I don't listen to christian rock - I get the sense there are too many fakes in it for the cash. You are still missing the point. I think you have blind denial.
No you can't. You only ever show one "top physicists" who you say doesn't agree, while all the time he is saying he does agree. The physicistâs name is Susskind and you misrepresent him in the face of his own words. I can think of a description of people who do such things for religious purposes but I'll refrain from mentioning it. Well done. You almost exactly described religion itself.
Stu likes to argue with dictionaries and english -- so I will give you quote from susskind again... If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent â maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation â 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 natureâs 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. In short if science can not find evidence of trillions of other universes - science will be hard pressed to find an answer to the IDers who state the fine tunings indicate design.
when saying I only mention one physicist - stu either lies or stu likes to discount the work of nobel prize winners. Like Stephen Weinberg. (spelling could be off) -- finally all these years the foolish atheist on the board said I was misrepresenting Susskind although I presented his words... Read this Susskind's Sophie's Choice Susskindâs new book The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design is generating a lot of interest. Recently he gave a fascinating interview to Amanda Gefter at NewScientist. I especially enjoyed the last question and answer: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design? 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. The landscape to which he refers is an estimated 10500 environments consisting of different values for the physical constants, i.e., different laws of physics. At the risk of oversimplifying, possible universes exist as local minima in this vast megaverse. Our universe is one with the âjust rightâ fine-tuning that we observe. Susskindâs answer shows that his book should be subtitled String Theory and the Possible Illusion of Intelligent Design. He has done nothing whatsoever to disprove fine-tuning. Nothing. He has only countered it with a religious speculation in scientific language, a God of the Landscape. Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, he tells us that we should embrace the String Theory landscape, not in spite of its ugliness, but rather because of it. Physics should change its paradigm and sing praises to inelegance. Out with Occamâs razor, in with Rube Goldberg. Out with reductionism, in with lots of free parameters. Why? Because if we donât (according to Suskind) there really is no way to explain the fine-tuning, except by Intelligent Design. He even likens, in his last sentence quoted above, those physicists who search for the antithesis of his landscape, a simple, beautiful fundamental theory, to IDers. I think he is correct. For a fundamental theory that predicted all the constants would be a âwinâ for IDâit would destroy the only real threat to cosmological ID: multiple universes with varying laws of physics. The subtext (at times explicit) in Susskindâs book is that fine-tuning is real, in the sense that our universe really does exist on a knifeâs edge, so much so that it demands attention. The only possible way that it is an illusion is if our universe is but one of many. To save materialism, Susskind argues that we must explain this fine-tuning, and his landscape has the best chance of playing the role of a white knight. What about falsifiability, that inconvenient scientific requirement that critics like to bring up when discussing ID? How does Susskind answer attacks on the landscapeâs falsifiablity? Well, he suggests that maybe, though not likely, the one landscape prediction: a negative curvature to the universe, might be detected through more precise measurements of the cosmic background. Presently, our universe appears to be flat, corresponding to a value of the total density Ω0 equal to 1. In his review of Susskindâs book, cosmologist George Ellis looks at the possibility: The particular multiverse version proposed by Susskind, however, has the great virtue of being testable in one respect. It is supposed to have started out by quantum tunnelling, resulting in a spatially homogenous and isotropic universe with negative spatial curvature, and hence with a total density parameter Ω0<1. The best observationally determined value for this parameter, taking all the data into account, is Ω0=1.02+/-0.02. Taken at face value, this seems to contradict the proposed theory. But given the statistical uncertainties, the observations do not definitively exclude Ω0<1, so the theory survives; nevertheless, the observed value should be taken seriously in this era of 'precision cosmology'. These data are not discussed in the book â a symptom of some present-day cosmology, where faith in theory tends to trump evidence. Presumably the hope is that this observational result will go away as more evidence is collected. (Nature 438, 739-740, 8 December 2005) Ouch. (It should also be noted that a detection of a slight negative curvature would be consistent with the landscape, but it wouldnât prove it.) Susskind seems to recognize that falsifiability is a weakness in his theory, so (you just have to give him credit for moxie) he simply goes right to the source. In the same NewScientist interview, he states: There is a philosophical objection called Popperism that people raise against the landscape idea. Popperism [after the philosopher Karl Popper] is the assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable, otherwise it's just metaphysics. Other worlds, alternative universes, things we can't see because they are beyond horizons, are in principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical - that's the objection. But the belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon is homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to the Popperazzi. In other wordsâthe routine assumption that the part of the universe that we cannot see is the same (has the same physical laws) as what we do see is just as unfalsifiable. Chutzpah! Susskind has presented the physics community with what is, for some (not this writer), a Sophie's Choice: a hidious, complictated, unfalsifiable String-Theory Landscape, or Intelligent Design. Susskind rocks. http://www.helives.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_helives_archive.html#113465921781166371
in his own words: Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind rejects the idea of "intelligent design" as a theory for the origins of the universe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8
you are correct - all you have to do is listen to what he says. According to him (if) the universe has many many different environments (environment to him is the same as universe) then you do not have to conclude design. I agree and this s nothing new. And would not be important if he were not speculating about the existence of billions and billions of other universes. If we have 10 to the 500 universes then you can say the fine tunings in this universe to do not lead to the conclusion of design. We went over this before vhehn. - are you paid by atheists to misrepresent information? Please listen carefully to the end of it. "We just happen to live in the universe that looks intelligently designed. "
i just thought that since you fail to comprehend what you read,even though you claim to be a brilliant lawyer, his own words in verbal form may be able to pierce that veil of willfull ignorance. i guess not.
what is hard to hear there vhehn -- Susskind says - we just happen to live in the universe that looks intelligently designed. Do you hear that ? Does it not blast through your self imposed ignorance. He says it on camera? in his second or third to last sentence..... let me say it again "we just happen to live in the universe which looks intelligently designed." This man is one of the founders of string theory and one of the best scientific minds in the world. He tells you our universe looks intelligently designed. Have you fallen off your chair yet? Do you need a fricken transcipt? How many times do you need to read and hear it? Top physicist says we happen to live in a universe which looks intelligently designed... explain the plain english vhehn. 1. What did susskind say about the appearance of our universe? Random or Designed? vhehn will not have the balls to answer. so I will - our universe appears designed. 2. Does Susskind offer a theory of why it looks designed? answer yes 3. Does he have proof of the theory? No - not at this time? 4. What is the theory? at least 10 to the 500 other universes?
man you are a piece of work. his own words from the video: "i dont believe the universe was designed by intelligence" "before darwin we thought the universe looked designed but we eventually figured out what it was. it was random mutation" "a little bit of everything evolved" "it was randomness,statastics,and the laws of physics that led to our design" i dont get it jem. i am sure if you looked at enough creationist sites you could find someone calling himself a scientist claiming he believes intelligent design. why make things up by misrepresenting what this man says? it makes you look intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant.
"it was random mutation" LOL!!! Translation: 1. We don't see a pattern. 2. We don't see change following a program, therefore it must be unplanned and unguided mutation. Why is it that the conclusions of science are so often made upon reaching ignorance, and not actually fact? There is no actual fact of random mutation, none. There is only ignorance of not observing a plan. There is only the fact that based on what we know as fact, and what we can measure as fact, we can't see a pattern for the change that happens. Classic example of the fallacy of argument from ignorance...under the guise of science. Is it planned or random? Nobody knows actually, but scientists believe random... Cracks me up that scientists think they are being logical to assume random or chance as the first "logical" possibility...