Just incredible! In the first sentence you claim
how accurate our science is, then in the second
you list the minor little gaps that exist
here-and-there.
Those minor things like why those cosmological constants
have the values they do? The nature of our soul
and creation itself?
That's like saying I know everything about that
building over there except..how and...why it exists.
But I do know /exactly/ how many cinder blocks it's
made of!
Well I want to know why and how, not how many.
> However the enterprise we call "science" is what gave
> Steinhardt the ability to write that work and to propose his own model
> of a cyclic universe.
>
> I should also notice that Steinhardt uses some notions you (jonathan)
> so admire about complexity theory.
Absolutely, it's an attractor solution, right down my ally
so to speak.
"At the onset of matter
> domination, the k-essence field switches to a new attractor
> solution that acts like a cosmological constant" . Even further: "the
> nature of an attractor equation is that the evolution of the scalar
> field is completely insensitive to the initial value of the ¯field and
> its time derivatives." However Steinhardt's paper itself is an example
> of the science you so detest,
NOT IT ISN'T! My hobby is a dynamical approach. An output
or attractor based approach.
From Steinhardt's paper on Dark Energy, notice the word
'desperation' and the solution proposed is a dynamical
or attractor solution. Which is what I use for my
stock trading system. An output based/attractor approach.
3. Fine-tuning, cosmic coincidence, and the quintessential
solution
"The fine-tuning and cosmic coincidence problems are vexing.
They are often posed as a paradox: why should the
acceleration begin just as humans evolve? In desperation,
some cosmologists and physicists have given renewed attention
to anthropic models (Weinberg 2000). But many continue
to seek a dynamical explanation which does not require
the fine-tuning of initial conditions or mass parameters
and which is decidedly non-anthropic. A dynamical approach
would seem to demand some sort of quintessence solution,..."
http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf
"...does not require the fine-tuning of initial conditions"
Initial conditions are irrelevant from a dynamical approach.
A point you can't seem to accept, just as a flat-Earther
would cringe to learn the new geometry and upset all
his egg carts he's so carefully built, and all at once.
You still cling to a linear/input mindset or world view
where precise observations of the...past are exalted.
A dynamical approach looks at how the output is changing
and could /care less/ about the initial conditions, as
the whole idea is that self organized systems behave
/chaotically at the part level/ but stable on the
output side.
What he's really saying is the solution to they
mystery of why the cosmological constants just
happen to be so finely-tuned, either at the start
or now is because like everything else, they EVOLVE!
So like any healthy ecosystem the relationships
will be 'just right' or finely-tuned at ALL TIMES!
And you should take note that he's stating dark energy
/emerged/to became the dominant form of energy, creating
a second universal inflation at almost the same time
as (human) life evolved on Earth.
Quite a 'coincidence' wouldn't you say?
s