....I seem to have touched a nerve there. What part do you want me to get? "If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons,...." How the hell you manage to convince yoursef the sentence above can mean anything like you say it does is what I don't get. You have to be completely brainwashed to want to defend ID by those contortions of the English language. People are worried? What people? You? Science does not get worried about clarification and the Anthropic principle can't be any "truer" than the truism it is. Already explained why that is. Maybe in a couple more years ID'rs will stop their worry and move onto The Da Vinci Code when they get nowhere yet again with the Anthropic Principle or maybe even Harry Potter is due for ID "English language" contorted pseudo-science in defense of it. Why don't you calm down. Susskind was not is not the creator of string theory. If anyone is, it's Yoichiro Nambu the Japanese American physicist. So .. seeing how you mentioned it .... did you make it up then??
Please note that this fake named Stu did not respond to a question in plain english. He exhitis intellectual integrity of a _____ by changing he subject and picking a new sentence with he partially quotes like a little child. going backwards As to father of string theory -- Leonard Susskind is a theoretical physics professor at Stanford University in the field of string theory and quantum field theory. Susskind is widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory for his early contributions to the String Theory model of particle physics.[1] from wikipedia and many other sources Your misrepresentative cut and paste is actually part of the following sentence which proves my point.. here is the sentence in context .. 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. In simple english for you. If the concept of much greater than a milllion univereses (landscapes) is proven false by math or some unforeseen reason than he is sure that physical we go on searching for some natural reasons. However if the millions (trillions) of universe theory is defeated science will be in a very awkard positiion -- without any explanation for natures fine tunings physicists will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. so you could argue that if there are not millions of universes anti-IDer will be as faith based as he believes IDers are now. Note he is saying that ID is faith based because he strongly believes there are millions of universes. if there is only one than the critics of ID are the faith based ones. You can reach that conclusin by reading my quote about the anthropic principle which you STU did not have the balls to explain.
the "person you describe as the father of string theory"and also the "creator" of string theory.... Has now become .... integrity??? You call me slime ball for suggesting a correction that Susskind was not "creator" (your word). Then you slip in "one of the fathers" as if that were no consequence to integrity. Other than that you are saying nothing new. The context is clear Susskind is not even saying in any of that quote what you are trying to get him to say. You are simply putting your own words and conclusions in place of Susskind. May I suggest you try parsing it one sentence at a time. It may help your better understanding of the English in it.
Look troll -- I said he was widely consider the founder along with two others... right after you used your slimeball tactics. As far as the rest of you non-responsive mush minded crap --- get a life and stop trolling. You must get a real kick out lacking in integrity - to the point of even adopting the handle of the real STU after I stopped responding to you when you were axeman. ou have very interesting quality in that you write efectively but think analyze poorly. Where were you trained? do they actually have a major in trolling?
Is that all your arguments are ever going to end as. Insult after insult? Is that the christian way?, the ID way?. Can't properly respond so you get offensive 'cause "right" is on your side?
Ohh wait I almost fell for troll automatic response number four ask me if I am acting like a Christian. I am now waiing for a crack about my spelling. by the way spelling and editing is tough in mozilla.
..so... can you ever argue without resorting to abuse and insult or not? It's a straight forward question because to date you have not been able to.
My dear Cuban, look, just who the f*k asked you let jem do the dirty work...."Look troll " "You are a little slime ball" "you choose to argue like a little kid " "You are a piece of work." "As far as the rest of you non-responsive mush minded crap.... " So jem's argument summed up (after sifting through all his abusive language) appears to be this.. "the best minds" ( one top notch physicist) postulates the landscape idea, which he thinks likely can be observed and tested through the large scale microwave background. He just needs to see past the great pile of ribs someone left in there. But the "best minds" physicist says that - should it not be possible to do that, although he thinks it likely it can be done, then he does not consider it possible to demonstrate the landscape idea with mathematics. Under those circumstances - were they ever to come about, - he comments.... " 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. Right then, without physical observation and testing he says math won't do it and so from his viewpoint and in his opinion (not science) there will be no result and therefore awkward to give ID'ers an answer. Note that he won't make something up in place like introducing some hair-brained pseudo science to save face as ID often does. He axknowledges no result is no answer. Without any evidence of the following being substantiated in anything the one physicist states, jem misconstrues his way to the many conclusions he provides: the universe is designed. the anthropic principle says "fine tuning" so it is science the anthropic principle means designed physicists in general are worried the "best minds" (one single physicist) of physics are saying design. without multiverses all physicists must conclude design. the creator of string theory was Susskind To avoid any criticism of the ridiculous assumptions made in the name of design or ID, it is common practice now for jem to inevitably disregard substance by quickly reverting back to screaming, stamping feet , weeing his pants and wretching all over the the carpet and walls as the only answer to things he doesn't like. The 'Order' in the universe is simply what we see and can make sense of. Patterns and symmetries from the sublime to the ugly which enable sentient living things to navigate a way around the conditions which pertain within the circumstances consciousness and life finds itself. If there were any design, it need only be completely natural. There is no separate or equal evidence of intelligent design for life. Complexity of life and matter need only have come about by slow gradual cumulative development from the most simple and basic natural elements. So No 'order' in the universe is my opinion. yours go Cardinals Go stu
i've had a read... nothing extraordinary here... u seem to not notice the following points made by susskind: "I:Is it premature to invoke anthropic arguments - which assume that the conditions for life are extremely improbable - when we don't know how to define life? S: The logic of the anthropic principle requires the strong assumption that our kind of life is the only kind possible. Why should we presume that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments? If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a valid objection. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black hole. I: Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation? S: One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved, meaning the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or like the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our current vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state with a much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum to another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest scales of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in principle, is testable." and the fact that the cosmological 'constant' is v.likely anything but a constant, and in any case no more than an arbitrary, albeit convenient, parameter in a set of equations... anyway... not trying to 'convince' you of anything... as long as you don't try to enforce some purely faith-based dogma on unsuspecting ppl ;-)