this was a quote from susskind quoting a noble prize winner. He stated the irony was that Cardinal understood the issue. do you see how ridiculous that makes you look Stu. You did not even understand the point.
...and from the same article which you selectively chose non scientific remarks made directly toward Susskind's own book promotion, you conveniently didn't mention this, from the same "top scientists" in the same article you are desparately trying to misunderstand..... David Gross of UC Santa Barbara says, "Science has managed to explain lots of other weird numbersâso why shouldn't we expect eventually to explain the cosmological constant and other key parameters?" to which Susskind is shown to reply : David is entirely correct in one respect. The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. The observational evidence for a cosmological constant, for inflation, and the mathematical evidence for a string theory landscape could all evaporate. Hello.. your "top nobel prize winning scientist" honestly admits "The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. You don't want to discuss the issue head on, what was actually said and what could only be meant by it, rather you would dance around misrepresenting anything in part or by inference if you thought it might look like you could somehow get science to support a Creator. But it never will, because science does not use faith based concepts as evidence.
jem at every turn your position has been effectively refuted. what ELSE would it take to convince you your position is irrational and indefensible?
why don't you finish susskind's quote you troll. (I will in the next post) why don't you understanding it. The far from rigorous part is the speculation about infinite universes. The cosmological constant was predicted by a noble prize winner (wineberg) and then observed. By other physicists. the other fine tunings are observed, the speculation about infinite universes is the part Susskind admits in other interviews could be countered. In fact in the quote below you will see definitive evidence of it is out of the question. (so much for you juvenile arguments from a few days ago about pre-existing universes - huh troll). Finally note that when he specks of faith based evidence - he is saying that he thinks the speculation that they will come of with a unique solution to explain the fine tunings in only one universe is faith based as his speculation. In short right now he is saying it is either his diversity (infinite universe solution) or the one universe we have looks designed without a unique solution to explain it. (other than the implication made by the existence of the design). --- Neverthelsss the fact you were ripping on the Cardinal until you realized it was a quote from Susskind shows how poorly you comprehend this subject.
here is the quote in context: Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists. David Gross of UC Santa Barbara says, "Science has managed to explain lots of other weird numbersâso why shouldn't we expect eventually to explain the cosmological constant and other key parameters?" David is entirely correct in one respect. The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. The observational evidence for a cosmological constant, for inflation, and the mathematical evidence for a string theory landscape could all evaporate. So far they show no signs of doing so, but surprises happen. It is certainly premature to declare victory and close the question. I would be very worried if all theoretical physicists "gave up" (as David puts it) looking for a mathematical explanation for the "weird" value of the cosmological constant. But I think David exaggerates when he claims that science has explained anything like the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. Some physicists say the landscape idea lacks "beauty" or "elegance." Is that a fair criticism? It's a silly criticism. One should not decide the truth of a scientific proposition by appeal to someone's aesthetic sensibilities. Einstein said, "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." Similarly Thomas Huxley referred to "the great tragedy of scienceâthe slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Without experimental data, how will we ever decide these questions? Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter. How do we find out? Definitive evidence of the rest of the multiverse is out of the question. My guess is that over time we will learn more about the physical basis for inflation, and much of it will come from observational data. We may find deviations from the simplest inflation models that might tell us about how inflation began. We may be able to use statistical properties of the landscape to make predictions about quantities that we have not yet measured. Anyway, I donât grant you the conclusion that there will be no more experimental data. But let's keep our focus on the question: Is the universe very large (apparently so) and diverse, or is it everywhere the same, with particles and constants uniquely determined by elegant mathematics? No one knows for sure. Both are hypotheses. It is just as hard to confirm or falsify one as the other. Recent developments have favored the former, but the question is still open. Honestly, I don't know how it will be definitively decided. But quite frankly, I find the unique/elegant solution to be far more faith-based at the present time than the diversity solution. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind
By the way I was thinking about this and I just had to come back to this point. You just pointed out what a fricken idiot you are. What do we have we have observational evidence of fine tunings and three possible explanations 1. we have non rigorous speculation about infinite universes based on string theory, or 2. a hoped for unique solution from other members of the world of physics, or 3. what is left over if those speculations are never proven - a designer. (even if 1 or 2 is proven a designer could still have designed it that way - but that is a different argument.) Any way you look at it STU - atheism is a product of mental illness. It takes faith to say there is no God. Only a man with a mental illness would say he knows there is no God. Faith in unprovable multiverses or faith in the hope of finding a unique solution. Good luck with that.
What do we have we have observational evidence of fine tunings and three possible explanations No "we" don't. There is only an idea, a speculation that the universe is fine tuned. It is not one of those rigorous scientific facts. 1. we have non rigorous speculation about infinite universes based on string theory, or speculation is not an answer 2. a hoped for unique solution from other members of the world of physics, or right , so science is going to be the only reliable way to provide an answer through rigorous scientific facts 3. what is left over if those speculations are never proven - a designer. what is left over if those rigorous scientific facts are never proven is the question. A designer is not an explanation. That just begs more questions. You're a mess jem. You obviously have no point or argument. You have a psychotic belief in an imaginary friend called God the Creator and youâre suggesting people who donât suffer that fantasy have mental illness? Perhaps you would do better to try and understand the irony in that. Other scientists of equal weight at least to Susskind do not agree with the idea that cosmological constants cannot be explained without infinite universes, nor do they think more than one universe is required to explain the universe itself. It is scientifically feasible the universe started spontaneously. It is also feasible the universe has always existed. In those ways there is no scientific need for a Creator and in fact Susskind does not accept the need for one , even though he knows his landscape proposition is far from rigorous scientific fact and is likely never to be proven. I would say your crass display of utter dimwittedness must surely be a convincing demonstration of how such religious psychosis can so completely mess someone up bad enough they can't think straight . Good luck to you with that.
You clearly do not understand the importance of Nobel prize winners predictions and the comological constant. But susskind does and so do many other scientists. Susskind believes that it is more than dumb luck that the universe is so accommodating to human beings. "Can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?" he asks. No matter what bullshit you try Stu - you can't get around that plain english. But I will lay out for you again.... âWhy is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been less by one part on 1010, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 1010, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.â The Nature of Space and Time, Stephen Hawking and R. Penrose, pg 89-90 Stu - you are arguing with the best minds in science. And you are arguing out your ass without fact or data. You are the fundamentalist athiest. You will not let science get in the way of your beliefs. I do grow weary standing for science against such a zealout. you zeal to hide the truth may wear me out.
Still going round and round in circles I see. .....but puleeze, don't make me laugh. Quoting scientists out of context in all that misrepresentation and deceit of yours. Delusional ramblings as a religious nutter, which has IS NOT meaning -IS-, and you're "standing for scienceâ. WTF planet are you on? Have another stab at it. Here is Susskind's answer in the same paragraph.....which because you are a religious nutter, and a deceitful one to boot, you chose to ignore .... But does this mean that the religious fundamentalists have won? Must we invoke the existence of a god to account for the gaps in our knowledge? Susskindâs answer in plain English is "no" on both counts. What an utterly ineffectual excuse for an argument you make. So exactly where is this designer of yours anywhere in what Susskind says? Nowhere, of course. It never was. Now being really, REALLY desparate and it isn't the first time, you again use Stephen Hawking's quote to form part of that litany of willful perversions from the actual only to abysmally fail once more. In plain English Hawking makes the position abundently clear, however you choose to ignore the relevance of it..... Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.â ---- Hawking Penrose quote. Well guess what. Science does not appeal to nor consider trusims and statements of the bleedin' obvious like the anthropic principle to be a rigorous scientific fact . Science Is the only mechanism available to find some physical explanation. So obviously to anyone but a religious nutter , it is perfectly clear both Hawking and Susskind require science to provide the explanations. Whether or not science will or will not be hard pressed to do that , which as far as quoting Susskind goes, is what you want to spin your futile ranting around, is a completely separate issue. Even so it's again obvious to all but the religious nutter , having no answer, is not an answer. Don't know = must be a designer - is about as dumb as you can get. Somewhere deep down underneath all that seething mass of peutrid religious indoctrination you must know that. So what do you do? You use deceit to clumsily and fraudulently misrepresent the whole picture in order to distort and alter what is actually being said , clearly meant and stated. Well it's not working. Those "leading scientists" you mention do not allow faith based superstitions to form part of their scientific explanations. Unlike you they know an irrelevance when they see one. Standing for science !!! . What a delusional headcase you must really be. Misquoting and misrepresenting Susskind and Hawking is not standing for science and the sooner you do get weary of it the sooner it will have no affect whatsoever. lol. You are getting weirder and weirder Alice. Hey maybe theism is a product of mental illness after all. Now that's something you could successfully stand for!