Susskind elaborates on the very speculative answer having to do with string theory... because that is his field. There is no reason to explain that one explanation for a tuning is a Tuner. Its the logical deduction unless you have info to the contrary. (something you denied Susskind was saying for years.) You deduce the the pyramids had a pyramid maker... If you were to say the pyramids got there by chance. You would have to explain what Susskind explained. Almost infinite universes etc.
Jem, Are you under the illusion that your posts beyond the length of one sentence are actually being read?
So now you disagree with Susskind ruling out luck/chance as an explanation. sheesh. You should just stick to the childish name calling. It's really all you got. Anyway, tell Jem one of Susskind's explanations is no explanation. He'll now be a moron troll with shit for brains as you say. Not surprising considering how much you've been bumming him for jesus. At the fine tuning number, you can rule out God . You need God to set a specific number, then you need something to set the specific number setter. Same old turtles all the way down. Number setter can manage on it's own...then so can the universe. God is no explanation at all.
You keep making the same mistakes and telling the same lies over and over. I have never denied anything Susskind has said. What he has said is not an issue. It's what you and other religious eccentrics say he says which is what's completely wrong and frankly dishonest. You keep trying to assert a so called 'fine tuning' of the cosmological constant (or the universe) is a given. It isn't. What you are calling fine tuning is a function allocated an apparent value, not a known or proven parameter. It always has been that way since Einstein named it. It is a value assigned in the absence of a quantum theory of gravity when all along, gravity is known to be fundamental to how the universe is. So without such a theory, it is untrue to say the universe IS or must be fine tuned. That is why physicists refer to it tentatively only as an appearance. If you were being honest, in describing megaverse or multiverse as speculative, you logically and rationally would describe 'fine tuning' the same way. But no, you've called the universe "incredibly fine tuned" and assert quite untruthfully that the universe IS fine tuned. Simply because you quite weirdly enough to the point of making you dishonest , want there to be a 'Tuner God'. To deduce the pyramids had a pyramid maker... and didn't get there by chance , deduces man made. To deduce the universe has a universe maker... and didn't get there by chance , deduces gravity.
You are really an idiot. Watch the tape. He throws those out just to cover all possibilities. Obviously, the most logical is the Creator option. There is no evidence for the multi-verse and luck with such a number is obviously ludicrous with such a fine tuned constant. It appears he also thinks this but you don't have to be a lifelong cosmologist to understand the odds of each of these possibilities. You obviously don't have a science degree and don't know much about probabilities and statistics. It's all equal in your eyes. LOL
It does not follow that that a Creator is the most logical. If so, break the logic down for us. And you clearly did not pay attention to what Susskind said, as you were seduced by the tendentious title of the video. Susskind indeed states his support for the Megaverse and he cites the fine tuning of the cosmological constant as a result of it. He states that the possibilities for variations of conditions in the universe, or the number of universes out there, is so great that the cosmological constant is effectively inevitable. And I'll let Susskind and Hawking explain why there are universes (Susskind) and why there is something that arose from nothing (Hawking). Game, set, match. Sayonara motherfucker!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html?_r=0 ... What troubles Susskind is an intelligent design argument considerably more vexing than the anti-evolution grumblings recently on trial in Dover, Pa. Biologists can point to unambiguous evidence that evolution truly does happen and that it can account for many otherwise inexplicable aspects of how organisms function. For those who take a more cosmic perspective, however, the appearance of design is not so simply refuted. If gravity were slightly stronger than it is, for instance, stars would burn out quickly and collapse into black holes; if gravity were a touch weaker, stars would never have formed in the first place. The same holds true for pretty much every fundamental property of the forces and particles that make up the universe. Change any one of them and life would not be possible. To the creationist, this cosmic comity is evidence of the glory of God. To the scientist, it is an embarrassing reminder of our ignorance about the origin of physical law. Until recently, most physicists took it on faith that as they refined their theories and upgraded their experiments they would eventually expose a set of underlying rules requiring the universe to be this way and this way only. In "A Brief History of Time," Stephen Hawking recalled Albert Einstein's question "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" before replying that, judging from the latest ideas in physics, God "had no freedom at all." Like many leading physicists at the time, Hawking believed that scientists were closing in on nature's essential rules - the ones that even God must obey - and that string theory was leading them on a likely path to enlightenment. 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 10 (raised to the) 500, give or take a few trillion. Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10 (raised to the)500 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....
I agree with Susskind on that tape and the New York Times book review above. Most of what you write is complete b.s. You have been caught lying about a dozen times on this subject. Just on this thread you said... Susskind never said it. Then I got out the video tape... you changed it to Susskind never explained it.
I also agree with Hawking on the issue of the fine tuning of our universe. 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.