You should realize sooner or later everything you mention above is what you are doing.... except the explaining. You seem to be concluding there is something wrong with what I said but you don't seem able to say what. Here's my explain.... "Now what trouble is it you are having with string landscape not being itself a proposition for multiverse? Unless you can explain yourself, repeating the sentence just makes you look as ridiculous as you always end up being." ...so where's yours? What's your problem with that? Do you have a sensible comment to make or will you continue with the no substance childish insults?
Stu is trolling to avoid illustrating the fact he has been trolling on this subject for 7 years. Stu said... "String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory." [/B][/QUOTE] Note if you go back a few pages you will see that I explained why you are wrong with scientists and the new york times.
So the answer to my question is no, you do not have a sensible comment to make and will continue with the no substance childish insult approach. You've explained nothing. Referring to editorials you clearly don't understand and which do not show my statement to be incorrect in any case, is no explanation. None of this does a thing for your tuner/designer/god idea so what are you trying to do. Just act the troll with each post you make?
yet... the father of string theory says says Stu has been a fool of this subject for 7 years or so. Suskind states here are 4 possibilities to explain the knife's edge fine tuning... 1. God (that is correct... susskind says it) 2. luck 3. megaverse/ multiverse 4. someday find a theory of everything. http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431
... 1. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. from the hawking and hartle paper... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf 2. "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Stu is trolling to avoid illustrating the fact he has been trolling on this subject for 7 years. Stu said... "String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory." I asked him to prove his statement and he started in with his troll b.s.
honestly jem nobody bothers once you two start at it. Why argue with a fool all it does is make you look foolish.
Years ago... When you typed in searches related to fine tuning of our universe these threads came up in the top 3. Not as much anymore. But Stu served the cause well. Frankly I am a bit done with it because the Susskind video pretty much kicks stu ass completely. 7 years ago stu made some good bullshit arguments... but there are too many scientists on board with the tunings. now So I am winding it up for now. Just reprinting what I wrote unless stu types something substantive with cites.