I haven't asserted two different claims. I just used the generals/battle analogy to demonstrate how ignorant your entire argument is. There is no way to prove that the cosmological constant was set by an extra-universal designer. That's my position. If you can refute it, then produce the math. Otherwise, you're just speculating.
1. I did not expert you would admit your made a mistake. nice try, but it will not fool anyone who read your responses. You made a very poor analogy and it highlighted your mis application of probability theory. 2. Now you change your position regarding the appearacne of design and you pretend that has been your position all along. How is this for the application of statistics: On this thread you are 0 for 2. Wrong and Wrong. That is not random -- I am done with this thread for a few weeks because I take your change of position as a concession. I really do not want to take you back to the beginning and show you how you stated there is no evidence for design and you argued agains the point I was making regarding Susskind. That Susskind said the universe appears designed. But suffice it to say all you have to do is go back and read this thread to see that your new statement is not what this thread is about. Arguing the universe appears designed is not the same as proving the cosmological constant was set by an extra universal designer. Surely you can see the difference.
Nice try to claim victory and go home. I won't let you go, though. You're the one confused. There is a big difference between "the universe appears designed" and "the universe was designed." Surely you can see the difference.
1. What I can see is that you erroneously tried to suggest that quantum mechanics is heavily involved in the current science of sending space craft to other planets, and when challenged, you tried to implicate semiconductors as the rationale for your comment. I asked around my office, where there are about 20 semiconductor designers located within less than a one minute walk. After asking about 5 of them, and having them all laugh at the prospect that they would use quantum physics to design a production chip, I am satisfied, that while there is lots of quantum theory in the underlying science of electronics, no one could seriously claim that quantum mechanics is an integral part of anything but the farthest bleeding edge of current semiconductor development. 2. What I can see is that you refuse to produce the math to prove your assertions about the cosmological constant proving design. 3. What I can see is that your grammar and spelling is that of a 15 year old or someone who is heavily sedated/intoxicated. 4. What I can see is that you keep talking about how my application of probability theory is wrong, but you never actually demonstrate how -- which suggests to me that you don't really know if it's wrong or not. Considering your refusal as to #2, above, this is unremarkable. 4. What this thread is about, is whatever anyone wants to argue. And, as you, and others, have chosen to argue about what the cosmological constant means, it's fair game that I suggest it means no more than what it says: Vacuum energy of local space = ~2x10^-121.
The weakness of gravity, the existence of just the right motley set of particles to form the building blocks of lifeâare these facts enough to cause physicists to abandon their quest for mathematical elegance and shift to embrace the anthropic principle? No, said Susskind, there is still the possibility that they arose by chance. "But there is one fine-tuning of nature, one accident, one conspiracy we might call it, which is so extraordinary that nobody thinks it's an accident."... Several years ago, the 121st decimal place of the cosmological constant was measured through cosmological observation; its value appears to be 2 instead of 0. To Weinberg and to Susskind, this confirmation of the earlier prediction is the best support for the anthropic contention that "some features of our own existence determine certain things about the laws of nature." Back to Top Explaining the appearance of design What else, besides an intelligent designer, could have tailored the universe to fit the needs of planets and people, including unlikely features that defy current mathematical prediction? Susskind's answer lies in string theoryâa mathematical model of nature to which many, if not most, physicists now subscribe. String theory makes sense in 10 dimensions of space, not our usual three. The extra six-dimensional spaces are known as Calabi Yau or CY spaces. "These spaces control all the properties of the world in a large scale," said Susskind. "The (elementary) particles have to be able to fit into these spaces. If they fit, then they're allowable particles. If they don't, they're not allowable. All the laws of nature and string theory are controlled by these features of these CY spaces." There are about a million different CY spaces, or "manifolds." Each one can be decorated with "little lines of flux that can wind around them in many, many ways," said Susskind. "When you start counting up all the possible ways the CY manifolds can be decorated with these fluxes, the numbers are humongous." String theory allows for a landscape of as many as 10500 different environments. Thus, string theory allows for a landscape of possible universes "so rich that it appears there may be as many as 10500 different environments that can be described." The number of possibilities is so large that it can compensate for the incredible unlikelihood of the cosmological constant being so exceptionally small. Do these alternate universes actually exist outside of the realm of possibility, or is the universe everywhere the same as it is here, in all the places we can measure it? Nobody knows the answer yet. What is known is that the universe is far wider than the 10 billion light years across that it was once assumed to be. The school of inflationary cosmology holds that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. An exponential and perpetual expansion would be possible if, as the universe expanded, new bits of space formed to fill interstitial spaces. The theory of eternal inflation suggests that as the universe grows, bubbles of alternate types of space appear. "If a bubble is too small, it will melt back into the environment," said Susskind. "If it happens to grow a little bit, it will then start to really expand." Within that expanding bubble, more bubbles will form. "It creates this enormous diversity of different properties and in some tiny, tiny fraction of it, perhaps a comfortable little green neighborhood appears where life can exist. That's where we are." http://www.nyas.org/publications/readersReport.asp?articleID=48 1
footnote. In the sentence above where Susskind said "noboby thinks it's an accident." To be accurate Susskind should have said nobody but Kjkent.
by the way that "10500 different environments" is really 10 exponential 500. It did not cut and paste properly.
I am not interested in any writing form any source that is not the product of a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Your quotes are from an article written by Sheri Fink. Her goal is to sell Susskind's book and her own talents as a popular science writer. Her article misrepresents the debate between physicists, in order to make the cosmological constant more interesting to the layperson, and thereby sell the book. After all, without a debate between God and Science, no one would give a crap about this entire issue! In the last part of Susskind's presentation to the NYAS, he explains that the debate among physicists is not one of whether the universe is designed vs. the way it is by change, but rather, that the debate is over whether there is an elegant set of unified equations which can explain the way our universe works, or whether their is a huge number of alternative universes, all with their own set of equations, such that cosmological science is as prone to uncertainty in its predictive abilities as is quantum science. The reason why this debate is so hot, is because for the classical physicists, not being able to elegantly model our universe means that the search for certainty in the answers of the "why" and "how" of our enormous universe is over -- just like these questions were sent into oblivion when Heisenberg presented his uncertainty principle with regard to the very small. Einstein didn't like Heisnberg's answers because it meant that Einstein would not be able to create a unified theory of the universe to explain the actions of the very small. Similarly, modern classical cosmologists remain unhappy over the prospect of string theory, or more correctly M-theory, which is the consolidation of the 5 competing string theories, because M-theory hypothesizes that the very large may be as equally subject to uncertainty as is the very small. All of the above, and all of your quotes from unreliable, non-scientific sources, led me to ask you to define what you believe "anthropic principle" means. You declined to answer. To modern physicists, "anthropic principle" does not mean that the universe was either designed or the product of chance. It means that the reason why the universe is observed in it's present state, is because we are here to observe it. And, that if the universe was in some other state, we wouldn't be here to observe it. That is ALL that the anthropic principle means to modern physicists. To creationists, of course, the anthropic principle is an opportunity to suggest that we are here because God designed the universe to make it possible. There is no mathematical model from ANY respected physicist/cosmologist, ANYWHERE which suggests that this is true (although there are certainly lots of creationists with Ph.Ds who will try to use the work of Weingberg, Hawking, Susskind, Whitten, et. al., as a means of suggesting that "God did it"). The fact that some physicists postulate things does not render those postulates anything more than philosophy, unless they can be observed and measured. Steven Weinberg suggests that the cosmological constant is what it is because it aids in the formation of denser regions of matter from which the rest of the universe. He does not suggest that the cosmological constant is what it is because it was necessary to God's plan. Leonard Susskind suggests that the cosmological constant is what it is for the identical reasons as Weinberg. Steven Hawking concurs. My position is unchanged, and yours is fundamentally wrong. There is no physical phenomenon or mathematical requirement that the cosmological constant must be any particular value. The fact that it is valued as it is, permits us to be here to observe it, but that doesn't mean that the constant couldn't be some other value. In summary, jem, if you want to prove that the existence of cosmological constant dictates a battle between design and chance, then LET'S SEE YOUR MATH -- or a peer-reviewed scientific article which proves that the constant cannot be any other value. Absent such proof, you are misunderstanding the debate and the science and you are leading yourself on a wild goose chase. And, if that makes ya feel good then go for it. But, your goose is already cooked.
The burden is on you. I have shown you that the cofounder of string theory and a nobel prize winner state that confirmation of the earlier prediction is the best support for the anthropic contention that "some features of our own existence determine certain things about the laws of nature." (This is an atheists way of saying that we appear designed.) --- That is not saying we have proof that God designed the universe. I am not making that contention. Even though you keep saying I am to set up your strawman argument. (another deception of yours). --- You have the burden of explain this: quote from the founder of string theory: "But there is one fine-tuning of nature, one accident, one conspiracy we might call it, which is so extraordinary that nobody thinks it's an accident."... (Except Kjkent ) It is not a valid counter point to say - this article was writen by a non nobel prize winner. The issue is whether Susskind made the statement. Yes or no KJ. Was he making it up? prove it.
You know, it should be sort of self-evident that w/o M-theory and multiverse, one would have to default to design (aka, a God/higher power/ supernatural cause). I think I said that before, but it really is that simple. Arguing what one man said or the intended meaning of one man is sort of pointless. M-theory, string theory and multiverse are necessary, yet fanciful (in that they are untestable and therefore unverifiable) concepts if one takes the view that all things are simply a product of material existence. Is it a tacit admission on Susskind's part that there is an element of design to the universe? I don't think so. I think he is simply refering to the inherent order found in the universe. Any admission on his part would be self contradictory.