "Landscapes" no "infinite universes". It would also answer the so called fine tuning / cosmological constants confusion you have. An equally valid scientifically based proposition if not more so, of how improbability is really probability. Which means that article you have is but one view, it does not exclude other opposing scientific propositions and the scientist whom it is voicing happens anyway to also say..... " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. ...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind. btw.. Choosing to make deceitful distorted and delusive arguments around the word design and curve fit everything to your own personal dishonest preconclusions is not science. Just so you know.