Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

This is a very bad turn for you, jem, not vetting quotes supposedly from Einstein.

 

Is this a reference to the Zimmerman trial?

 

I would agree... that if the quote is not real, it was a bad turn.
I try to avoid making mistakes like that.

But, I had no reason to suspect its not real as I had heard it many times before.

If it turns out it was not a quote from Einstein I will provide a mea culpa. (although it has little to do with the main point of my discussion here.)

 

It's right there on the first page. How could you miss it?

 

so your proposition is what --- that because of this sphinx question being posed in a book during Einsteins lifetime, there is no way he answered someone elses similar question in a similar manner?

Why don't you just give us the link to the person questioning whether Einstein could have answered a similar question to the this question about the sphinx.

If it turns out the person makes a great argument that einstein never made that quote fine.

but this cat and mouse shit you are playing is ridiculous.

What is your exact statement.
What are your facts supporting it.

 

I have a better question...

How many closed minds can escape the truth of science before they decide to stop typing on the internet?

 

You say "a Tuner" and you're not injecting religion....yeah right.

Not withstanding, what then? Has to be a naturalistic "Tuner".
One that conforms to the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, math and scientific theory.

Gravity. Yay.

So really, what excatly is your problem.

 

tuner is what some scientists say.

British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)

does it feel better to you if we go with Hawking when he said fine tuned as if prescribed by an outside agency? (I will get the exact quote again for you.)

 

"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 cosmology’s 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

which by the way... if you want attribute the gravity quote to hawking... it is against the above reality that he speculates about multiverses and therein gravity causing the formation of a line of universes which could sustain life.

On one hand we have the fact our universe looks as if fine tuned by an outside agency... vs...

the massive speculation about infinite other universes.

 

This is typical shyster horseshit. And you are ridiculous.

I've posted a source attributing the quote to someone else.

You've posted no source for your alleged Einstein quote.

Ergo, you have lost the argument.