so you finally got to the point.... but again you manage to not quote... the source. so I will give it to you again for the 30th time (or so). "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 3See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological spacetimes.1" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf Is the reason you refuse to cite that source because it explains that according to hawking gravity selects your line of histories in a top down cosmology framework. a framework which is completely speculative? --- Why don't you cite you tell us where you found your quote... Is it because if you read a few paragraph up you realize it is made within the context of top down cosmology? you have been trolling the same bullshit of years.
wikipedia now states what I have been telling you for years about your quote... you present it out of context... the idea of gravity creating the universe is presented inside the the theory of a multiverse and top down cosmology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book) The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe. It starts with the Ionian Greeks, who claimed that nature works by laws, and not by the will of the gods. It later presents the work of Nicolaus Copernicus, who advocated the concept that the Earth is not located in the center of the universe.[11] The authors then describe the theory of quantum mechanics using, as an example, the probable movement of an electron around a room. The presentation has been described as easy to understand by some reviewers, but also as sometimes "impenetrable," by others.[8][11] The central claim of the book is that the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.[11] The authors write: 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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[12] The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.[11] The book concludes with the statement that only some universes of the multiple universes (or multiverse) support life forms. We, of course, are located in one of those universes. The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain (see Anthropic principle).[11] Reactions
if einstein did not say that, its too bad because it is a really good quote. what is your source for saying the quote is not real?
I did not see this before. People keep putting up straw man arguments inserting religion into the science of the fine tuning of the universe. I am not injecting religion into the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument is based on science and I am dealing strictly with the science in that area. If you wish to argue the science go for it. But cut the shit about the religion. That is an entirely different argument. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Do you know how to click on a link? It's right there. The quote is real but Einstein didn't say it, which pretty much deflates the heavy significance you tried to pump into it by saying/insinuating "the great Einstein said thus and thus.". No, somebody else (a non scientist) said thus and thus, to which the general response would be a yawn.
Jem, as far as I am aware, the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was never satisfactorily resolved. You might, at the same time you're dealing with these other weighty issues, want to weigh in on the angels on a pin head issue -- or should it be the pinhead angel issue? I'd be interested in your opinion as to how many angels it should be possible to place on the head of a pin, leaving the minimum room necessary for dancing of course, and whether this is a "finely tuned number." I'm thinking for starters that it needs to be a whole number. Am I on the right track?
A summary of the video. Scientist says the odds are astronomical that the universe was the way it was at the time of the big bang, we don't know what happened or how it happened...must be Jesus.
I agree you have now reasonably raised a question... but you want me to read through an excerpt to a fricken ebook.... to what purpose. who is the writter. what is he claiming... does anyone else agree. I looked a few pages and did not see your quote.