I would like to amend the second statement I made above now that I have more time to address this topic. I would prefer the second clause above to it to read -- If there is only one universe, then one may reasonably conclude the universe looks designed. One may reach this conlcusion based on our current scientific knowledge and our current understanding of he Cosmological Constant.
You need to watch Susskind's slide presentation. See: http://www.nyas.org/snc/rw/48/presentation/player.html The debate between physicists/cosmologists which you believe is about chance v. design, is not. The debate (among physicists/cosmologists) is about whether or not there is a unique set of mathematical equations which explain the universe (grand unified theory), as proposed by classical theorists, or whether there are 10^500 different mathematical equation sets, as proposed by the string theorists. Even among string theorists there are different views of how the universe exists. Some theorize that strings create unstable black holes which, if sufficiently large, create universes inside of them, and that our universe is one of these formations (pre-big bang scenario). Others, like Dr. Susskind favor the "conflagration" scenario, where multiple "branes" float around higher-dimensional space and occasionally collide creating big bangs from which universes such as ours emerge. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2 I could go on, but unless you have some other cosmologist's presentation which contradicts the two which I have just provided, then there's not much to argue about. I realize that the availability of a cosmological constant as a rationale for suggesting universal design is compelling to theological thinkers. But, Steven Weinberg, the physicist who predicted that the constant would be 2x10^-121, because this number would be required in order to assure the formation of galaxies, stars planets etc., proposed his hypothesis based, not on the notion that the number was improbably great, but rather on the inverse idea that the constant is the only number which works. That is, and as I've said before, the constant is an artifact of our existence in the universe -- not a cause. This is where I would return to another casino analogy/probability experiment, which you would summarily reject as contradictory to what the great minds of modern physics currently debate. All, I can say to you in response, is that I am absolutely certain that they would agree that my simple probability view is accurate, and that there is simply no way to use the cosmological constant to infer design OR chance, absent the opportunity to conduct multiple trials of universe creation. Because, without multiple trials, any probability experiment is meaningless. As is the cosmological constant with regard to attempting to prove design v. chance.
KJ I just listened to your first nyas presentation. Did you hear Susskind's analogy to the world of the big brained fish. do you hear is little joke about the phyisfish who could not accept the Ikthropic Principle because they would lose their funding. he was telling your there are goups of scientists supporting the conclusion of design. And but for the fact his big brained fish saved he day by bringing in string theory-- and polchensky finding that there could be a billion parallel universes. You might have to admit design. Remember he said a million universes were not enough. To what do you think he was referring? Your conclusion regarding the significance of what Weinberg predicted is exactly opposite of what Susskind said Weinbergs findings meant according to Weinberg. You wrote "I realize that the availability of a cosmological constant as a rationale for suggesting universal design is compelling to theological thinkers. " You seem to complete disregard the fact that I gave you a quote from susskind where he noted 5 well regarded Physicsts (two nobel prize winners) who say the Anthropic Principle should be taken seriously. You also seem to disregard the fact that I have given you quotes from Susskind in which he states the universe looks spectacularly designed. You disregarded the fact that the author of one of the articles is a professor of physics who told you that the universe looks designed if you do not believe their billions of universes. Your conclusion that the Cosmological constant is an artifact of our existence not a cause shows that you are willing to completely ignore the whole point of the debate. The constant goes out to 121 places. and it has to so that we may exist. Now what is the likelyhood that after a big bang a universe would end up being just so perfectly fine tuned for our existence. Susskind and I have told you that over and over. Your universe would be impossibly lucky. And science understands the that impossible luck equals design. However, string theory comes to save the day by saying there are bilions of others landscapes or universes that might exist. consequently your universe is not lucky, it is just the random one that is destined to work. Now I have explained to you the significance of the constant perhaps you would like to explain your theory of multiple trials of universe creation to confirm significance of cosmological constant. I can tell you right now as you prove more universes the constant becomes an "artifact of our existence" and as you prove fewer universe the constant becomes a bar code for a designer.
Numbers added to your quote below are for convenience correlating my response. 1. Susskind was making a joke with the "phish." 2. Weinberg's postulate is, that in order for the universe to become less homogeneous so that stars could form but not be torn apart by repulsive forces, that the vacuum density would have to be 2x10-122, which happens to be the amount of between those two states of matter. Weinberg was suggesting that the cosmological constant is simply an artifact, because he deduced its value from other observations of the universe, rather than by directly measuring it. That's all that Susskind says. His presentation was created as an introduction to Susskind's book, "String Theory and the 'Illusion of Intelligent Design.'" That doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of intelligent design to me. The cosmological constant can be either a cause or a result -- but either way, it's not proof of any predicate condition -- chance or design. It has no weight as a causal factor, any more than the closing value of the NASDAQ is a cause of market direction -- it's just a number of the state of the market (or the universe, in this instance). 3. At the end of the lecture, Susskind discusses the positions of the most important modern physicists, including Stephen Hawking, and his comment was that Hawking takes the anthropic principle seriously in the same way as Susskind -- because it suggests an inflationary universe with multiple pockets of space -- some livable -- some not. Hawking does not support intelligent design. 4. Those quotes were taken out of context and were meant by Susskind as a prelude to his explanation of why the appearance of a spectacularly designed universe is just an "illusion." Furthermore, you are now disregarding the fact that I previously provided you with an audio interview with Susskind where he expressly states that he expects creationists to use these very quotes out of context to misrepresent his position -- which is exactly what you are doing now. 5. String theory is not the only solution to multiple universes, and there are still a good number of cosmologists who reject this solution. They seek a unified field theory for a unique universe, but they do not impute design into the existence of this universe, merely because the cosmological constant is what it is. Instead, these physicists also view the constant as merely an artifact -- nothing more nor less than a market indicator of the state of the universe at the close of the big bang. 6. There's little point in my repeating simple probability examples, because you'll just reject them as you have previously. 7. You can tell me all you want about universe creation, but the fundamental reality is that unless you can pull the trigger on the big bang more than once, you cannot predict whether or not the cosmological constant is more or less likely to be any particular number, because probability theory does not permit an outcome where there is only one trial. The probability of a particular outcome of a trial which has already occurred and which cannot be repeated is 100%. Ask anyone who teaches a probability course. Thus, the cosmological constant is 100% likely to be exactly as it is currently measured by chance, because you cannot perform the test a second time, and you know the outcome of the test which you already have conducted. You simply have no means of knowing, if you were to start the big bang again, whether the universe would coalesce into existence as we know it, or whether it would do coalesce into something different. Einstein's tensor equations (from which most of cosmological theory descends) depend on the speed of light in a vacuum being as currently measured. If that speed is different when you restart the universe, then everything which follows will be different. Furthermore, Einstein's General Relativity equations produce a certain gravitational space-time distortion, which might also be measured differently when you restart the universe. Given a difference in either one of these two factors, the conditions required to produce galaxies and stars would be different, and that would mean a different cosmological constant would be necessary to produce conditions favorable to human life. OK, I've just demonstrated that string theory is not required to disprove a fine-tuned universe. So, we don't need to argue that anymore.
With respect to Weinberg are you leaving out his conclusions. What did Weinberg conlude about the Antrhopic Principle. (his version of it.) Did he not suggest that if his prediction of the value of he Constant was confirmed then you could conclude that man's existnece has an influence on the way the universe formed. (This is what Susskind said in his lecture that you cited.) -- Susskind says the universe appears designed. But, you do not have to really entertain the conclusion of design because it is a just an illusion because he believes string theory suggests we have billions of universes. KJ what would he say if there is only one unverese. Hint I have already told you. With respect to your theories. this is a quote from Susskind about smolin but it could apply here. " But what I find especially mystifying is Smolin's tendency to set himself up as an arbiter of good and bad science. Among the people who feel that the anthropic principle deserves to be taken seriously, are some very famous physicists and cosmologists with extraordinary histories of scientific accomplishment. They include Steven Weinberg [2], Joseph Polchinski [3], Andrei Linde [4], and Sir Martin Rees [5]. These people are not fools, nor do they need to be told what constitutes good science." You can claim this is out of context but it is not. This was Susskind's response to Smolin. Susskind supports the fact that the Anthropic Principle is good science. Your quotes all go to the fact that Susskind uses String theory to show that the Anthpropic principle is an artifact of our existence because string theory allows the existence of billions or more parallel universes. Why you do not accept that fact is beyond me. I am not saying there are no alternatives, I am only saying that accredited scientific minds say the anthropic principle deserves to be taken serously and so does Susskind.
If there is only one universe, then probability theory cannot be used to predict whether or not our being here is due to accident or design, because we cannot conduct any further independent trials. If there are multiple universes, or there is a megaverse, then a distribution of cosmological constants which favors life might suggest design. For the first case, no conclusion is possible, and for the second, we don't know if a conclusion is possible, because we don't know if we can measure the constant in other universes. In sum, the cosmological constant provides zero weight to either side of the dispute, because no measurement providing evidence of ultimate cause is possible.
hi KJ, nice to have you there! just out of curiosity, what wld you say the odds currently are that: . the "cosmological constant" give way to "quintessence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics) . the "big bang" to the "cyclic" model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model . "string" theories to "loop quantum gravity", shld they not be equivalent . "black holes" to "gravastars" . what about "pink noise"? isn't there a possible design inference there? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83191&highlight=pink+noise wishing you a happy new year 2007!
I belive you are mistaken about the methods in which physicists caluculate the odds. 1. stephen weinberg (the noble prize winner) in a paper that was cited on one of our threads (perhaps by you) said physicists are using quantum mechanics to tell us how to calulate the probablilites of various results that might be found by a human observer. 2. Secondly your theory specifically flies in the fact of why Susskind explicitly and repeatedly states he asked his collegues if string theory only supported a million universes. And that he was ready to propose his theories when Polchensky and another string theorist found that there could be billions of parallel landscapes and universes. for instance the odds in getting dealt a royal flush are 1 in 649,740. so when have you playe enough hands to expect to get a Royal flush. after 450,365. so for Susskind under a million you had evidence of design and over a billion you had solely and artifact of existence (to you your phrase). 3. by the way hawking has also calculated the likelyhood of the universe looking like ours are, and he found it (98%) likely the universe was destined to look like ours. ( I know this argues for randomness, but his calucations illustrate the fact that physicists do break your law of the necessity of multiple trials.)
now remember KJ !, the man who continued to spell cite instead of site and no instead of know has ALREADY TOLD YOU...sheesh. 2cents provided good info but what the hell more the merrier There is the potentiality of a falsifiable model in 'M' or 'U' Theoryfor the universe which could provide explantion as to why the Cosmological Constant is what it is, and give answer to the anthropic principles which cause jem to 'Pontificate' an invisible sky wizard. It suggests to me that at the quantum level, the singularity at Big Bang disintegrates completely, contemporaneously extending spacetime to form the beginnings of another universe. From our perspectve, in our spacetime, this quantum causal relationship of black hole and newly formed universe would be in be the future ie a different spacetime to us An interesting part of this I think is the possibility that the very principles which apply to evolution may then also apply to the gestation of a universe. As these new potential universes bounce their way through a singularity (Big Bang) and out of black holes, their parameters may well be subject to a vast or an even infintessimal range of tiny variations. In that way only the ones which "survive", are the ones which are capable of re-producing more black holes. Like organisms survive because they are capable of producing offsprings which can reproduce. This sort of evolution could cause the "fine tuning" noticed as the Cosmological Constant. There may be many other Constants which allow black holes and some other unknown states. But the black hole repro Cosmo Constant also allows inflation therefore star formation - no reason for surprise then!! Now the clincher is, this U model is potentially falsifiable as the gravitational waves it produces would be too small to be detected. However the same waves from the standard model of the universe would be detectable. So jem could well be losing the one place he has been trying to hide his Designer, somewhere rather deficiently described as "before time". The U model does not have the problem of no time.
Unreal a legitimate response from Stu that actually addresses the points I was making and gives a counter argument. STu instead of trolling with all your other crap why didn't just say hey I understand you are saying God could exist outside of time and let me see if phyisics discounts that probability. Well done Stu - I do not fell sick for responding to you. Now we will just have to see how that theory develops. I know last time I looked at 2cents citations I did not see any terrible conflict with the information I was citing or summarizing. Now after giving your a carrot, I will say you are mentally challenged for thinking a persons fingers could not type cite or site interchangably. By the way your statements resemble te work of lee smolin -- I cited a site with his work earlier. Any conicicence?