You think taking Hawking out of context is a good way to read Hawking in context. sheesh. About the bottom-up model which he does not advocate, he says it either requires one to postulate the universe that is carefully fine-tuned by an outside agency OR requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation. Fine-tuning is disposable even there, by simply chosing an alternative. In the top-down model which he does advocate, non of the above is necessary. You agree with Hawking when he says things you've taken out of context or which he doesn't actually say , but if you really did agree with Hawking, then you would agree with... It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. The fine-tuning you wish for implies a tuner. Unnatural ones like God or Pixie Poo don't explain anything, except perhaps the sadness you portray in expecting them to. Whereas Gravity and Spontaneous creation ......the reason there is something rather than nothing.... why the universe exists...why we exist... explains a whole lot.
hey einstein... you need to learn fact... our one universe vs speculation. then you will understand which model has been confirmed by by finding the higgs boson at cern and which models are pure speculation? Let me help you two of the them involve unseen untested alternate universes or alternate histories. (if you still do not know - see the Guth video eariler in this thread where he stated they still do not even know if an alternate universe can exist but they make good thought experiments. and note I am not taking Hawking out of context when I provide his whole paper and I give you his whole summary and conclusion.
here guth explains - alternate universes are speculation. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5ZtRfACbygY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yeah this isn't the thread to inject a little humor, I admit it was very little but hey I gave it a shot.
I do like the Highlander references. I prefer the show to the movies. here is mine. I am jem from the clan jem. my arguments support the Immortal. there can be only one.
You're babbling. So? "Fine tuning" is speculation. You've tried to say it isn't to hide the batty idea that an imaginary magic man is twiddling knobs. That's what the whole of your nonsense boils down to. You take Hawking out of context to make ridiculous claims . Quoting all or parts of a paper is irrelevant when all you ever do is make silly and incorrect assertions from it obviously having no idea what it is saying anyway.
In these two paragraphs Hawking will disabuse you of all your misrepresentations. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf Here hawking explains that if you work with the standard model that we have the universe is carefully fine tuned or you have to invoke the notion of eternal inflation (infinite universes.) 1. 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. Here - Hawking disabuses Stu of his other bullshit. We see Hawking clearly speak of alternate universes. 2. page 2. 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].