Seems as though the thread has gone right into the Bermuda Triangle with respect to the subject matter. So, allow me to turn on the lighthouse lantern and guide us back to safer waters. On Page 380 of Leonard Susskind's 2006 edition of "The Cosmic Landscape -- String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" (i.e., the "last" page of his volume), Dr. Susskind states: "And what about the biggest questions of all: who or what made the universe and for what reason? Is there a purpose to it all? I don't pretend to know the answers. Those who would look toward the Anthropic Principle as a sign of a benevolent creator have found no comfort in these pages. The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics, and a rich Landscape, together with the laws of large numbers, are all that's needed to explain the friendliness of our patch of the universe. But, on the other hand, neither does anything in this book diminish the likelihood that an intelligent agent created the universe for some purpose. The ultimate existential question, "What is there Something rather than Nothing?" has no more or less of an answer than before anyone had ever heard of String Theory. If there was a moment of creation, it is obscured from our eyes and our telescopes by the veil of explosive Inflation that took place during the prehistory of the Big Bang. If there is a God, she has take great pains to make herself irrelevant." I don't know how much more clear Susskind could be about his scientific and philosophical position, but I'm sure my opponents will attempt to enlighten me.
If only God would give me some MIRACLE or clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Schwab trading account.
The key to the above is " rich Landscape". "Landscape" note it is capitalized means multiverse. Nothing you have ever provided from Susskind has ever been inconsistent with the following -- in response to a question from a New Scientist writer: 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.
Mr. bond stated "you cannot claim the opposite is true." This is another mistake. You just cited and epert who said when you set up silly tests you get non-sensical results. You set up a silly test. Nevetheless, You cannot say Reject or Accept H1. Alternative Hypothesis The alternative hypothesis, H1, is a statement of what a statistical hypothesis test is set up to establish. For example, in a clinical trial of a new drug, the alternative hypothesis might be that the new drug has a different effect, on average, compared to that of the current drug. We would write H1: the two drugs have different effects, on average. The alternative hypothesis might also be that the new drug is better, on average, than the current drug. In this case we would write H1: the new drug is better than the current drug, on average. The final conclusion once the test has been carried out is always given in terms of the null hypothesis. We either "Reject H0 in favour of H1" or "Do not reject H0". We never conclude "Reject H1", or even "Accept H1".
You're back to your usual distortion trick. The nonsensical results part was refering that the usual null hypothesis (the opposite of arbitrary alternative hypothesis) can be such poor targets, that they can be easily proven false. Then people use its rejection to claim that the alternative hypothesis is true, even though it could be quite nonsensical. If you cannot reject the null hypothesis, then you cannot claim the correctness of the alternative hypothesis, no matter how insane you think the null hypothesis is.
As for the ID theory, it's quite simple. The null hypothesis is that there is no design. Prove that it's false, then you have a valid design theory. Otherwise, you're just talking philosophy, not science.
I just explained you set up a silly test. In your test only conclusion you may reach is that you did not reject your null hypothesis. You may not reject HI --- in our example you may not reject the concept that generals do make a difference.
The "Landscape," per Susskind, is the set of "all possible vacuum states." "It doesn't exist in space or time at all." And, it's not a separate universe. "It is a space of possibilities." Susskind then goes on to describe that the vacuum state (i.e., the cosmological constant) inside the field of an Magnetic Resonance Imagining (MRI) machine is NOT the same as the vacuum state of empty space in our universe, and that if we were observing a part of our own universe which was under the environmental stress of a constant superconducting magnetic field, such as in close proximity to a black hole or on a planet with a much higher ferro-magnetic field than our own Earth, that elementary particles, atoms, molecules and ultimately life, would be vastly different than what we presently observe. That is, Susskind's position about existence is relativistic. He points out that the MRI machine can be viewed as being part of our normal universe, with an atypical magnetic field which continues to observe the standard laws of physics, OR, that, in relativistic terms, that the laws of physics are changed within the universe of the MRI machine: "the Laws of Physics are determined by the environment." So -- you're wrong. However, if you ever get off your ass, buy the book and read it yourself, you probably will come up with all sorts of your own quotes from Susskind, which you can use to support your position. At which point, I will simply go back to the final page of Susskind's book and point out that however you choose to use Susskind's statements to your advantage, in the expert opinion of the author, you're wrong, because his position is that nothing in his work or in its absence, proves or disproves intelligent design.
KJ do you you think you made a significant point here. As has been said by other commentators Susskinds Landscapes of possible solutions can be considered potential universes. It does not matter whether you want to consider it to be a varied pocket of physical laws within one universe or a seperate universe. See the interview where he discusses multiverse virtually interchanably with Landscape. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800 The point is you need billions and billions of solution to combat the inference of design according to Susskind. he 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 10500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point. I accept that nothing in his work proves or disproves design but did you see the quote above. Susskind calulates that if we only had a million universes - the chance of one being suitable to life are still to small. Any idea how one of the inventors of string theory could have made that caluation. (Now that you have the book.) It is your entire premise that you can not make those calculations. Yet this respected astrophysicist, inventor of string theory, makes a statement taking out the legs from your entire argument.