Which meansâ¦. no such thing It means an assertion of fine tuning OR eternal inflation. I already mentioned earlier but as usual you ignore things you don't like; eternal inflation is NOT multiverse. Your false choice is just that. A false choice. How many times to get it into you thick skull? There is only an appearance of tuning. He has already said the laws of physics, particularly gravity with no need for anything else, explains why there is a universe. Then how come you are always fantasizing or trying alter what Hawking has stated to suggest there is something else other than the laws of physics and particularly gravity especially, to explain an appearance only , when the laws of physics, and particularly gravity is all Stephen Hawking ever mentions as necessary. Because you're always desperately seeking a gap for god. That's why. It's also why you and your No Clue Club buddy hurl so much childish insult around in the hope of covering up a respective religiously induced willful and deceitful ignorance that both of you must share.
stu you learned something but you are still completely ignorant. Try reading hawking's paper you tool. 1. You now admit the appearance of fine tuning. That is a major change in your level of ignorance over the past 7 years. Congrats... you have absorbed some science. 2. There is no doubt that eternal inflation when used in the context of that paper by Hawking is coupled with the multiverse. The paper fricken says the multiverse is populated by eternal inflation. Check section 7 you moron. 3. You keep on quoting the thing about gravity out of context.... and that is proof you are a fucking troll. I have asked you to quote in context- dipshit - so I could answer your questions. If you read the paper I linked to .... you will see that Hawking states that if you couple topdown cosmology with the multiverse... your question ( or you observation of Gravity) selects the past histories of the universe. Its a very speculative sci fi... way to explain the fine tunings... you should read it. You should learn some science.
You know stu... arguing with you is like arguing with a child.... no worse. You reach for every new sentence and pretend its supports your argument. Then the adult in the room has to go cite to the academic and prove you are a moron.... over and over and over. Since I just cited you to a noble prize winner and his paper again... showing you to by a lying moron. I think I will let you print your anticipated out of context moronic reply and leave it at that.
Just because you dreamt I admit something doesn't mean I admit something. There is no science that supports the fine-tuning argument. If it can be called an argument. You asserted a false choice between fine-tuning OR multiverse. Eternal inflation is about string theory, specifically that subatomic particles are one-dimensional strings. Not that the universe appears fine-tuned. Stephen Hawking talks about preferring top-down approach NOT the classical bottom-up eternal inflation model, which he says won't allow calculations for probability distributions. Something which of course Pernrose would agree with too, although YOU post, misguidedly and ignorantly vids of Penrose with comments as if he were saying something different. That's because you're a religious goof trying to wedge god in where it doesn't belong. Your trouble is you are so busy being abusive and crude you can't tell the difference between in context and out of context, or even understand a straight forward question. Hawking states gravity , its laws and the laws of physics, are responsible for everything. He categorically states no need for anything else. So why do you need something else to explain an appearance of something which only appears that way, like the Earth only appears flat, when all that's needed according to the man who YOU looked to, is essentially gravity? You should go learn something other than basing your witless conclusions on gratuitous insult and pseudo-science lifted from religious websites.
How many times, Stephen Hawking is NOT a Nobel prize winner. You can't even get that much right even after it's been pointed out to you more than once. Face it Jem you are just being thick, pretending otherwise in the name of Jesus. You called yourself a lawyer yet couldn't spell the word cite - a fundamental key word any lawyer would instinctively know how to spell, used all the time in the legal profession. It took half a dozen heads up to correct, until now you can't stop typing it. You've constantly mis-quoted the paper you refer to, for one thing leaving out part of a sentence to base a false choice on , then switching emphasis when caught out, but only succeeding again in showing how uninformed you are. Yes you should leave it at that and stay in that thick smog of utter religious ignorance and confusion you've managed to delude yourself with, and to which this thread's title exemplifies you as being one of those fooled.
1. I mistakenly called him a nobel prize winner just now... it was my first slip in dozens and dozens of pages. I do not ever recall writing that before so you are full of shit when you acted like you have corrected many times. 2. Only an asshole like you would claim I quoted a paper out of context when I linked to the paper right here on this thread. And in context never once left you will a false choice -- you flaming asshole liar. I will quote the paper again. 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." Now this is where you made shit up and got the part about eternal inflation so wrong it showed you to be a fraud.
Do you have Tourette syndrome or something? You've referred both to Susskind and Hawking as Nobel prize winners before. Neither are. I have corrected you on dozens of things many times though you make no discussion , generally take no notice, but like a mad person usually create a tirade of abuse just like you have now. That'll be why you don't recall. Not only did you quote out of context, you left out half a sentence because it wrecks your false choice assertion. Now you think just quoting the paper changes what you did and that makes me wrong ? Lol. You get worse and worse.
Poor STUpid... still trying to lie and troll your way out of being eviscerated. Your feeble attempts to save face are hilarious! It's hard to imagine how much of a loser you must be to keep pretending you know what you're talking about when it's so blatantly obvious you don't. Speaking of which... tell us again how with proofs "goal" is "inappropriate parlance" and reexpressing a negative is "just too ridiculous for words!" LOL. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3362824#post3362824 Even after that beatdown you're still stomping your little feet and childishly insisting that somehow proof of impossibility is not proof of a negative. What part of impossible = NOT possible don't you understand? How STUpid are you to not grasp that NOT possible means the set of solutions = the EMPTY set = NO elements = a NEGATIVE? Your ignorance of mathematical reasoning and proofs only negates your credibility, not logic or how they're done. P.S. Get your nasty teeth fixed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh please... don't even try to claim what's "outside of math" and what's not... you've already proven you know nothing about the subject. And your laughably uninformed troll verbiage and pseudo-logic reinforces it. Lindemann proved pi is transcendental you dumbass. Which means pi is NOT algebraic, and Lindemann's proof is a classic example of proving a goal of the form ¬P by contradiction where ¬ = NOT and in this case P = pi is algebraic. In fact Lindemann started his proof by assuming P is true which led to a contradiction that in turn proved P is false. None of which is "outside of math." Once again you've proven you're too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.
As a complete idiot you seem to think photoshopping your plug ugly face and dramatically underlining extracts via your wiki eduction that don't apply to what is being said to you, is a smart thing to do. But then it has to be remembered, you are complete idiot. What part of impossible or... NOT possible = TRUE ... don't YOU understand? It is NOT stated .... " the set of solutions = the EMPTY set = NO elements = a NEGATIVE? ".... = true, although you are obviously dumb enough to imagine it might . Even if you want to refer to the result as a set, how exactly do you imagine a set that = TRUE is "EMPTY" or has "NO elements" when it has the element TRUE, or that is "a NEGATIVE" ? Tosser. Lol! was that you trying to look like you have a clue Lindemann and others before him showed a NEGATIVE SOLUTION you prick. As already mentioned earlier it's referred to in math as a negative solution, or a negative proof for good reason - but not known as your "proof of a negative", which is an argument made in natural language -outside of math, and not an argument from proof, as Lindemann's is, made by deductive reasoning. They are different. You didn't know. But then you are a complete idiot.