The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics

Science > Physics > The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Perspicacious"
Date:	22 Dec 2005 11:47:36 PM
Object:	The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/no-new-einstein.pdf
Only now are physicists beginning to realize that their religion is
metaphysics.
* 17 December 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Amanda Gefter
Is string theory in trouble?
Ever since Albert Einstein wondered whether the world might have been
different, physicists have been searching for a "theory of
everything" to explain why the universe is the way it is. Now string
theory, one of today's leading candidates, is in trouble. A growing
number of physicists claim it is ill-defined and based on crude
assumptions. Something fundamental is missing, they say. The main
complaint is that rather than describing one universe, the theory
describes 10^500, each with different constants of nature, even
different laws of physics.
But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees
this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem.
He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why
the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion
rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little
bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of
universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological
constant like ours.
The idea is controversial, because it changes how physics is done, and
it means that the basic features of our universe are just a random luck
of the draw. He explains to Amanda Gefter why he thinks it's a
possibility we cannot ignore.
Why are physicists taking the idea of multiple universes seriously now?
First, there was the discovery in the past few years that inflation
seems right. This theory that the universe expanded spectacularly in
the first fraction of a second fits a lot of data. Inflation tells us
that the universe is probably extremely big and necessarily diverse. On
sufficiently big scales, and if inflation lasts long enough, this
diversity will produce every possible universe. The same process that
forged our universe in a big bang will happen over and over. The
mathematics are rickety, but that's what inflation implies: a huge
universe with patches that are very different from one another. The
bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe that
our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.
Second was the discovery that the value of the cosmological constant -
the energy of empty space which contributes to the expansion rate of
the universe - seems absurdly improbable, and nothing in fundamental
physics is able to explain why. I remember when Steven Weinberg first
suggested that the cosmological constant might be anthropically
determined - that it has to be this way otherwise we would not be here
to observe it. I was very impressed with the argument, but troubled by
it. Like everybody else, I thought the cosmological constant was
probably zero - meaning that all the quantum fluctuations that make up
the vacuum energy cancel out, and gravity alone affects the expansion
of the universe. It would be much easier to explain if they cancelled
out to zero, rather than to nearly zero. The discovery that there is a
non-zero cosmological constant changed everything. Still, those two
things were not enough to tip the balance for me.
What finally convinced you?
The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of
different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments,
tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were
about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about
the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my
mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all
assured me it was the best bet.
But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of
one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When
Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that
revealed there are more like 10^500 vacuums in string theory, that to
me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming
together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a paper
saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past
couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are worried
that it might be true.
Steven Weinberg recently said that this is one of the great sea changes
in fundamental science since Einstein, that it changes the nature of
science itself. Is it such a radical change?
In a way it is very radical but in another way it isn't. The great
ambition of physicists like myself was to explain why the laws of
nature are just what they are. Why is the proton just about 1800 times
heavier than the electron? Why do neutrinos exist? The great hope was
that some deep mathematical principle would determine all the constants
of nature, like Newton's constant. But it seems increasingly likely
that the constants of nature are more like the temperature of the Earth
- properties of our local environment that vary from place to place.
Like the temperature, many of the constants have to be just so if
intelligent life is to exist. So we live where life is possible.
For some physicists this idea is an incredible disappointment.
Personally, I don't see it that way. I find it exciting to think that
the universe may be much bigger, richer and full of variety than we
ever expected. And it doesn't seem so incredibly philosophically
radical to think that some things may be environmental.
In order to accept the idea that we live in a hospitable patch of a
multiverse, must a physicist trade in that dream of a final theory?
Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the radii
of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant mathematical
equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply have
to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the theory
and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local conditions.
So even if you accept the multiverse and the idea that certain local
physical laws are anthropically determined, you still need a unique
mega-theory to describe the whole multiverse? Surely it just pushs the
question back?
Yes, absolutely. The bottom line is that we need to describe the whole
thing, the whole universe or multiverse. It's a scientific question: is
the universe on the largest scales big and diverse or is it
homogeneous? We can hope to get an answer from string theory and we can
hope to get some information from cosmology.
There is a philosophical objection called Popperism that people raise
against the landscape idea. Popperism [after the philosopher Karl
Popper] is the assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be
falsifiable, otherwise it's just metaphysics. Other worlds, alternative
universes, things we can't see because they are beyond horizons, are in
principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical - that's the
objection. But the belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon
is homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to the
Popperazzi.
Could there be some kind of selection principle that will emerge and
pick out one unique string theory and one unique universe?
Anything is possible. My friend David Gross hopes that no selection
principle will be necessary because only one universe will prove to
make sense mathematically, or something like that. But so far there is
no evidence for this view. Even most of the hard-core adherents to the
uniqueness view admit that it looks bad.
Is it premature to invoke anthropic arguments - which assume that the
conditions for life are extremely improbable - when we don't know how
to define life?
The logic of the anthropic principle requires the strong assumption
that our kind of life is the only kind possible. Why should we presume
that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How
do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments?
If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the
cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose
all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist
in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a
valid objection. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that
life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black
hole.
Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation?
One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved, meaning
the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or like
the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I
previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe
likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our current
vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems
more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state with a
much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the
multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum to
another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively
curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest scales
of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in
principle, is testable.
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent
design?
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen
reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for
mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am
pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural
explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, 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 critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically
unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

From issue 2530 of New Scientist magazine, 17 December 2005, page 48

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics	25 Dec 2005 02:06:54 PM

Perspicacious:

Hard to say, one thing is for certain: If you were a cat and had
8 more lives to spend studying relativity, you might get your
article to the point of being in slightly trouble than string
might be. Don't bank on the distemper shots.
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics	23 Dec 2005 07:30:56 AM

"Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135316856.333272.50850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/no-new-einstein.pdf

Only now are physicists beginning to realize that their religion is
metaphysics.

* 17 December 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Amanda Gefter

Is string theory in trouble?

Ever since Albert Einstein wondered whether the world might have been
different, physicists have been searching for a "theory of
everything" to explain why the universe is the way it is. Now string
theory, one of today's leading candidates, is in trouble. A growing
number of physicists claim it is ill-defined and based on crude
assumptions. Something fundamental is missing, they say. The main
complaint is that rather than describing one universe, the theory
describes 10^500, each with different constants of nature, even
different laws of physics.

But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees
this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem.
He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why
the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion
rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little
bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of
universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological
constant like ours.

The idea is controversial, because it changes how physics is done, and
it means that the basic features of our universe are just a random luck
of the draw. He explains to Amanda Gefter why he thinks it's a
possibility we cannot ignore.

Why are physicists taking the idea of multiple universes seriously now?

First, there was the discovery in the past few years that inflation
seems right. This theory that the universe expanded spectacularly in
the first fraction of a second fits a lot of data. Inflation tells us
that the universe is probably extremely big and necessarily diverse. On
sufficiently big scales, and if inflation lasts long enough, this
diversity will produce every possible universe. The same process that
forged our universe in a big bang will happen over and over. The
mathematics are rickety, but that's what inflation implies: a huge
universe with patches that are very different from one another. The
bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe that
our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.

Second was the discovery that the value of the cosmological constant -
the energy of empty space which contributes to the expansion rate of
the universe - seems absurdly improbable, and nothing in fundamental
physics is able to explain why. I remember when Steven Weinberg first
suggested that the cosmological constant might be anthropically
determined - that it has to be this way otherwise we would not be here
to observe it. I was very impressed with the argument, but troubled by
it. Like everybody else, I thought the cosmological constant was
probably zero - meaning that all the quantum fluctuations that make up
the vacuum energy cancel out, and gravity alone affects the expansion
of the universe. It would be much easier to explain if they cancelled
out to zero, rather than to nearly zero. The discovery that there is a
non-zero cosmological constant changed everything. Still, those two
things were not enough to tip the balance for me.

What finally convinced you?

The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of
different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments,
tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were
about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about
the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my
mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all
assured me it was the best bet.

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of
one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When
Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that
revealed there are more like 10^500 vacuums in string theory, that to
me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming
together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a paper
saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past
couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are worried
that it might be true.

Steven Weinberg recently said that this is one of the great sea changes
in fundamental science since Einstein, that it changes the nature of
science itself. Is it such a radical change?

In a way it is very radical but in another way it isn't. The great
ambition of physicists like myself was to explain why the laws of
nature are just what they are. Why is the proton just about 1800 times
heavier than the electron? Why do neutrinos exist? The great hope was
that some deep mathematical principle would determine all the constants
of nature, like Newton's constant. But it seems increasingly likely
that the constants of nature are more like the temperature of the Earth
- properties of our local environment that vary from place to place.
Like the temperature, many of the constants have to be just so if
intelligent life is to exist. So we live where life is possible.

For some physicists this idea is an incredible disappointment.
Personally, I don't see it that way. I find it exciting to think that
the universe may be much bigger, richer and full of variety than we
ever expected. And it doesn't seem so incredibly philosophically
radical to think that some things may be environmental.

In order to accept the idea that we live in a hospitable patch of a
multiverse, must a physicist trade in that dream of a final theory?

Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the radii
of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant mathematical
equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply have
to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the theory
and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local conditions.

So even if you accept the multiverse and the idea that certain local
physical laws are anthropically determined, you still need a unique
mega-theory to describe the whole multiverse? Surely it just pushs the
question back?

Yes, absolutely. The bottom line is that we need to describe the whole
thing, the whole universe or multiverse. It's a scientific question: is
the universe on the largest scales big and diverse or is it
homogeneous? We can hope to get an answer from string theory and we can
hope to get some information from cosmology.

There is a philosophical objection called Popperism that people raise
against the landscape idea. Popperism [after the philosopher Karl
Popper] is the assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be
falsifiable, otherwise it's just metaphysics. Other worlds, alternative
universes, things we can't see because they are beyond horizons, are in
principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical - that's the
objection. But the belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon
is homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to the
Popperazzi.

Could there be some kind of selection principle that will emerge and
pick out one unique string theory and one unique universe?

Anything is possible. My friend David Gross hopes that no selection
principle will be necessary because only one universe will prove to
make sense mathematically, or something like that. But so far there is
no evidence for this view. Even most of the hard-core adherents to the
uniqueness view admit that it looks bad.

Is it premature to invoke anthropic arguments - which assume that the
conditions for life are extremely improbable - when we don't know how
to define life?

The logic of the anthropic principle requires the strong assumption
that our kind of life is the only kind possible. Why should we presume
that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How
do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments?
If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the
cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose
all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist
in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a
valid objection. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that
life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black
hole.

Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation?

One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved, meaning
the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or like
the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I
previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe
likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our current
vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems
more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state with a
much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the
multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum to
another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively
curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest scales
of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in
principle, is testable.

If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent
design?

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen
reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for
mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am
pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural
explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, 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 critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically
unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

From issue 2530 of New Scientist magazine, 17 December 2005, page 48

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html

tau = (t-vx/c�)/sqrt(1-v�/c�)
tau = (t-vy/c�)/sqrt(1-u�/c�)
tau = (t-vz/c�)/sqrt(1-w�/c�)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v�/c�)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u�/c�)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w�/c�)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
Androcles.
.

User: "Autymn D. C."
Title: Re: The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics	25 Dec 2005 02:32:37 AM

Stop quoting whole articles, loser'n cad.
Susskind doesn't know that the universe's expansion /is/ gravity.
-Aut
.

User: "Autymn D. C."
Title: Re: The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics	26 Dec 2005 02:26:45 AM

Autymn D. C. wrote:

Susskind doesn't know that the universe's expansion /is/ gravity.

Oh, and life on neutron stars has already been theorizen.
.

User: "draq"
Title: Re: The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics	23 Dec 2005 12:18:11 PM

I may interpose, that the author has a wrong idea of 'Popperism'. The
assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable, is fully
right. And the fact, that there is the possibility to test the
landscape idea as written below and consequently to be falsified
respectively, means that the theory is scientific. In addition, the
belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon is homogeneous is as
metaphysical as other beliefs, unless they are supported by a falsible
theory.
draq
Perspicacious wrote:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/no-new-einstein.pdf

Only now are physicists beginning to realize that their religion is
metaphysics.

* 17 December 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Amanda Gefter

[...] There is a philosophical objection called Popperism that people raise
against the landscape idea. Popperism [after the philosopher Karl
Popper] is the assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be
falsifiable, otherwise it's just metaphysics. Other worlds, alternative
universes, things we can't see because they are beyond horizons, are in
principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical - that's the
objection. But the belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon
is homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to the
Popperazzi.

[...]

Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation?

One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved, meaning
the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or like
the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I
previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe
likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our current
vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems
more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state with a
much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the
multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum to
another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively
curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest scales
of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in
principle, is testable.
[...]

From issue 2530 of New Scientist magazine, 17 December 2005, page 48

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html

User: ""
Title: Re: The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics	25 Dec 2005 05:31:21 AM

Perspicacious wrote:

Multiple universes are not anything new,
Physicists are taking them seriously now, since
it fits in so well with their platonic ideaolgy that
physical evidence has nothing to do with science.
.

User: "the land surfer"
Title: Re: The Mass Conversion of Physicists to the Religion of Metaphysics	28 Dec 2005 08:49:25 AM

Subject: witchdoctors diary catch up
Newsgroups: bigpond news:alt.tv.charmed,alt.fan.harry-
potter,alt.traditional.witchcraft,alt.witchcraft,alt.sci,01alt.folklo
re.urban
Followup-To: alt.tv.charmed
witchdoctors diary catch up
+++
engage music
apply drugs
be with ya in a tick
+++
massive attack
'safe from harm'
+++
in that nice zone after orgasm
th testicle pain
goin down
+++
sorry
it's overshare
i know
+++
was a nice one but
+++
"shutup jenny"
+++
i only get to talk till th drugs run out Black
you shut th ***** up
+++
"you still dont wanna talk while we're straight ?"
and let ppl talk to my testicles
and vice versa
i dont think so
+++
i saw melissa
while i was singin in th fortitude valley street
did i mention that online ?
"cant remember"
"cant be fucked to look it up"
never mind
last time i bopped thru th
fortitude valley
i didnt sing a note
just unicycle slides
+++
havent sung there since
may never again
+++
afroman
'she wont let me *****'
+++
she was seventeen when we were together paulie
give er a break
we werent entirley honest with er then
"or now"
cmon man
bein honest with a chick is a waste of time
"weird condition"
yeah but i wrote it all down
+++
deborah coleman
'dont lie to me'
+++
havin a break at dom's party
on th verandah
havin a fag
doin th
reality of rock n roll
is ya end th night with a glorious wank after a final joint and a
good laugh
did ya clock her face paulie ?
"yeah was funny"
didnt paul hester say it first ?
"that his name ?"
wot popped out of memory
"not real reliable then"
i dunno
it sees forward far enough for my tastes
"memory isnt based on time"
+++
had chicks hangin off me
in th street
tellin me
i ***** six women
ya cant beat that
+++
was fuckin any of em
+++
i fell off th horse recently
paid a visit to versace lady
her orgasms
and mine with her
still amazing but
somethin missin
+++
inxs
'i need you tonight'(extended)
+++
not really
i can lick my boy clitty
still get off
+++
"wot set you off ?"
hang on
..
..
..
i'm determined to stay unfuckable
"wont last, never does"
+++
"just makes em wanna see yur party trick"
same rules as before
two chicks in my bed fuckin me
then i show you
+++
last one who
promised somethin to see it
didnt pay
i been a street entertainer
five years
i know how it works
+++
just my care factor is so low
not in th street
ridin a unicycle
after midnight
for th reasons you think i am
+++
headin to a street corner
to sing with a mate
+++
not enough singers in th street
to whet my appetite paulie
rather travel to wombles house
and follow his guitar
he dont hate it anymore
fuckin keyboard player
i'm a kadaitcha man
i sing background
singer of my tribe
doesnt matter if no ***** listens
when i point th bone
and sing
th fuckers still die
+++
walked in
wombles door
late
for th bbq
everyone else has left
he's got
black fella's
on th tv
watchin
les higgins
i thanked him for his courtesy
made me
BLACK
the lethal kadaitcha man of kuta
feel right at home
a lovely host
+++
powderfinger
'rockin rocks'
+++
i have many happy memories
i wrote them down
i told some tales
at a couple of different parties
"you oughta write a book"
i have
+++
laid in th doorway of a nightclub
will i ever tire ?
of saying it
+++
i see a better year
for me
in 2006
+++
i had a stab at
fixin
many problems
before this xmas
just gone
+++
budgie
'black velvet stallion'
+++
went offline for a month and
just lived
no diary at home even
well two pages
not bad for a month
sometimes i write eight in a day
i only want
one snippet
a chunk fromt h future to fall out
that i can see
***** you cunts
+++
just five percent of th future
pls
i'm gettin too much
+++
january 23 or 24
not know why
cant tell ya
and i'll be back offline
you never listen to me
anyway
too scattered
you tryin doin what i do
+++
cant help ya
once little brother gets back from his beach holiday
two weeks
i'll have a pension check in my hot little hands
and th ***** did abuse me
i have good time with my counsellour session
after new year
+++
i go into my
after xmas purge this year
much stronger
in body mind and spirit
+++
ppl keep judgin by five minutes
inspection
i;ve spent
43 years on th job
i still have trouble
understanding me
+++
oh yeah
i hit th redcliffe skatebowl
xmas eve
afternoon
rode straight in and
straight over th combing
down th wall and
saw many jaws drop
BLACK written down my side
one percenter dirty jeans
no helmet
no safety gear
jumped over th far wall
first time
easy as
first attempt at it
beauitful slide down th wall
nicely caught
got ont op of th fun box
and turned around
and back down
no fall
and not fuckin small
my attitude firmly in place
dont wanna talk to you cunts
you ride girls bikes
or is it me ?
th girls convinced
it takes more pills
to ride th back of a motorcycle
tend to agree
but i am a bit female
+++
you can beat
any fucking problem
+++
if yur talented
ya strike jealousy everywhere
if yur also an empath
it's gunna fuckin hurt ya
wot doesnt kill ya
who gives a ***** about
+++
the offspring
'walla walla'
+++
hey man
did ya
like the
maybe some day
ya meet aman like me
and i drop in my
i got a big ***** line
why shouldnt i be fuckin proud of it
***** our world's gettin strange
it's like a skinny girl
cant be proud she's not a
fat *****
anymore
+++
fuckin strange world we live in
+++
barbie girl is not anorexic
+++
"alright jennifer stop defending yur sister"
it was er mother
+++
stealers wheel
'stuck in the middle with you'
+++
i havent forgotten ya nana
+++
wal proposed to lil sis on xmas day
happy as a pig in *****
+++
look wal
i said
clayton's got a ***** in im
proves he belongs in th family
look around ya
i dont see anyone
who aint got a ***** in em
+++
this chick in th street
screamin at one of my black mates singin he's a girl
screamin he aint got a *****
in th street
i bet he does sister
i bet he does
have a ***** in im
i listen to 'is lyrics
+++
me and barbie girl's old lady
have mellowed
she tellin me
who she's put in hospital
nah babe
i just kill em
makes me wet
+++
pj harvey
'long snake moan'
+++
violent femmes
'give me the car'
+++
th violent femmes were fightin
at waynies party
on december 23
jen's bought herself a
miniture harley
for xmas
told her man
she'd look good on a real hog
specially with her girlfriend on th back
he chucked a wobblie
rather see er on soemthin
japanese i think
not altogether sure
nah man
i see harley
+++
other lady friend of hers
her dad owns a harley bike shop
+++
miss you
miss you badly
"jenny"
i stopped her drivin that day
she wasnt capable
+++
barbie girl is callin me kutaman now too
+++
i really celebrated this xmas
ruined a coupel for a few ppl
which i felt good about
bout time
+++
how ya goin car
still waitin on yer reply
goin to little brother this time
wont work
+++
tenacious d
'tribute'
+++
have some balls and fuckin read yur xmas messages carsten
+++
womble
not as stressed
or as paranoid
cousrse i told im a couple tales
of where and how
i smoked drugs
with other buskers
surfers paradise
he at th river bank
little robbie
in th street
but womble
you have got ads man
named adam
you played kings cross alone
nice tale sharing
we had
fuckhead
just liek me
tryin like *****
to get out
of every relationship i get in
even before gettin in
that chick aint asleep
ah well
+++
you one of five or so ppl
gave me a jumper
in th winter
when i wasnt wearin a shirt
marks you as special ppl
+++
and first busker that stopped me
come
sing
entertain
all th crowd was pushin me to entertain
you taught me
first
mik wouldnt come oput
wanted to be paid
it's a religion man
and *****
five years singin inth street
my singin voice hasnt suffered
not by a long way
+++
U2
'when love comes to town'
+++
little brother bought his son a karakoe machine for xmas
so he'd have a telly
over on th island
me and his son
son first
both asked
can paulei use it
when he not
so he can sing
NO
hmm
+++
***** he hates me
+++
dont blame im though
i would too
+++
jenny's family buyin a karaoke machine
so i can sing
dont worry about it
+++
jenny's car
she was drivin
broke down in barbie girls driveway
+++
98% about
it breaks down in my driveway
hmm
+++
paulei doesnt control jenny
nothing controls jenny
+++
"although pot makes ya mellow"
"and stops ya fuckin with th weather"
little brother finally copped to
fcukin with th weather
every time kenny
lands a job for em
it pisses down
when they go to do it
"does he listen to himself?"
do i ?
+++
way i figure it brother
if i'm a kadaitcha man
and lethal
and you know i am
you are one too
even if ya are a white boy
+++
massive attack
'enertia creeps'
+++
told this one
to a few hereabouts
in three or four generations
we all be
aboriginals
it's where we live
all be dark skinned
evolution
fuckheads
i dont want
john howard to say sorry
all i want him to say is
th oath of allegiance to australia
i am an aboriginal australian
anyone who cant
can ***** as long as i'm concerned
anyone who can
is a real australian
dont tel me yur
asian australian
or anglo australian or
lebansese australian
all i care about is
are you australian
and that's what you better fuckin answer
if th kadaitcha man if kuta
asks where you come from
+++
rememeber i'm lethal
+++
like i can forget
+++
incidently
thank you queen elizabeth
i like what th british have done with australia
we lead th world in enough fields
magic is just one more
+++
i dont want th british monarchy removed
a monarch can do
what no
elected official
can do
+++
we disagree on one thing jane
+++
i will ask
when i get th chance
for your country's freedom
+++
kevin bloody wilson
'sunday morning'
+++
i promised my little brother
if a meteor
was gunna land in th pacific
a dinosaur killer
i'd give him six months notice
th guy we were talkin to
was a bit spun
cause i was sayin
no-one ever listens to me but
i did warn of th london bombings
seven days before they hit
and i did say
i sick of
predictin mass death
and gave a return date
six months in th future
one day before
aceh tsunami
dont mind me
just think i'm mad
or quaint or
even take me seriously
just dont tell anybody ok
just be a fuckin troll
its only been four years
predicting th future
***** human beings are dumb
+++
bainsey is one of us
got a change in his mouth
genetic
now we just have to find him another freak
to breed with
"dont meddle"
i'm th witchsmeller pursuisant
th bitches cant hide from me
+++
senior
would never lay
with anything that wasnt a witch
you know that lara
+++
look at is kids
all lost in it
+++
and you're carryin one of em
+++
easy star all stars
'track 4'
+++
isaac
clocked a
green
house or somethin
then a pretty girl with black hair
next suburb
he clocked a
gree
house or somethin
and another pretty girl with black hair
popped up
funny coincidence
didnt wanna see anything in it
if i'd gone out with hayley
pretty goth girl
and been as much in love with her
as you were
you just having returned
from around oz trek
by motorcycle and car and
fuckin everythin else
yeah man
i dont see much in it either
you'll see it
love ya
and her
want both of you
together
"and me"
you stay out of this
+++
city high
'what would you do'
+++
i think we're an incestuous family
th girls keep grabbin each others tits
it's rubbed off
all th boys are doin it too
everyone still
tryin to figure out jenny/paulie
jenny's sixteen
BLACK is about 25
th numbers dont add up
"melissa"
+++
hey mlm mlm girl
rock spider said he knew you
+++
wot's my bother ?
it aint th motorcycle club
we both faced em
they let us in
gave us both respect
and i'm sorry i talked about it
BLACK's gotta ***** of a sense of humour
bailed and left me
facin knives and guns and
her old bike club
+++
george
'run'
+++
no way
went upstairs after th old man topped th old lady
to top im
i face this
they were nice to us
+++
when did i go girlie ?
with melissa
+++
brown belt with a black tip
violent
+++
doesnt look violent
far from it
looks delicate
+++
whoooo
just let down
..
..
..
will you tell your professor father i wrote th book
that he bugged th ***** out of me about
+++
had yur arm around a girl
afte rme
yur arm around a
really effeminite guy
ina leather jacket
didnt like my
lesbian
femal bouncer at a country club
me and bobbie used to commentate
when she beat ***** out of th guys
girlfriend
i married er
melissa stopped calling
+++
ammonia
'drugs'
+++
last cone
was a brief
visit
back online
i'll not subject you
to my testicles talking
online
without a decent buffer
there's lots more happened in th last month and yeah
if i explored last month
which i haven written much about
i;d show you
much of
next month
which hasnt happened yet
for every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction
including
in th psychic world
dont care what you think
care that it works
i proved it for me
i can wait a hundred years
i'll still b here
+++
wendy mathews
'the day you went away'
+++
too psychic
to trained psychic
to take unawares
pay a heavy porice but
my death
i'll see
in graphic detail
before it happens
and have to live with it
at least six months
what i get for training it
worth it but
impresses th ***** out of my girlfriends
i pull in th drive
why sad beautiful lady ?
wanna wash yur car
looking good matters
cant find th carsponge
i'll just grab th one i bought
on th way here
instead of buyin ya chocolate
if i cook some nice asian food
will you eat it ?
it's good enough to love and live with
it doesnt need
anybody elses
belief
and that's
how you become magic
diarize
be anal about it
and
no secrets
+++
anything is possible
"and th truth shall set you free"
+++
infinitely large universe
i buld with a infintely small particle
world constructed in opposites
reality made from
nothing
reality made out of *****
cant talk about it
straight
doesnt make sense then
go figure
einstein was kinda right
+++
most money spent on
*****
wizard called harry potter
i'm a real potter
make pottery ocarinas
with real magic
penyless
cause it's
real
+++
I AM THE REAL THING
AN OPERANT PSYCHIC HUMAN
AND I AM DANGEROUS
+++
beware
ultrasensitive at large
+++
i jacked down th sensitivity
still lethal but
i dont strike
pre emptively anymore
+++
rickie lee jones
'on saturday afternoons in 1963'
+++
hi mum
+++
genie
uncle genie
tellin stories
about how psychic yur mum was
yeah ok
but mum
was yur blood money curse
dropped th twin trade towers seven days later
and all in server logs
public
i'd rather they didnt fight mum
i want th infinite resources
endless leand
above my head
if they dont kill me
i'll get em
+++
kelis
'milk shake'
+++
course
ya meet me in th flesh
you see
BLACK
nasty
a *****
massive veins
muscles and
no fear
but you talk
to jennifer
most ppl
includin kuta lady
who gave me this song
dont remember th conversation
doesnt add up
in th mind
girls in th street
scream at me to put a top on
i had a jesus beard till yesterday
they thinkin i'm a girl
dancin on my unicycle
so funny
it's all about balance
+++
becoming a zen master is easy
living with it can be fucked
+++
i unicycle in th surf
soon
and just catch some fuckin waves
without a fuckin camera chasin me
"yeah right"
+++
do re mi
'man overboard'(remix)
+++
i speak with you again online diary
when kuta provides
with love and *****
..
..
..
kutaman
lethal kadaitcha man of kuta
erspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1135316856.333272.50850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

been

different, physicists have been searching for a "theory of
everything" to explain why the universe is the way it is. Now

string

theory, one of today's leading candidates, is in trouble. A growing
number of physicists claim it is ill-defined and based on crude
assumptions. Something fundamental is missing, they say. The main
complaint is that rather than describing one universe, the theory
describes 10^500, each with different constants of nature, even
different laws of physics.

But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees
this "landscape" of universes as a solution rather than a problem.
He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics:

why

the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the

expansion

rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A

little

bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number

universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a

cosmological

constant like ours.

The idea is controversial, because it changes how physics is done,

and

it means that the basic features of our universe are just a random

luck

of the draw. He explains to Amanda Gefter why he thinks it's a
possibility we cannot ignore.

Why are physicists taking the idea of multiple universes seriously

now?

First, there was the discovery in the past few years that inflation
seems right. This theory that the universe expanded spectacularly

the first fraction of a second fits a lot of data. Inflation tells

that the universe is probably extremely big and necessarily

diverse. On

sufficiently big scales, and if inflation lasts long enough, this
diversity will produce every possible universe. The same process

that

forged our universe in a big bang will happen over and over. The
mathematics are rickety, but that's what inflation implies: a huge
universe with patches that are very different from one another. The
bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe

that

our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.

Second was the discovery that the value of the cosmological

constant -

the energy of empty space which contributes to the expansion rate

the universe - seems absurdly improbable, and nothing in

fundamental

physics is able to explain why. I remember when Steven Weinberg

first

suggested that the cosmological constant might be anthropically
determined - that it has to be this way otherwise we would not be

here

to observe it. I was very impressed with the argument, but troubled

it. Like everybody else, I thought the cosmological constant was
probably zero - meaning that all the quantum fluctuations that make

the vacuum energy cancel out, and gravity alone affects the

expansion

of the universe. It would be much easier to explain if they

cancelled

out to zero, rather than to nearly zero. The discovery that there

is a

non-zero cosmological constant changed everything. Still, those two
things were not enough to tip the balance for me.

What finally convinced you?

The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of

solutions, of

different vacuums, which describe very different physical

environments,

tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there

were

about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and

about

the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my
mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all
assured me it was the best bet.

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the

chances of

one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small.

When

Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that
revealed there are more like 10^500 vacuums in string theory, that

me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming
together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a

paper

saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past
couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are

worried

that it might be true.

Steven Weinberg recently said that this is one of the great sea

changes

in fundamental science since Einstein, that it changes the nature

science itself. Is it such a radical change?

In a way it is very radical but in another way it isn't. The great
ambition of physicists like myself was to explain why the laws of
nature are just what they are. Why is the proton just about 1800

times

heavier than the electron? Why do neutrinos exist? The great hope

was

that some deep mathematical principle would determine all the

constants

of nature, like Newton's constant. But it seems increasingly likely
that the constants of nature are more like the temperature of the

Earth

- properties of our local environment that vary from place to

place.

Like the temperature, many of the constants have to be just so if
intelligent life is to exist. So we live where life is possible.

For some physicists this idea is an incredible disappointment.
Personally, I don't see it that way. I find it exciting to think

that

the universe may be much bigger, richer and full of variety than we
ever expected. And it doesn't seem so incredibly philosophically
radical to think that some things may be environmental.

In order to accept the idea that we live in a hospitable patch of a
multiverse, must a physicist trade in that dream of a final theory?

Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the

radii

of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant

mathematical

equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply

have

to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the

theory

and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local

conditions.

So even if you accept the multiverse and the idea that certain

local

physical laws are anthropically determined, you still need a unique
mega-theory to describe the whole multiverse? Surely it just pushs

the

question back?

Yes, absolutely. The bottom line is that we need to describe the

whole

thing, the whole universe or multiverse. It's a scientific

question: is

the universe on the largest scales big and diverse or is it
homogeneous? We can hope to get an answer from string theory and we

can

hope to get some information from cosmology.

There is a philosophical objection called Popperism that people

raise

against the landscape idea. Popperism [after the philosopher Karl
Popper] is the assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be
falsifiable, otherwise it's just metaphysics. Other worlds,

alternative

universes, things we can't see because they are beyond horizons,

are in

principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical - that's the
objection. But the belief that the universe beyond our causal

horizon

is homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to

the

Popperazzi.

Could there be some kind of selection principle that will emerge

and

pick out one unique string theory and one unique universe?

Anything is possible. My friend David Gross hopes that no selection
principle will be necessary because only one universe will prove to
make sense mathematically, or something like that. But so far there

no evidence for this view. Even most of the hard-core adherents to

the

uniqueness view admit that it looks bad.

Is it premature to invoke anthropic arguments - which assume that

the

conditions for life are extremely improbable - when we don't know

how

to define life?

The logic of the anthropic principle requires the strong assumption
that our kind of life is the only kind possible. Why should we

presume

that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth?

How

do we know that life cannot exist in radically different

environments?

If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the
cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would

lose

all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't

exist

in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It

valid objection. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe

that

life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a

black

hole.

Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation?

One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved,

meaning

the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or

the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I
previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe
likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our

current

vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems
more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state

with a

much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the
multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum

another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively
curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest

scales

of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in
principle, is testable.

If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with

intelligent

design?

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some

unforeseen

reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for
mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I

pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural
explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens,

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 critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically
unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

From issue 2530 of New Scientist magazine, 17 December 2005, page

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.htm

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
downloads about philosophy, religion, natural sciences, mathematics and justice
Re: Religion & Science Are Perfectly Synonymous
Koos' FAQ about the psychosis of alt.religion.scientology - summarizing eight years of experience with it - (Version 3.0) - with some Footnotes by Koos on Small and Fine Particle Physics
Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
Re: PHYSICS: A SEX POSITIVE RELIGION
On Religion, confessions of a deist

Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
When aliens contact us, the religion measuring rod is 7 Nov and 14 Dec
Re: atheism as religion
"Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
The New Atheist Religion of Transhumanism
"Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
Islam: The Most Rapidly Expanding Religion in Europe

NEWER

pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER