sorry I read the links and realize I read the bouncing brane theory before, it may or may not resemble smolins work.
you're right jem, we all make mistakes, it would be easy to do...once. But repeatedly, by a LAWYER which is what you say you do, one of the key words in a lawyer's life, and you still don't realize 2 or 3 times after it was brought to your attention. Then to spell "no" for "know" over again. An illiterate lawyer!? whatever next. You can stick your carrot back up Rudolf's ass. It may help stem the flow of contorted reindeer shite you post . Best wishes and A Happy New Year dude
mine were typos -- but you clearly did not know when to use infer and imply. you see how you easliy posts from you cause threads to become child like.
well let's face it, you make shit up to pretend Susskind said things he didn't so I guess no surprise you will not hesitate to do the same for lesser mortals like myself. Arguing repeated grammatical ignorance are typos rather than admitting youâre making atrocious grammatical error is something you will be continuing to blame on your keyboard or the Firefox browser thro '07 obviously.
you are such a piece of filth totally lacking in any intellectual integrity. show me where in your moronic world i have made shit up about what Susskind said.
A probability calculation is totally dependent upon (1) definite and certain knowledge of the contents of the set of all possible outcomes (which may be statistical), or (2) the premise that mulitiple trials can be conducted to empirically determine the probabilities. Without one or the other, no probabilty calculation can be conducted. Example: If you have slot machine with an unknown number of symbols, but which you know has paid off once in the past, you cannot calculate the probability of another handle pull unless you actually pull the handle multiple times so as to empirically determine the odds. This is analogous to our lack of knowledge about the universe prior to its creation, and to our inability to repeat the creation so as to test the possible outcomes. In the case of the universe, there is no way know what "symbols" were on the "wheel" prior to the universe's creation. Thus, no definite and certain knowledge of the set of possible outcomes, and therefore no mathematical probability calculation may be conducted. And, as you cannot pull the handle again so as to observe the results of multiplie trials, therefore no test can be conducted to empirically determine the odds. If Hawking or anyone else is calculating the "odds" of creation, then that person is assuming either (1) that the set of all possible outcomes the creation of our universe is known and can be expressed mathematically, or (2) the experiment of creating the universe can be repeated multiple times. Otherwise any probability calculation is meaningless. So, for each of your above cited sources, I challenge you to produce any evidence that any one of these experts (1) "knows," rather than merely "assumes," the conditions of existence prior to the creation of our universe, or (2) can repeat the creation of the universe so as to empirically determine the outcome. If you can't do one or the other or both, then your cosmological constant is irrelevant, because it is nothing more nor less than a numerical measurement of the state of the universe -- no different than the value of the NASDAQ 100 is nothing more nor less than a numerical measurement of the state of the market. The numerical value of the NASDAQ does not prove anything about how the market was created.
Well, you made this up, dude! Here is the original quote from Susskind: Full article is here: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800.html Maybe you have reading comprehension problems but what you posted paraphrasing Susskind certainly was not what Susskind was saying. Who is a piece of filth totally lacking in any intellectual integrity now?
Well, you made this up, dude! Here is the original quote from Susskind: The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments, tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all assured me it was the best bet. But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that revealed there are more like 10^500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a paper saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past couple of years people are taking it more this is a bizarre world. You made the perfect argument for me yet you do not realize it.
I give you quotes from a nobel prize winner saying quantum mechanics has a allowed phyisicsts to do such caluculations. james bond here recites the argument from susskind implictly destroying your argument. And I can tell you to gooogle Hawking -big bang - 98% -- wave - and I am sure you willl get his work on the subject. Additionally there are dozens if not more sites which explain AP vs mulitverse exactly as I have yet still hold yourself out as the arbiter of the probablility calculations on this issue. I find the lack of authority cited by you to be telling. But I will endeavor over the weekend to get you what you want. I will be busy till then.