I'm just going to start replying to everthing Stu says with links to Richard Dawkins videos since that's apparently a strategy he views as greatly convincing

Since you're not following links, I believe this is the quote from Susskind's book at issue:

"If String Theory itself is wrong, perhaps because it is mathematically inconsistent, it will fall by the wayside and, with it, the String Theory Landscape. But if that does happen, then as things stand now, we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe."

It's obvious that his metaphysics dictate that any appearance of design in nature is an illusion, but aside from that, how can his statement be taken otherwise than implying that the universe does have the appearance of design?

Btw, I'm not suggesting a 'design factor' in the universe means the universe was designed for man or intelligent life, just that if a design factor is present, it lies outside our current conception of natural or rational explanations.

I would suggest you save yourself from further embarrassment and stop bragging about burying your head in the sand or taking the tactic of covering your ears and screaming lalalalalalalah!....I'm not hearing your...lalalalallah....etc.

The universe was not any more "designed" for humans than glaciers were "designed" for Psychrophiles. ****ing let it go.

If you google "how long will the universe last"....this is at the top of the return. I didn't think you were so lazy you could not do that...I guess I was wrong.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-long-wil...verse-last.htm

So in other words, you think something becomes probable for no other reason than a scientist guessed/said it? Or do you only confirm the ideas which you like in this way and discard the ones you don't?



http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com...universe-exist

I can't believe that someone calling themselves 'wise geek' thinks a googleplex is a one followed by a thousand zeros.

I am saddened by the continual attribution to the universe of a genuine property termed 'the appearance of design'.

I have wasted much effort, it appears.

People do not appreciate how many steps Lenny is skipping when he says things like that. The notions of fine tuning and design cannot even be asked properly within verified theories. Stu's claim that there is a slow trend away from atheism amongst cosmologists is simply false. The arguments that the universe is "designed" has not gotten stronger in recent years and if fact has gotten weaker with circumstantial evidence of a landscape. That is really the only thing we are talking about.

How is this not a textbook example of quote mining?

To begin with, I'm not much of a fan of the ID argument as a reason to believe in God. From the appearance of things, it seems to me that God is far more interested in rocks than humans. But as a justification for belief, I suppose it's okay. With that said, though, just because we have verified theories isn't an answer to how things are. I mean, QM is a verified theory and it made one of the worst predictions in the history of science in regard to the cosmological constant, i.e. how things actually are.

Neither your favored standard model nor string theory can 'explain' how electrons and protons bind to make an atom, nor is there anything resembling an 'explanation' of how all these multi-verses could form. At this stage it's just metaphysical speculation paraded around under the banner of science/physics. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the ID argument to begin with, but science has certainly not refuted the argument because what you're citing as evidence isn't science; it's just scientists doing metaphysics.

Source?

You don't know what quote mining is? I guess that explains it...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

You and Stu are quote mining Susskind. You search throughout his book/the internet for some small comment or sentence when out of context, may seem to imply support of your position, when the actual book itself is entitled and generally filled with information and writing that defies your position, which you aren't quoting.

I'm not sure why you guys think it's so amazing and important to use this as evidence for what you believe.

You two believe that the world was designed intelligently. How does quote mining a cosmologist saying essentially "The world/universe might appear designed in some ways but very likely isn't" helpful? Is really the best that you have?

It would be like me saying I believe stars are actually tiny, because they appear tiny from Earth, and then citing a scientist saying "Well, stars do appear to be tiny, but all of the evidence and science on the subject point to them being hundreds of thousands times bigger than Earth." How is this helpful to the position that the stars are actually tiny? I don't get it, it seems almost an admission of error, but I know that's too much to expect.

I'm not a fan of the ID argument, due in part because I can't conceive what its proponents actually mean by intelligent design, but mainly because it doesn't fit at all with the conception of God I do have. I don't conceive of God as 'a being' so the whole design -> designer thing isn't really relevant, for me.

As to the Susskind quote, I'll just disagree with you on that. I thought it addressed the point, e.g. if x is false, then we have no rational argument against Y being true.

Sigh, none of this is relevant or explained well. Stu is making a metaphysical claim that the universe appears designed because of fine tunings. This cannot be answered either way purely within science because it presupposes that physical constants can have different values. There us no direct evidence this is true. My answer to Stu's metaphysical claim is another metaphysical claim, that given the physical constants can be changed it is possible that they take on different values in different parts of the universe and our observed values are anthropically selected. There is no direct evidence this is true but IMO more circumstantial evidence than for a designer. These questions cannot be answered within science presently but perhaps they will in the future. Literally everybody but you understands that this is a metaphysical conversation with scientific theories only used as a starting point. Your whole post is just a strawman as nobody is claiming that this is science.

The part about not explaining why electrons and protons form stable atoms is so silly I am not going to respond to it.

Hah!....I can't believe I missed that...but now that you mention it they also spelled googolplex incorrectly. I'm surprised I actually caught the misspelling considering my own ability to spell is only slightly better than Maxraker's reading comprehension.

We are not quote mining. You and Max are perfectly capable of watching the video's and providing your own commentary. However when Susskind says that "god did it" as an explaination of the universe....its pretty unambigious that he considers god creating the universe as a very possible explaination. When he says that if you put a gun to a physicist head and ask them to correctly answer what is the origin of the universe and Susskind says they would himmmm and haww but settle on the Landscape/ and or multiverse explaination it is pretty clear he doesn't consider his own position to be a "lock".

Max is outright just burying his head in the sand by not watching the videos and making his counter argument along the lines of "you just don't understand Susskind". Once Max admitted he didn't watch the video's he lost all credibility in the ability to make a valid statement on what Susskind's position actually is. Nobody should take him seriously at this point because he has already made up his mind and absolutely nothing can change it.

It might be false....I presented it as an opinion statement and not as a fact. However you just saying "its simply false" doesn't make it so. In fact no one should take you seriously if you arn't going to examine the evidence put in front of you....which you flat our admit you won't do.

I have already examined the evidence. If any new evidence comes to light I would know about it well before you will. I don't even need to point out that nobody should take you seriously because I am fairly sure nobody does. Hopefully you can see why.

Well there is too ways to look at design. You could say that God designs a flock of birds by inspire one particular bird to fly one way, another to fly another way, a third to fly this way, and so on and so on and so on.

Such is a rather heavy handed approach. A simplier method is simply to design rules which will create the same results. For instance design birds to follow these rules:

Separation - avoid crowding neighbors (short range repulsion)
Alignment - steer towards average heading of neighbors
Cohesion - steer towards average position of neighbors (long range attraction).

When I say I believe the universe is intelligently designed for intellect and consciousness, I am not referring to God taking a heavy handed approached but rather simply designing rules which result in the intended consequeces. I would even go as far to say that God did not directly design the rules which govern a flock of birds but rather designed a simplier more basic set of rules of which had as one of their consequeces the bird flocking rules.

You watched the videos? Awesome...maybe you can provide some commentary now instead of the old "Stu you're wrong because I am right" gibberish you have been spewing.

And you won't be able to realize this but Susskinds views are very controversial among experts and quoting him and igoring other views gives you a very misleading view of the field. Granted it doesnt really matter in your case as you do not seem capable of understating the arguments or rebuttals.

I didn't watch the video. I've read the original papers that started the landscape craze (kktl etc) and have talked to the creators of the theory so I feel like I have a solid understanding of these issues. You have not addressed any of my physics points like how the cosmological constants fine tuning seems difficult to reconcile with design. If you are right about the physics, why aren't you talking about physics?

Because this conversations isn't about physics but rather about the attitudes and beliefs of physicists and cosmologist. Does someone like Susskind acknowledge the universe has the appearance of intelligent design? He most certianly does. Does he think it was intelligently designed? Well if you put a gun to his head and told him you would shoot him if he got the answer wrong he would hem and haw and but ultimately say no.

First off I meant physics in a broad sense, as in the subject of this thread. Obv nobody could have a conversation about actual physics with you unless you just didnt speak.

Secondly, LOL, this actually was never even the topic of conversation. You are clearly very lost. I am not saying that the universe does not appear designed (the earth appears flat, humans appear designed etc) I am saying the "current trend" in cosmology is away from design because of the cosmological constant and the more detailed understanding you get the less likely design becomes, just like with humans. Design was much eaiser to argue for before the cc was measured and before it became clear there are a huge number of meta stable vacums in string theory. You said it is getting harder to argue against design which is what I said was maximally wrong. Funny you blamed my reading comphrension when it seems like the entire conversation went over your head. Obv I knew everything was over your head (I assume that almost any thread will be) but I didnt realize exactly how it went over your head until now.

So the summary is the universe does appear designed at some gross level but recent evidence suggests that this is not because it was actually designed.