When ignoring all others, you keep snipping bits of text only because they sound to you like they agree with whatever you have already decided to believe, you'll never learn better. It's known as willful ignorance.
That's an anthropic point. It is not the point you made in your own sentence, where you stumbled upon an inevitability for cosmological constant values. I've already answered all those separately. You are the one jumbling them into another strawman. Can you really think of nothing better than to repeat them over, time after time, instead of developing responses. Obviously you can't. Hawking / Hartle top-down is not "a multiverse model". Sum over histories does not make "a multiverse model". I've already explained why. How ever many times you parrot it is "a multiverse model" will not make it one. But now once again here's your return to "the fine tunings, "why ours is fine tuned". Not now any longer only an appearance of fine tuning. The cosmological constants are magically fine tuned and do not merely appear so. For no good reason, only that you want them to be fine tuned. I've said to you how many times.... an appearance of fine tuned constants means no more than an appearance of flat circular planets. These scientific models you refer to do not support any so called 'fine tunings' anyway. They are not suggesting any supernatural outcome. But they are ones you constantly try to deform and misunderstand in order to wedge a supernatural god in them. The scientific question is, why are the values of the cosmological constants what they are. It is not the question "why are the cosmological constants fine tuned". That is a creationist's question, uninformed of science, distorting the fundamentals of a scientific approach.
1. that is a complete lie. You are the fool who did not understand that right now we have no TOE so the constants are not inevitable. the rest you of what your wrote is a similar mis representation. 2. You want to know why you are clearly a bozo. Hawking wrote this in his summary to clarify this for bozos like you. Hawking / hartle wrote... alternate likely HOMOGENEOUS universes.... He is talking about a multiverse of likely homogenous universes --- you have been making specious arguments about top down cosmology being only one universe. 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.
Your own sentence described constants as self selecting, therefore their values inevitable. Take it up with yourself. Hawking/Hartle is based on Richard Feynman's sum over histories. That is superposition. Superposition is not Multiverse. I said why not. Hawking speaks of the universe taking every possible line from one state to the next until the outcome is - the universe. There is no call on a Multiverse. "Envisioned as a set of alternative universes" , with sum over histories, there is no Multiverse. You like dictionaries, look up the word envisioned. But this has already been covered so your only response is to repeat yourself like a crazed parrot with text you don't even understand. Still no god in any of it, and there won't be.
1. Here is Hawking and Hartle on this subject -- alternate universes, likely homogenous. It could not be more clear, except to a bozo confused by different models. 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, 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. You are now arguing with another expert about what the expert wrote. Luckily we have cited the whole paper. 2. Here is Stu quoting me. Note that my comment about self selecting constants is dependent on being within the top down cosmology model. Yet stu will troll his ass of a few pages later taking only the second part of my statement out of context. Quote from jem: 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. you are now arguing with a relative expert ( vs you) about what I wrote. Luckily I have quotes.
Whether these other universes or vacuaa are realized or not, whichever model you prefer... the fine tunings or our universe are explained by the potential of almost infinite different tunings of the constants. Infinite opportunities are needed to explain why our universe appears tuned. do you really need me to present the a link to Susskind's video again. why do you keep lying. Susskind lays it all out for you in a video... God is an option... multiverse is an option. listen again... http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431
Jem, It is clear Hawking/Hartle does not invoke a Multiverse. I said why. Address that instead of just endlessly repeating the same blocks of text like a madman. Quote from jem: "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." "Hawkings solution is saying... the constants in our universe sort of self selected those same .... constants " Self selecting constants. That is your sentence and you seem to have a problem with it. As I say, I don't , so take it up with yourself, not me. As far as Susskind goes, "God is an option... multiverse is an option." God is an option. Zeus is an option. Fairy Dust is an option. All non science based options. Multiverse is an option. Many other scientific options. All science based options. Not all options are equal.
1. wrong, hawking himself uses clear language to the contrary. ( I gave it two you in my last few responses) If you understood what a homogenous universe is or you would not be playing the bozo so well. 2. your argument is nonsense on its face. dependent clauses are understood by logical people, apparently not by trolls. 3. your analogies are non sequitors. because there is a fine tuned creation, absent an explanation to the contrary you would expect a tuner. You would not expect zeus but you would expect a tuner. âIf there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008)
A sentence is not a dependant clause. There are no dependent clauses in your sentence. Apparently Hawking's clear language encouraged you to write your sentence which said "the constants 'sort of' self selected". So why are you still arguing with me about something you said, with which I don't disagree? Quoting Bernard Carr after you've already said Stephen Hawking makes it clear, is contradictory. Already explained how the Hawking/Hartle proposal does not invoke a Multiverse. Have your Bernard Carr contact your Stephen Hawking. The latter will no doubt make that much clear to the former. It is your authority, the Hawking/Hartle proposal. Hawking ".. envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous,.." You'd be better focusing on the preceding word "envisions" before picking out the word "homogenious" which is apparently only serving to confuse you. Hawking/Hartle top down is quantum sum over histories. That is mathematically, there would exist every possible path the universe could take. That all those paths are envisioned as a set of alternative universes is one way to envision it!! "You would not expect zeus but you would expect a tuner." If you would not expect Zeus, expect a self-selecting naturalistic, so called tuner then. Albeit unintentional, it's one which your sentence proposes. There's no indication of Zeus or God in any of Hawking/Hartle or any other science based proposals. Why are you trying so hard to force one of them in.