and finally to show you I understand this... I ask you. are we lucky that we that we are in a universe whose constants match up so perfectly with the quantum sum of histories we can not tell the solutions apart. Isn't that impossible luck? or what force(s) ties the amplitudes to the sum of histories that the constants of a universe just happen to match up with the sum. stu, I am not sure about you but I do love this stuff, thank you for playing the court jester. you are making me get a pretty good grasp.
Then wtf are you bothered about!!? You've just destroyed your own position all by yourself!!! The constants are self selecting. OMG. You intend to show me you understand this because you've just demolished your own nonsense by yourself? Well thanks anyway. I don't think there is a smiley available anywhere that could reflect the laugh appropriate at this stage. Of course it's not luck. It's an inevitability. You just said the constants are self selecting. pfft goes God. What a laugh. Listen to yourself. It's not the issue any longer. You just explained those 'tunings' without calling on God!!! Jem really. Best crawl out of this by saying you've only been kidding all your life. You've no credibility, but that may work to some small extent. Yeah of course, great stuff jem. Glad I could help. Now all you have to do is realize why the joker is you.
Stu you are now playing the ignorant fool. Acting like the clause upon which the statement was hinged does not exist. This was the point... and it crushes your mis information. 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.
Jem, you already nuked your own argument. You bumbled into explaining why there is no need for so called fine tuning. As you clearly don't know what Hawking is saying, there's really no use in you endlessly trolling the same pieces of text about the place . You've made yourself look silly enough.
This is nuked to you? That was game set match... Look at how the Hawking and Hartle paper matches up with the Bernard Carr quote... I gave you years and years ago. ... 1. 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, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. from the hawking and hartle paper... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf 2. "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Lol yes, game set match against yourself. The constants are self selecting. You said so. No need for 'fine tuning then. The constants' values of course will be what they are, inevitably. Back peddling, by pasting more stock text to confuse yourself by, is not going to help .
This was my sentence... "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." now... of course anyone but a brain dead troll understands that top down cosmology is unobserved pure speculation. Unless of course you have proof of a previous line of universes.
Predictions can be made. There is an assurance the constants were self selected. It appears you aren't even aware what your sentence says. Of course, Stephen Hawking is using quantum mechanics, physics and math in proposing top-down. It can't in any way be reasonably described as "unobserved pure speculation". It is a proposal endeavoring to combine aspects of general relativity and quantum mechanics, so that the universe does not have only one history in space-time. Applying fundamental principles in quantum mechanics similar to those explaining subatomic particles such like electrons, where the universe, starting from natural processes of quantum vacuum fluctuation to hot-dense fundamental forces, follows every possible path, superposition, "a line" of histories (envisioned as universes), until reaching its current state. No singularity. No Multiverse. As quantum mechanics agree fully with experiment, the proposal is an anthropic one, thus suggesting top-down is a testable approach. It's perfectly obvious you don't really want to understand any of that paper. In the worthless task of trying to hammer a creator/designer/tuner into it, all you do want is to endlessly copy little bits of text from it in order to draw your own false and silly conclusions. Only this time you blundered into using some of it to stumble upon the inevitability of this universe's self selected outcome; what were the 10^5 chances of that!!
predictions can be made because we live in one universe with one set of constants. You are jumbling 3 models together . You are just lying out your ass using sci words to cobble together specious arguments. But your presentations manifests a lack of real comprehension. but I will make it simple. here are the 3 models which you have jumbled. standard inflation 1. once the constants become settled, we can not explain the fine tunings. Go ahead explain why we are tuned in one current universe... you have never answered this question other than to say it was inevitable which of course is b.s. in absence of a TOE. eternal inflation 2. lots of regions... all sorts of constants... no ability to make predictions because everything is possible. almost infinite regions (this is a multiverse model) 3. top down cosmology (this is a multiverse model) almost infinite homogeneous universes. According to hawking and hartle... you can make predictions because the sum of the histories would basicially mirror our universe. and the presence of almost infinite universe explains why ours is fine tuned. so stu, you can pick your model in an attempt to explain the fine tuings. Of course they are all pure speculation because no one has observed a universe with another constant.
1. Stu you are completely full of crap. You still have a fine tuning problem. Fine-tuning problem One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning in inflationary theories. In new inflation, the slow-roll conditions must be satisfied for inflation to occur. The slow-roll conditions say that the inflaton potential must be flat (compared to the large vacuum energy) and that the inflaton particles must have a small mass.[65] In order for the new inflation theory of Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt to be successful, therefore, it seemed that the universe must have a scalar field with an especially flat potential and special initial conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) 2. and this from our old friend penrose... In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: âThere is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. [â¦] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything [â¦] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.â[97] The problem of specific or âfine-tunedâ initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse. A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. It is significant that Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls âbad inflationâ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and âgood inflationâ one compatible with them: âNot only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. ⦠Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation ⦠Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly âwithout inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penroseâs shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation âby a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!â[98] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)