More

 

excerpts from:

"...when evaluating competing hypotheses, we should prefer, all other things being equal, the simpler hypothesis with fewer such theoretical entities."

(Ockhams razo)

"If, for some unforeseen reason the string landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID (intelligent design) critics."

Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind.

"To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicist like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design."

 

London theoretical physicist Bernard Carr.

(Anything and everything but a creator seems to be their mantra... A bunch of 'em anyway.)

"Robin Collins has a clever way  of characterizing the whole situation."

(That there could be an infinite number of universes possible such that ours just happened to have turned out this way as a matter of implied probabilities etc)

"He likens physicists who attempt to explain fine tuning (of the universe for life) solely by reference to universe-creating mechanisms, without intelligent design, to a hapless soul who denies any human ingenuity in the making of a freshly baked loaf of bread simply because the baker used a breadmaking machine. Clearly, argues Collins, such a benighted fellow has overlooked an obvious fact: the breadmaking machine itself required prior ingenuity and design, as did the recipe for and the preparation of the dough that went into it. Similarly, even if a multiverse hypotheses is true, it would support, rather than undermine, the intelligent design hypotheses since the multiverse hypothesis depends upon the specific features of universe-generating mechanisms that invariably require prior and otherwise unexplained fine tuning."

(And that's where I am. I believe in "multiverses" I really do, but not as a way to keep "the Creators foot out" of the realm of science but because:

"with God anything is possible")

"Some have come to see their vocation as scientist as part of a long struggle against  what they regard as the irrationality of religion. Thus they have vigilantly resisted considering any discovery or explanation with implications favorable to theism, whatever the cost to the coherence of the scientific world picture."

(Oh it's a long struggle alright...since before time.

And when they resist any discovery or explanation that has favorable implications to Theism?

Just because it doesn't "gel" with their worldview? Thats when they aren't scientist anymore, just somebody else pushing their agenda...It's not science at that point.)

"Though Hawking had help to prove the singularity theorems with Roger Penrose in 1970 and George Ellis in 1973, he found their implication  of an absolute beginning of time and space philosophically disturbing and scientifically unsatisfying. Consequently, he began to formulate a cosmological model that he hoped would eliminate the implications of a beginning."

(Again, it's: OH PLEASE ANYTHING BUT THAT!")

"Rather the wave function is a mathematical concept describing possibilities that might exist in space and time once the photon as a wave encounters  an observers or detector and the "probability wave" collapses. The wave function also depicts what physicist call "superposition", the idea that prior to observation subatomic particles "exist" as mathematical possibilities in multiple indeterminate states at once, occupying an actual place (or acquiring a specific momentum) in space in time only after detection."

(That is all 100% truth.

I've witnessed it.

I told a few people about a certain "gold flake/gold dust apparition" (that doesn't even come close to explaining it) that disappeared when trying to get a better look at it. It was pretty obvious who it was BTW and it just happened to have occurred the night after having done a 90 minute "presentation" on quantum mechanics? Timing...It's always about timing... Entire episode? Maybe less than a second. I know, "You're crazy" etc...Thing is? If one is an accident, and two is a trend? Wats 90 or so these days then? And it just "happens' to happen to the guy that prays my prayer etc? And who has made many more correct predictions than the experts the last few years? To many coincidences aren't a coincidence.)

"...the resulting mathematical expression --albeit one without physical meaning--temporarily depicted the geometry of spacetime without a temporal singularity (a beginning). Hawking placed great emphasis on this depiction of spacetime in his popular writing, though it had little to do with the real object of his work with Hartle. Instead , he and Hartle mainly sought to construct a universe wave function and demonstrated that our universe represented a reasonably probable outcome of it -- that is, one with a nonzero probability of being observed."

(I wonder why he would put so much emphasis on something that wasn't the real object of their work? Why ever would somebody do that?

).

"Nevertheless, to generate realistic quantum cosmological models that in some sense explain the origin of our universe, physicist can't choose those constraints arbitrarily. Instead to explain our universe as a reasonably probable outcome of a natural physical process, they must provide some nonquestion-begging physical rationale for the constraints they choose."

(Thats not what Hawking and Hartle did, they:)

" had to use approximations that further restricted the degrees of mathematical freedom associated with the problem."

Funny how Hawking never:

"...placed great emphasis on this...in his popular writing".

I wonder why?)