Not exactly. My point is, if "you don't know what you don't know" about relatively simple concepts that you care about, you're probably making the same mistake in other areas, especially if they're far more abstract and complex. Actually you can't without misapplying the wager because it was devised uniquely for a Christian God. You're SURE? As I said... you don't know what you don't know. And it extends beyond options and trading.
do you purposely mis understand what I am explaining or do you not get it. It is not intelligent design that is driving this new understanding ... it is the anthropic principle. --------------- this quote you picked.... "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." is explained by Hawking in the context that he says science is now speculating we live in a multiverse.
someone posted this on et on a different thread. * BOOK EXCERPT * SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 Why God Did Not Create the Universe There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldââ¬âno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonââ¬âwith a good dose of intuitionââ¬âto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testââ¬âin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeââ¬âand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. [W3Feature1] Stephen Youll The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsââ¬âespecially carbonââ¬âcould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements. By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun. The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way. Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design." That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously 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. Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatââ¬ânow the entire observable universeââ¬âis just one of many. Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...orld_MIDDLENews
this is from wikipedia... i note the fine tuning section and the theory of universes poping out of nothing. (although that pop seems to be in the context of multiuniverses) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Fine-tuning_problem Fine-tuning problem One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning in inflationary theories. In new inflation, the slow-roll conditions must be satisfied for inflation to occur. The slow-roll conditions say that the inflaton potential must be flat (compared to the large vacuum energy) and that the inflaton particles must have a small mass.[61] In order for the new inflation theory of Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt to be successful, therefore, it seemed that the universe must have a scalar field with an especially flat potential and special initial conditions. [edit]Andrei Linde Andrei Linde proposed a theory known as chaotic inflation in which he suggested that the conditions for inflation are actually satisfied quite generically and inflation will occur in virtually any universe that begins in a chaotic, high energy state and has a scalar field with unbounded potential energy.[62] However, in his model the inflaton field necessarily takes values larger than one Planck unit: for this reason, these are often called large field models and the competing new inflation models are called small field models. In this situation, the predictions of effective field theory are thought to be invalid, as renormalization should cause large corrections that could prevent inflation.[63] This problem has not yet been resolved and some cosmologists argue that the small field models, in which inflation can occur at a much lower energy scale, are better models of inflation.[64] While inflation depends on quantum field theory (and the semiclassical approximation to quantum gravity) in an important way, it has not been completely reconciled with these theories. Robert Brandenberger has commented on fine-tuning in another situation.[65] The amplitude of the primordial inhomogeneities produced in inflation is directly tied to the energy scale of inflation. There are strong suggestions that this scale is around 1016 GeV or 10−3 times the Planck energy. The natural scale is naïvely the Planck scale so this small value could be seen as another form of fine-tuning (called a hierarchy problem): the energy density given by the scalar potential is down by 10−12 compared to the Planck density. This is not usually considered to be a critical problem, however, because the scale of inflation corresponds naturally to the scale of gauge unification. [edit]Eternal inflation Main article: Chaotic inflation Cosmological inflation seems to be eternal the way it is theorised. Although new inflation is classically rolling down the potential, quantum fluctuations can sometimes bring it back up to previous levels. These regions in which the inflaton fluctuates upwards expand much faster than regions in which the inflaton has a lower potential energy, and tend to dominate in terms of physical volume. This steady state, which first developed by Vilenkin,[66] is called "eternal inflation". It has been shown that any inflationary theory with an unbounded potential is eternal.[67] It is a popular belief among physicists that this steady state cannot continue forever into the past.[68][69][70] The inflationary spacetime, which is similar to de Sitter space, is incomplete without a contracting region. However, unlike de Sitter space, fluctuations in a contracting inflationary space will collapse to form a gravitational singularity, a point where densities become infinite. Therefore, it is necessary to have a theory for the universe's initial conditions. Linde, however, believes inflation may be past eternal.[71] [edit]Initial conditions Some physicists have tried to avoid the initial conditions problem by proposing models for an eternally inflating universe with no origin.[72][73][74][75] These models propose that while the universe, on the largest scales, expands exponentially it was, is and always will be, spatially infinite and has existed, and will exist, forever. Other proposals attempt to describe the ex nihilo creation of the universe based on quantum cosmology and the following inflation. Vilenkin put forth one such scenario.[66] Hartle and Hawking offered the no-boundary proposal for the initial creation of the universe in which inflation comes about naturally.[76] Alan Guth has described the inflationary universe as the "ultimate free lunch":[77][78] new universes, similar to our own, are continually produced in a vast inflating background. Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but do not violate) the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy and the arrow of time problem). However, while there is consensus that this solves the initial conditions problem, some have disputed this, as it is much more likely that the universe came about by a quantum fluctuation. Donald Page was an outspoken critic of inflation because of this anomaly.[79] He stressed that the thermodynamic arrow of time necessitates low entropy initial conditions, which would be highly unlikely. According to them, rather than solving this problem, the inflation theory further aggravates it â the reheating at the end of the inflation era increases entropy, making it necessary for the initial state of the Universe to be even more orderly than in other Big Bang theories with no inflation phase. Hawking and Page later found ambiguous results when they attempted to compute the probability of inflation in the Hartle-Hawking initial state.[80] Other authors have argued that, since inflation is eternal, the probability doesn't matter as long as it is not precisely zero: once it starts, inflation perpetuates itself and quickly dominates the universe.[citation needed] However, Albrecht and Lorenzo Sorbo have argued that the probability of an inflationary cosmos, consistent with today's observations, emerging by a random fluctuation from some pre-existent state, compared with a non-inflationary cosmos overwhelmingly favours the inflationary scenario, simply because the "seed" amount of non-gravitational energy required for the inflationary cosmos is so much less than any required for a non-inflationary alternative, which outweighs any entropic considerations.[81] Another problem that has occasionally been mentioned is the trans-Planckian problem or trans-Planckian effects.[82] Since the energy scale of inflation and the Planck scale are relatively close, some of the quantum fluctuations which have made up the structure in our universe were smaller than the Planck length before inflation. Therefore, there ought to be corrections from Planck-scale physics, in particular the unknown quantum theory of gravity. There has been some disagreement about the magnitude of this effect: about whether it is just on the threshold of detectability or completely undetectable.[83]
if only you were so logical -- your response is childish. Oh yes pascal did not consider Jesus would have wanted any rational skeptic to conclude there is no God... he he he. and just for reference this is what your wrote... " Another disastrous problem with Pascal's Wager for religious believers is, it's every bit as likely that the Christian God gave the gift of rational skepticism, and therefore after providing so many obvious clues, such as being unfalsifiable Itself, It expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God. The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway, so it's just as likely any Heaven would be for those like Itself. This is just one way Pascal's Wager is catastrophic and totally fails it's intended purpose in any context of a Christian God , The Creator Pink Elephant (peace be upon It), Allah, or any other deity." secondly - pascal would have already considered and dismissed just about any objection you could think of on your own.
You're free to not acknowledge there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of argumentum ad populum.
I have been trading options for 6 months without anyone teaching me. I think there are things I have to learn the hard way. So what? Frankly, it's pathetically irrelevant. The Christian god is no more real than Zeus or Thor. Why can't they have their own Pascal's Wager? My point is Pascal's Wager is an absolutely horrible reason to believe in any deity. It's an after-life insurance policy. Oh, so you believe in Zeus?
Spare me this useless rhetoric please. The anthropic principle simply states that observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. This is, however, not evidence of a fine-tuner. As I said, the appearance of fine-tuning is not evidence of fine tuning. The appearance of evolution is not the reason why it's a fact. The circumstantial evidence is what proves it. Not some guy looking at a human and chimp and from that, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION. It doesn't work like that. I'm sorry jem, Stephen Hawking isn't simply explaining some outside concept he doesn't agree with. He's emphatically stating what he believes himself. Which completely goes against your "most if not all scientists believe in a fine-tuned universe." ========================================== God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain's most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book. In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary". http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator
I really tried to lay out for you, so you could read it for yourself. I presented your quote in the book excerpt... where you would have also read... The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.... You could have gone and read your quote about the laws of gravity and multiple universes in the book excerpt. "That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously 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. Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatââ¬ânow the entire observable universeââ¬âis just one of many." betapeg... do you see the word universes... do you see the words... "If it is true" you see it reduces fine tuning to environmental factors. That is a big if... as no alternate universes have been found to exist. ---