The philosophy and scientific evidence of the cosmology of origins

[seer]

No hypocrisy nor deception. The following is the second peer reviewed scientific article.

Yes Shuny you are a hypocrite, you only started to post these after I busted you for demanding from others what you were not providing. The stench of deception is overwhelming - I'm done.

[shunyadragon]

[One Bad Pig]

I am sorry to here about your unfortunate loose of memory.

Gesundheit.

[seer]

[cite=http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/2/2.29.full]

Oxford JournalsScience & MathematicsAstronomy & Geophysics Volume 49 Issue 2Pp. 2.29-2.33.

Universe or multiverse? by Bernard Carr and George Ellis

From your link:

Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. That is to say, astronomers may never be able to observe the other universes with their telescopes and particle physicists may never be able to detect the extra dimensions with their accelerators. So although physicists such as Leonard Susskind favour the multiverse because it does away with the need for a creator, other physicists regard the idea as just as metaphysical.

So there is no consensus like you claimed, and some scientists like Susskind favor it because it does away with the need for a Creator!

[shunyadragon]

From your link:




So there is no consensus like you claimed, and some scientists like Susskind favor it because it does away with the need for a Creator!

Your religious agenda passes again like the gooney bird dumping its smelly load on science. Please cite Susskind where he makes this claim for the reason he favors it.

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796

The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind

(Submitted on 19 May 2011 (v1), last revised 22 Jul 2011 (this version, v3))
We argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics and the many worlds of the multiverse are the same thing, and that the multiverse is necessary to give exact operational meaning to probabilistic predictions from quantum mechanics.
Decoherence - the modern version of wave-function collapse - is subjective in that it depends on the choice of a set of unmonitored degrees of freedom, the "environment". In fact decoherence is absent in the complete description of any region larger than the future light-cone of a measurement event. However, if one restricts to the causal diamond - the largest region that can be causally probed - then the boundary of the diamond acts as a one-way membrane and thus provides a preferred choice of environment. We argue that the global multiverse is a representation of the many-worlds (all possible decoherent causal diamond histories) in a single geometry.
We propose that it must be possible in principle to verify quantum-mechanical predictions exactly. This requires not only the existence of exact observables but two additional postulates: a single observer within the universe can access infinitely many identical experiments; and the outcome of each experiment must be completely definite. In causal diamonds with finite surface area, holographic entropy bounds imply that no exact observables exist, and both postulates fail: experiments cannot be repeated infinitely many times; and decoherence is not completely irreversible, so outcomes are not definite. We argue that our postulates can be satisfied in "hats" (supersymmetric multiverse regions with vanishing cosmological constant). We propose a complementarity principle that relates the approximate observables associated with finite causal diamonds to exact observables in the hat.

© Copyright Original Source

There is consensus, but yes, there are dissenters and different view among scientists. That has been acknowledged since the beginning of this thread.

Still posting?!?!?! I thought you were done!

[seer]

Your religious agenda passes again like the gooney bird dumping its smelly load on science. Please cite Susskind where he makes this claim for the reason he favors it.

Are you freakin nuts!? The thing about Susskind WAS FROM YOUR OWN LINK, again:

So although physicists such as Leonard Susskind favour the multiverse because it does away with the need for a creator, other physicists regard the idea as just as metaphysical.

Are you saying that your own link was lying?

There is consensus, but yes, there are dissenters and different view among scientists. That has been acknowledged since the beginning of this thread.

There is no scientific consensus concerning the multiverse, that is just another falsehood you made up.

Still posting?!?!?! I thought you were done!

I just can't believe the things you say, I keep coming back assuming that I must have missed something...

[One Bad Pig]

Are you freakin nuts!?

No, he's suffering from dementia. In his head, it all makes sense, and he thinks he's perfectly fine. This is common for those who are suffering this affliction.

[seer]

No, he's suffering from dementia. In his head, it all makes sense, and he thinks he's perfectly fine. This is common for those who are suffering this affliction.

So he is mentally ill? I should stop then?

[One Bad Pig]

So he is mentally ill? I should stop then?

Unless you like being frustrated.

[shunyadragon]

Are you freakin nuts!? The thing about Susskind WAS FROM YOUR OWN LINK, again:

So although physicists such as Leonard Susskind favour the multiverse because it does away with the need for a creator, other physicists regard the idea as just as metaphysical.

Are you saying that your own link was lying?

I want to hear it from Susskind.

[seer]

I want to hear it from Susskind.

So your own link is lying! Sheesh!

[shunyadragon]

So your own link is lying! Sheesh!

No, it provides an opinion of Susskind's motives for supporting the multi-verse concept. I prefer to hear from Susskind himself as to what his motives are. I am provided different references concerning the support for the multi-verse concept I do not necessarily agree with everything they say. You are far to aggressive to accuse people of lying when they disagree.

[Duragizer]

I wonder if a single one of Shuny's threads have ever managed to avoid rounds of personal attacks and battles of egos.

[shunyadragon]

I wonder if a single one of Shuny's threads have ever managed to avoid rounds of personal attacks and battles of egos.

[psstein]

No, it provides an opinion of Susskind's motives for supporting the multi-verse concept. I prefer to hear from Susskind himself as to what his motives are. I am provided different references concerning the support for the multi-verse concept I do not necessarily agree with everything they say. You are far to aggressive to accuse people of lying when they disagree.

Read Susskind's book The Cosmic Landscape. He explicitly says he prefers the multiverse for the reason that it does away with God.