When will you ever understand mentioning scientists names and using partial quotes attributed to them and misrepresenting what they say in the way you do is not science. It is dishonesty. And relying on wiki quotes which warn "the neutrality of this section is disputed. to support your ignorant assertions, is just plain dumb.
Its still Hawkings quote. ^ Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125. Deal with the science troll.
maybe you need pictures when you read so you can understand what they actually say: Amazing documentary hosted by Stephen Hawking asking the key question so many people have wondered since the beginning of mankind, does a "god" or a "celestial dictator" exist?? Stephen Hawking disects the science of the universe in answering this very fundamental question. Follow-up lecture by Lawrence Krauss entitled "The Universe From Nothing" - you will all enjoy it very much as it will provide you a beautiful scientific explanation on how the universe came into fruition spontaneously. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg&feature=feedwll&list=WL
What is your point? Are you stating Hawkins does suggest the multiverse explains the appearance of design in our universe?
maybe you should listen to the video. something might click. i doubt but who knows. you are only interested in manipulating what you read to reinforce what you want to believe.
I have listened to the video you put up. They are always off point. What is the point of this video. If it is new info... I will listen. Besides I have watched and read almost everything hawking has put out... so it will not be new to me. Actually I saw the serious on T.V. already... What is your point?
This is in context from the horses mouth. Hawking and Hertog's paper. If you read this it says... we looked very fine tuned... but multiverse and top down view of cosmology in which the question causes the answer may be an explanation. If you really understand this... you will now understand why hawking states gravity causes the universe. In a way it sort of does if you think you are selecting among almost infinite choices. Its pretty interesting thinking-- which almost all star trek fans have considered .. but all premised on using string theory to postulate there are almost infinite universes. Which seems far more complicated (and contrived) then suggesting the answer to the fine tunings is a Tuner. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf "But cosmology poses questions of a very different character. In our past there is an epoch of the early universe when quantum gravity was important. The remnants of this early phase are all around us. The central problem in cosmology is to understand why these remnants are what they are, and how the distinctive features of our universe emerged from the big bang. Clearly it is not an S-matrix that is the relevant observable 3 for these predictions, since we live in the middle of this particular experiment. Furthermore, we have no control over the initial state of the universe, and there is certainly no opportunity for observing multiple copies of the universe. 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 3 See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological spacetimes. 1- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. 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]." --- Its funny you 2 elitetrader atheist clowns are being defeated by science and the internet every time. you can lead and et atheist to science but you can't make him think.
"There is a final response, known as the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis claims that there are many other universes in addition to our own. Each of these has different properties, and different values of the basic constants of physics. If the number of these universes is extremely large, it would be less surprising that one of them would happen to provide the specific conditions for life. At first glance, the proposition of many other universes sounds impressively scientific. However, one must keep in mind that the likelihood of ever being able to observe evidence of another universe is extremely remote, since it is unlikely that information could ever pass from one universe to another. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the process which produces all of these universes would randomly set all the physical parameters in such a way that every possibility is realized. It could be that there are constraints on the characteristics of these many universes and that the production process itself would have to be fine-tuned in some way to guarantee that we get enough variety of universes to account for our remarkable cosmic home. Additional problems arise with the details of proposing a multiverse, which are enumerated in the suggested readings below." http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
Hawking happened to mention back in 1988 in his book A Brief History of Time how it is possible for all or some of the fundamental physical constants to vary "within a single universe". If that is supposed to be Hawking's quote referring to fundamental values , how come these words were left out of it .... " it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe." Of course YOU would prefer to "deal with the science troll", by using dubious sources which inavriably misquote, omitting inconvenient bits from quotes so they can be turned into theistic pseudoscience . Face it Jem, you haven't a clue what your are posting or what the hell you're talking about.
The non troll fact is your quote (not that you cited it) is appraently responding to the concept of our universe being finely tuned. It is possible there are infinite multiple universes or a landscape for our own universe in which the constants change... but this is what hawking said is his paper in 2006 which I just quoted just above. --- 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 tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency.... --- See that Stu... Hawking stated it for you.... --- In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency... or.... it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. ---- In summary Our universe looks carefully tuned by an outside agency or you invoke eternal inflation. (which if you study means you speculate on a multiverse.) Hawking does not like the bottom up approach coupled with inflation... because it means all outcomes are possible... so he postulates... a multiverse with a "top down" approach. But once again we must remind elitetrader trolls that the multiverse is untested, unobserved and probably unverifiable. So if you only wish to deal with facts... the one universe we know about... one must "postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency".