because he cldn't accept quantum physics... string theory btw is way more elegant than quantum mechanics... notably, it doesn't require 3 generations of quarks to remain consistent... this is complete bollox, just a bunch of particle physics guys overwhelmed by doubts after years & years of effort at unification, and they are not even saying what you say they are... just curious, what is it u refer to as your work? no offense but... to me you don't seem to know shit about the subject... why don't u have a read of michio kaku's latest book for starters?
my work meant my work on this thread. I dont not claim any great knowledge of physics other than occassionally reading articles on the subject. I took high school phyisics and one college level course where the math was too tough for me. My math skills failed when I could no longer picture the results in my mind. Also instead of saying bullocks why dont you explain your quote. some burnt out particle guys. well are they physicists compentent to discuss the physics involved inthe anthropic argument. I mean they have symposiums on this stuff. Surely a majority of the physicsts must be saying stuff like sure we have a multiverse but the antrhopic principle is b.s.
jem, Well thank you for your unusually polite explanation of how you disagree with the Catholic Church on this and other subjects and how you say the Church disagrees with itself on matters of science and physics. But you say you agree with the Cardinal of Susskind that... "the multiverse hypothesis was invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science." Invented to avoid evidence??? at the same time you say he is the "best minds" in physics ? How does that work? Now is the "best minds" in physics right or wrong on this one? Or do YOU just get to choose? If he is wrong about millions of universes why would he be right about 1 = design? Don't you see jem, it appears you want it all ways round. The rest of your post I will ignore as you slip back into your more usual vulgar offensive mode.
"The rest of your post I will ignore as you slip back into your more usual vulgar offensive mode." Bait..troll...bait...troll...bait...troll...
fair enough... lagrangian, hamiltonian etc type transformations, lie algebra, orbifolds etc are not exactly easy to picture / play with got a maths / physics background, used to be fluent schroedingerisch / quantum mechanics... 20 yrs later am "playing" anew with minkowski distances, hyperbolic geometry etc in my spare time honestly, i cld cite Weinberg etc, but not sure a 'battle' of quotes is in order... i don't mind if u want to believe in ID or the so-called strong anthropic principle personally, thats entirely your right... now, if you have an interest in science, read Kaku as a baseline (very readable), realize how big the current question marks to date re topology of the (observable) universe, inflation, dark energy vs MOND, cyclic universe scenarii etc etc, possible types of multiverses on the one hand, and the planned experiments, LIGO, LISA, LHC etc, that are expected to provide answers in the years ahead... cheers
http://www.amazon.com/Parallel-Worlds-Through-Creation-Dimensions/dp/0385509863 really well done and approacheable
2 cents - I will get the book. By the way I am not even saying the anthropic principle or ID is correct. I actually doubt it could be so simple that we fully comprehend the situation right now. I doubt the multiverse thing on a visceral level. I am simply struck by the debate. I like to point out to atheists, when they get on their high horse, that their belief in the randomly created universe is (currently) faith based. I also have a hope that the designer has left an elegant solution to the puzzle -- but that is a philosophical speculation supported by my read of some bible verses