That was the last sentence of the paper... and here is the first sentence. This is what Hawking and Hartle wrote... you ignorant troll... "We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked."
I realize you get angry nasty and abusive because you can't get the ridiculous non-argument you have to work. "whereas in ice cream one certainly envisions chocolate" That however is not what ice cream is. "whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes" That however is not what top down is. I asked you ages ago but you never answer; do you actually know what Hawking/Hertog top-down is? Obviously you still don't. As you're trying to force religion where it won't go, don't you think you'd be better properly understanding what it is you're trying to push it at?
I did suggest you stop responding like a twelve year old. Show where Penrose, using only rhetoric "what are the chances", turns into the math probability calculation you are so ignorantly trying to peddle. Leonard Sussind , your authority, gives enough support for himself . "The Illusion of Intelligent Design".....says it all.
you descent into the the bowels of being a troll is complete stu. I will simply give you the quote again.
there is no argument. Hawking couples top down cosmology with a multiverse to explain the fine tunings of our universe. That is fact. I linked to the paper... Only a troll fraud like you would misrepresent the paper. you are dead ass wrong... Here is the proof... the proof does not change. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different viewof cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up approach, where one assumes there is a single history with a well defined starting point and evolution. Our comparison with eternal inflation provides a clear illustration of this. In a cosmology based on eternal inflation there is only one universe with a fractal structure at late times, whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous, but with different values for various effective coupling constants.
By your own admission then, you are a "troll fraud". sheesh you're pathetic. Yes you linked to the paper a million times. That does not mean you understand what the paper means. Nor does it stop you misrepresenting what it says. Do you know what top down cosmology is or not? Do you even understand how the top down proposal makes it inevitable cosmological constants will have the values they have? So no 'fine tuning'. Do you even know top down does not call for a Multiverse, contrary to you constantly insisting it does? The paper proposes THIS Universe's initial state or condition was composed of numerous initial conditions. The top down proposal puts forward a very small amount of those conditions resulting in this universe as it is observed today. That is similar to visualizing the superposition of an electron as it exists in all theoretically possible states, resulting in one electron as it observed. The top-down proposal suggests how only a few past histories produced the current conditions which results in this one universe as it is observed today. One way to envision that is, "as a set of alternative universes". But one can also similarly envision an electron as a set of 'alternative electrons', as it exists in all possible conditions. That would not be a 'Multi electron verse' as it is still one electron. Both top-down and electrons explained by quantum superposition. As with top down, many histories, numerous initial conditions , not an ambiguous use of the word Multiverse, but a set of initial states, a few of which inevitably led to one universe. Proof? You talk about proof!? Don't make me laugh. Proof is not you repeat posting a tiny part of that paper like a lunatic troll and refusing to rationally consider what it actually says, so as to imagine you can fit a supernatural creator in at every other word.
you are so full of shit... read this... understand it. I already explained it too you.. I have already answered your questions. But my answer was too deep for you. So I will make it even easier. If you answer the fine tunings by suggesting inflation. You have no ability to predict because anything could have happened. Hawkings solution is saying that in a top down cosmology we can make predictions because we can be assured that the constants in our universe sort of self selected those same (allowing conditions or) constants in the previous line of universes that got us here. The authors wanted to make the difference between inflation and top down cosmology so clear... they explained this concept in the last line of their summary so even science frauds like you could understand. I will present it again. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf In a cosmology based on eternal inflation there is only one universe with a fractal structure at late times, (this is stu's argument whether he knows it or not...) whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous, but with different values for various effective coupling constants.
Finally you are being fooled by nomenclature and not grasping the concept. The issue is how to explain our tunings without calling on God. One way or the other you are assuming that nature or random chance... must be dealing almost infinite other hands. you can speculate almost infinite other homogeneous universes or potentially infinite other regions (with different constants) and one universe In summary... initial threshold one universe -- vs inflation or multiverse. if you choose inflation... --- instead of saying anything could happen... Hawking and Hartle suggest you go with top down cosmology coupled with multiverse. That way you can predict. ------------------------------------------------------- Now.. here is something which is you refuse to do... a cite from the work of a scientist... the paper... "... 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 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].