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. 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.
ROFL!!!! I got popcorn before reading your hilarious, tiny-fisted fit of ignorance and STUpidity! Proof that something doesn't exist is absolutely proof of a negative. Only a total dumbass like you would "think" it's not to begin with, and then keep stomping his little feet despite being wrong... tantrums may have worked with your mommy but they aren't an argument in the real world. You've proven once again that you are too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation. Crawl back under your rock where you belong.
The result of 'square the circle' math problem does not prove something doesn't exist you fuckwit. It proves that a square equal to the given area of a circle under specific conditions cannot be produced. That in itself is not proof of no "square circles". That's why it's a bad example to give for saying it 'proves a negative'. It doesn't. In fact the problem CAN be resolved although not by the terms stated. Mathematically a square can be constructed with the same given area of a circle. So in every way it's a bad example to give as supposed "proving a negative". "as long as the goal (be it proving a negative or something else) is achieved, any valid method can be used to get there." The valid method used is math. The "goal" is not achieved. The "goal" was not to prove a negative or an impossibility. The problem does not involve "reexpressing a negative". It takes a certain class of argumentative retard to make the pathetic comments you have . So well done at least for that achievement.
No... it does not say "we looked very fine tuned..." .....so why do you say it does ?? And why did you edit out ... again... that part which provides one alternative explanation to an appearance of fine tuned . You're dumb, you'll need a guide. I put it back. It's the other bit in red. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking YOU assume from what Stephen Hawking states that any appearance of 'fine-tuned' should be other than because of gravity. It's pitiable really how you religionists go straight for the most absurd conclusions you can think of to call an argument.
I'm arguing with two dickheads who together couldn't accomplish halfwittery , and supposedly as adults, have their only hope of intelligence evidently fucked over by a ludicrous urge to defend a common imaginary God friend with any clueless and inane methods they can dumb around with. .......and relax
End of page 2 in hawkings 2006 paper. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf " In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." See that that you fraudulent ignorant lying troll... "carefully fine tuned or eternal inflation" ( which means carefully tuned... or multiverse or as he goes on to say if you take a top down approach you can explain the tuning by a top down approach coupled with the multiverse speculation.) In short your jack shit of all trolls.... I have been understating the proof of tuning when I say appearance of fine tuning.... Hawking just told you CAREFULLY TUNED... or you can imagine a multiverse.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uU5djjeySzk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Back for another humiliating beating? There's nothing arbitrary or inappropriate except in your obtuse "mind." What part of impossible = NOT possible don't you understand? Put another way, the set of all possible solutions = the EMPTY set which has NO elements. Which means NO solution exists. Which is a negative. Get it now, dumbass? P.S. Oh please... I'm obviously talking about not being able to square a circle in a finite number of steps with a compass and straightedge, you moronic troll. You've already shown us your STUpendous ignorance of science, math and English and now you're showing it of history. Up until 1882 when Lindemann proved by contradiction that pi is transcendental, it had been known that if pi was transcendental, the circle couldn't be squared. So after Lindemann's proof, the goal of proving what had been suspected -- that NO solution exists to the "square the circle" problem -- was achieved.
Lol. That's truly pathetic. Between you and Jem in the No Clue Club, who is playing Grand Poobah . Err yeah right, sure you were talking about that! pffft. Evidently the penny has dropped at long last and so you have to try and change tack. What a goof. You've been relying on a wiki disambiguation page up to now , so you've looked further and found, surprise surprise, you really didn't know what the hell you've been screaming all that ignorance and insult about. And of course, probably still don't. "Put another way, the set of all possible solutions = the EMPTY set which has NO elements. Which means NO solution exists. Which is a negative" What empty set? Lol. What 'no elements'? What negative? In terms of MATH the solution is true, not 'a negative', you idiot. Now you're trying to paraphrase a wiki page to struggle your way around it all. Earlier you blurted "Proofs 101 is, as long as the goal (be it proving a negative or something else) is achieved, any valid method can be used to get there. " The "goal" of the original problem to square a circle was not achieved. There was no proof. There was no solution. That's why your use of the term "goal" synonymously with an outcome for that problem is inappropriate. There was no "goal" to have no result. Lindemann mathematically proved the problem's impossibility as true. He did so in math and therefore as a universal formal quantification of logic set out to prove the problem impossible and he succeeded. Using the term "goal" synonymously with the outcome would be appropriate. The appropriate term for your nonsense is brainlessness. Outside of math it can be said amongst many other things that Lindemann's proof is either a positive outcome because there is a solution, or you are calling it a negative - because it proved true - a separate problem as impossible. All of which still means, not a good example for you to give of proving a negative. I suggest you need go away and do some work on that pseudo-logic of yours Socrates and try show how Lindemann's proof is 'a negative' in MATH. I won't wait