What's a TOE ? A creator? The majority of scientists, and the VAST majority of scientists who matter in this discussion are atheists so I don't think they think there is a creator. Nor do they think there was nothing before the big bang. They simply admit they don't and can't ever know. That knowledge is over the horizon.
Here is a primer, with an important point made in the sentence halfway down discussing the theory of everything. Note, it fits hand and glove with hawking paper I was citing. In fact if you understand this... you would see hawling or somebody would be compelled to create a top down model of the universe to explain the fine tunings... because even multiverse would not be enough. "In the late 1990s, it was noted that one problem with several of the candidates for theories of everything (but particularly string theory) was that they did not constrain the characteristics of the predicted universe. For example, many theories of quantum gravity can create universes with arbitrary numbers of dimensions or with arbitrary cosmological constants. Even the "standard" ten-dimensional string theory allows the "curled up" dimensions to be compactified in an enormous number of different ways (one estimate is 10500 ) each of which corresponds to a different collection of fundamental particles and low-energy forces. This array of theories is known as the string theory landscape. A speculative solution is that many or all of these possibilities are realised in one or another of a huge number of universes, but that only a small number of them are habitable, and hence the fundamental constants of the universe are ultimately the result of the anthropic principle rather than a consequence of the theory of everything. This anthropic approach is often criticised[9] in that, because the theory is flexible enough to encompass almost any observation, it cannot make useful (i.e., original, falsifiable, and verifiable) predictions. In this view, string theory would be considered a pseudoscience, where an unfalsifiable theory is constantly adapted to fit the experimental results." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything In you understand this you would also understand that virtually everything stu has been saying is a deceitful misrepresentation. Because I know Stu is smart enough to understand this.
1. You have described Steven Weinberg as a great scientist. So this great scientist has said, "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature." On one constant in particular which needs much more information than the others , he says about that - it's possible the appearance of 'fine tuning' can be answered without a multiverse explanation . If this was in Court a chief witness YOU called is an unfriendly one. Always was, and you should never have called him if you wanted the hear the truth of what he actually states. He's removed all your 'fine tuning' from the natural constants but one, and even on that he sees the possibility it could be explained without a multiverse, the thing YOU keep trolling out as the only alternative. It's no good you saying he's a great scientist when your chopping him off in mid sentence to create an appearance (how ironic) that he's saying something he isn't, only to suggest the next minute the same great scientist is only speculating. Seems he's speculating when you don't like the upshot of what he's saying. 2. a. Do you even know what the top down approach means? b. You obviously don't know top down suggests all or many initial histories (superimposition) and does NOT necessitate the multiverse. That's what comes of trying to be a smart ass reading only small bites from papers that simply sound like they might fit with what you want to believe. 3. What I have are justifiable scientific explanations rather than the sheer fantasy bullshit of misinformation and imaginary creators you delude yourself with. Come on, you can do better... on second thought you probably can't.
I do know a rock is smart enough to understand you talk total bollocks and how you like to keep saying " I provide quotes " yet select only certain snippets that sound like they might support your predispositions all the time to misinform yourself. You chose Weinberg. See what he says about ToE in your link instead of always picking and reading only what you want to hear.
1. why dont you provide us with in context links to these statements. we already did this with weinberg... go to 4 mins 30 seconds on your video. 2. Luckily this is pretty easy to figure out... even for a liar like you. I suggest you go to the first sentence of his paper... I quote it here for you... "We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions." Stu... do you know what string landscape is... hint... read the wikipedia quote I presented above. It tells you what the string landscape is... and pretty mush shows you why somebody had to augment it with a top down type approach. In fact the strong landscape is those curled up dimensions... Susskind proposed this theory about those curled up 10 to the 500 possible solutions... could all be real universes. ... We argued about it for years. You were totally fucking wrong... all along. 3. try science instead of emotion... you might learn something. Try reading hawkings paper... which I presented a few pages ago.
1. Here's good context and the link for it. It was already pointed out to you pages ago. But then that's your dimwittedness in all its glory. You ignore everything then repeat the same question or post the same old clipped quotes like a brainless machine. vid at 2/10 "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature." The constants . Not some constants. The constants without really any evidence of fine tuning. Context is perfectly clear. 2. Jem you're obviously way out of your depth. Reading your own conclusions into things for years doesn't make them true. I asked you .... Do you even know what the top down approach means? So what do you do but shoot off to clip another piece of text that clearly doesn't say what you think it does, but which is about different issues to my question anyway. Jumping around from Hawking to Susskind as if they were saying the same, you will get confused. Manifestly you can't even properly decipher a single sentence, let alone a paragraph. When scientists are themselves saying .... the universe appears -whatever- but.... you just go into idiotic creationist mode with the contrary and conditionals following the -whatever- . So again, Hawking says top down. Do you know what he means by top down? Do you know what your clipped text means.. "We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions." ? Do you know what "no boundary initial conditions" means ? Do you know why Hawking does not require a multiverse? Do you know the difference between string theory and multiverse; the multiverse which all your silly divine creator delusion has relied so heavily upon being what you call pure speculation, but which Stephen Hawking's proposal does not require? Do you know what day it is? Both Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg have expressed how there is no necessity for an imaginary creator as natural events and their scientific explanations do away with religion's old unreasoned superstitions. 3. All you have ever been able to think of is the creationists approach which is to try and make scientists, and science, say things they don't. There's where the dishonesty is, the lying and the deceit.
Stu you truly are a lying troll. Nothing you say is accurate. I taught you all those questions... Here is the last paragraph of Hawkings paper... showing you to be an extreme fool. you are such a fricken tool, Hawking states that in his top down cosmology the question selects the previous tree of universes. How could you not need more than one universe. That is the whole point of his paper... he proposes the are no initial boundry conditions and the question selects the line of univereses you are in. Which is why he can say gravity causes the universe. If you are in the universes with gravity like ours as you go back in time gravity sort of selects where in the amplitude your initial state was. It is really out of control how ignorant you pretend to be to support your lies. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different viewof cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up approach, where one assumes there is a single history with a well defined starting point and evolution. Our comparison with eternal inflation provides a clear illustration of this. In a cosmology based on eternal inflation there is only one universe with a fractal structure at late times, whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous, but with different values for various effective coupling constants.
Just let me decipher that bullshit.... <strike> Stu you truly are a lying troll. Nothing you say is accurate. I taught you all those questions...</strike> Here is the last paragraph of Hawkings paper...<strike> showing you to be an extreme fool.</strike> <strike>you are such a fricken tool,</strike> Hawking states that in his top down cosmology the question selects the previous tree of universes. How could you not need more than one universe. That is the whole point of his paper... he proposes the are no initial boundry conditions and the question selects the line of univereses you are in. Which is why he can say gravity causes the universe. If you are in the universes with gravity like ours as you go back in time gravity sort of selects where in the amplitude your initial state was. <strike>It is really out of control how ignorant you pretend to be to support your lies.</strike> It's hard to envisage how you could be more wrong. If you'd answered my questions, looked up the answers, and thereby tried to understand what was actually being said.... ah, but then you wouldn't need to rant in defence of that illogical creator of yours. Steven Hawking's top down cosmology proposes how the universe, one universe, began in every way possible. In top-down cosmology he fundamentally describes how there was no one unique beginning to the universe; not that there were many separate universes at the beginning. It's basically that all initial histories, all and any natural physical beginnings to the universe are possible. Explained by wave function, the state in which there is every means for the universe to develop - being present all at once. A basic principle of quantum mechanics (quantum superposition) where a physical system exists in all possible ways, yet when observed, can only be measured in one of them. That's not about multitudinous systems. Likewise top-down is not about infinite universes. So the one universe experiences every possible start or beginning, but only one universe can be observed. That's this one. It thereby addresses the anthropic element. This view isn't string theory as you seem to imagine. It fits with string theory. Neither is it about a multiverse. It doesn't invoke a multiverse. Top-down doesn't help your idea that every speculation is equal to one particularly absurd speculation of a divine creator. The only ingredient necessary here for a universe like this one to exist in Hawking's top-down is Gravity and the "path of least resistance" being a resultant observable universe, or not at all. I asked you what those words meant in scientific terms. I suggest you go away and research the answers but this time, not to some theological website though, which will tell you only what you would like them to mean by inserting the word God into everything. Then you might start to get a clue, although I wouldn't bet on it.
you could not be more ignorant of the science. According to his paper if there were only one universe than you have a choice incredible fine fine tuning or eternal inflation with no ability to predict. how many times do I have to present that quote to you. Are you really that much of a moron... that you can throw these terms around for about 7 years and not understand them at all?
Read the paper stu... enough with you "bullocks". at what point in time do you defer to Hawking about Hawkings (and his co author's) own theory This is your bullshit pattern. I pull authorities out and you make shit up. 1. its stu against the written word of hawking. Hawking says this in the end of the paper quote... "In a cosmology based on eternal inflation there is only one universe with a fractal structure at late times, whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous, but with different values for various effective coupling constants." 2. Stu you got the entire point of the paper incorrect. Hawkings paper is multiverse coupled with a top down approach. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf ".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. 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 [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. --- 3. Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape, based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no boundary path integral [13].