Weinberg... Just because someone edited together that video does not mean it was out of context. This was earlier weinberg... the tape is more recent weinberg. from what i can tell. 1. Weinberg from your paper... offering up the multiverse to explain the tuning of the cosmological constant... It is still too early to tell whether there is some fundamental principle that can explain why the cosmological constant must be this small. But even if there is no such principle, recent developments in cosmology offer the possibility of an explanation of why the measured values of the cosmological constant and other physical constants are favorable for the appearance of intelligent life. According to the 'chaotic inflation' theories of André Linde and others, the expanding cloud of billions of galaxies that we call the big bang may be just one fragment of a much larger universe in which big bangs go off all the time, each one with different values for the fundamental constants. In any such picture, in which the universe contains many parts with different values for what we call the constants of nature, there would be no difficulty in understanding why these constants take values favorable to intelligent life. There would be a vast number of big bangs in which the constants of nature take values unfavorable for life, and many fewer where life is possible. You don't have to invoke a benevolent designer to explain why we are in one of the parts of the universe where life is possible: in all the other parts of the universe there is no one to raise the question.3 If any theory of this general type turns out to be correct, then to conclude that the constants of nature have been fine-tuned by a benevolent designer would be like saying, 'Isn't it wonderful that God put us here on earth, where there's water and air and the surface gravity and temperature are so comfortable, rather than some horrid place, like Mercury or Pluto?' Where else in the solar system other than on earth could we have evolved? Reasoning like this is called 'anthropic.' Sometimes it just amounts to an assertion that the laws of nature are what they are so that we can exist, without further explanation. This seems to me to be little more than mystical mumbo jumbo. On the other hand, if there really is a large number of worlds in which some constants take different values, then the anthropic explanation of why in our world they take values favorable for life is just common sense, like explaining why we live on the earth rather than Mercury or Pluto. The actual value of the cosmological constant, recently measured by observations of the motion of distant supernovas, is about what you would expect from this sort of argument: it is just about small enough so that it does not interfere much with the formation of galaxies. But we don't yet know enough about physics to tell whether there are different parts of the universe in which what are usually called the constants of physics really do take different values. This is not a hopeless question; we will be able to answer it when we know more about the quantum theory of gravitation than we do now. note I have posted links to the unedited videos on youtubek this has editorial comments which I do not endorse... but the unedited version is available on youtube... I just did not feel like watching them all again. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QEpuYarTJn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Susskind -- Nothing has changed on this ... I have cited the exact same info many times... You can see that he puts forth is landscape idea to explain the fine tunings of our universe. and he again brings up the Cardinal of the Church. I have brought up this quote before as well. He brings up the Cardinal to say people who do not understand the fine tunings suffer from an abdication of intelligence. He obviously speculates the tunings will be explained by the landscape / multiverse while the Cardinal explains them by a Tuner. "Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence." Finally, this video which I have brought up many times on this thread puts it all together perfectly... and it is recent. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Rather than point to the science the first first thing you do... is act like I have taken these guy out of context? How? Are you saying these guys do not think the cosmological constant is finely tuned. Are you saying that one of the explanations for the tunings could be a tuner, and that they support the speculation there could be a multiverse.... Cause that is what I have said they say... well over a hundred times. Now Dawkins is another story. he is not in physics or cosmology and he seems to slant the science at times. Not that I see him lying but... he is selling books and does not mind over stating things. check out Weinberg disabusing him of his notions in the tape above... and you can see the unedited version of the tape on youtube.
Weinberg touches on the universal constants around 21:30, this is why context is important. Your position may be " he said "finely tuned cosmological constant"' when in reality he said "[the appearance] of a finely tuned cosmological constant". If you go back to your video where Weinberg "disabuses" Dawkins, you'll see that they aren't even talking about the multiverse in the context of that video. (About min 26:30). They're actually talking about how the cosmological constant fits into the universe/multiverse as far as its fluctuations are concerned. The more I watch the actual interview the more I'm realizing how dishonest the video within your initial post is...it's basically cheap editing in an attempt to make false points with "gotcha" quotations. CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT. Should I keep going? <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EGL8SesIo6Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
yes please do... but first note... I have said "appearance" of fine tuning thousands of times. In this video you will see that Weinberg says that our universe is tuned for life. He said its obvious. Now I have not harped on that statement to mean he says therefore there is a tuner... because I know he would not say that. And its obvious why... if you speculate there is a multiverse, which explains why our universe appears finely tuned... you would almost have to say appearance. otherwise... because I am not sure what point you are making while weinberg is not big on the other fine tuned constants he is clearly blown away by the cosmological constant. ---- are you denying that Susskind says one of the explanations for that fine tuning is God. are you denying Martin Rees wrote a book about the fine tuning of 6 numbers. you are bring up vague statements but are you really debating my point... That these scientists say the universe appears finely tuned... and that the explanations could be... 1. Tuner 2. Luck (no one is buying luck when cosmological constant is that tuned--- see susskind video) 3. someday we will fine a theory of everything ( but Weinberg says in video we may have to live with numbers being unexplained) Multiverse. (speculative... see the 30.17 min mark) .
Jem. It is too late to quit while your ahead, as you never were, but it is not too late to quit before it gets even worse.
I am just here for the science and I quote the scientists... I agree with Susskinds 4 explanations. If anybody wants to show me that Susskind does not say there are 4 explanations for the tunings go right ahead. Cause as I have said many time... I agree with Susskind.
I know this will come as a shock to you but jem has been wiping the floor with your guys since day 1.
"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" You agree with Susskind? No "Tuner"? Really?
you are such a cheap little troll. That book and his interviews about that book (particularly the on in new scientist) started our little discussion years ago. you used to say... Susskind would never say God was one of the explanations for the fine tuning. Unfortunately for your troll self... We see him on tape a few years later showing you to be a clown. Remember the times piece I quoted for you... and note 10500 is ten to the 500. Although string theory resists translation into ordinary language, its central conceit boils down to this: All the different particles and forces in the universe are composed of wriggling strands of energy whose properties depend solely on the mode of their vibration. Understand the properties of those strands, the thinking once went, and you will understand why the universe is the way it is. Recent work, most notably by Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has dashed that hope. The latest version of string theory (now rechristened M-theory for reasons that even the founder of M-theory cannot explain) does not yield a single model of physics. Rather, it yields a gargantuan number of models: about 10500, give or take a few trillion. Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse." Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours. Furthermore, it is inevitable that we would find ourselves in a universe well suited to life, since life can arise only in those types of universes. This circular-sounding argument - that the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for human biology because otherwise we would not be here to see it - is known as the Anthropic Principle and is reviled by many cosmologists as a piece of vacuous sophistry. But if ours is just one of a near-infinite variety of universes, the Anthropic Principle starts to sound more reasonable, akin to saying that we find ourselves on Earth rather than on Jupiter because Earth has the mild temperatures and liquid water needed for our kind of life. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html?_r=0