Smolin believes in a multiverse else his fecund cosmology makes no sense.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > *The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of * > * the Platonist, Leibniz * > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin > > A. Leibniz would agree with these views of Smolin: > > A1. QM is unfinished. > A2. Time is not well understood. Leibniz did > not think of time as substantial or time as flowing, > it is just an indexed sequence of events. > A3. There is no multiverse, only the universe. > > > B. Leibniz would disagree with Smolin on these issues: > > B1. Smolin believes that computationalism is false (because there cannot > be internal isomorphisms. Here the issue of Leibniz's > pre-established harmony might be challenged. Hmmm). > > B2. Smolin is not a Platonist. (Leibniz was.) > > > > > "Lee Smolin's view on the nature of time: > > > "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general > relativity are both > *deeply wrong about the nature of time.* > It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper > problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."[11] > > Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a "final theory": > > > "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe > this because > > I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of > quantum mechanics > > that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard > about them, > and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it > stands."[12] > > > In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views > (the sentences in italics are quotations): > > > *There is only one universe [I agree. RBC.** ]*There are no others, nor > is there anything isomorphic to it. > > Smolin denies the existence of a "timeless" multiverse. Neither other > universes > nor copies of our universe — within or outside — > exist.[clarification needed] No copies can > exist within the universe, because no subsystem can > > model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside > the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. * > This principle also * > *rules out the notion ** > of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the * > *history of the entire universe [computationalism - L would disagree. * > *due to his concept of Pre-established Harmony. RBC], a notion more > metaphysical than scientific. > * > > > All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. > Anything that > > is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything > that is real is > situated in time. *Nothing exists timelessly [I disagree. This rules out > Platonism, which Leibniz and I believe in. * > *L also b elieved that time as not real, only an indexed set of > situations. RBC]. * > * > > * *[The following paragraph is in accord with Leibniz, except that L > held that only ideas are real - RBC]* > > Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the > next or > > future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this > process causing or implying > > future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an > aspect of causal relations. > > A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, > without causing or implying > > some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next > moment. Things that > > persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. > > An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom > at the next moment. > > Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed > regularities, when time and particularity > > are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical > platonism > *[ Leibniz and I are Platonists- RBC] , * > and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of > Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". > > > > He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims "cannot help us to > do science."[13] [See > below] > > He also advocates “principles for an open future” > which he claims underlie the work of both healthy scientific communities and > > democratic societies: “(1) When rational argument from public evidence > suffices > > to decide a question, it must be considered to be so decided. (2) When > rational argument from public > > evidence does not suffice to decide a question, the community must encourage > a diverse range of > viewpoints and hypotheses consistent with a good-faith attempt to develop > convincing public evidence.” > (Time Reborn p 265.) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Anthropic Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle > > " The *anthropic principle* (from the Greek, *anthropos*, human) is the > philosophical > consideration <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> > that observations of the physical > Universe<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe>must be compatible with the > conscious <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious> > life<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life>that observes it. > Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the > Universe has the age <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_universe> and > the > fundamental physical > constants<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant>necessary > to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is > unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall > within the narrow range thought to be compatible with > life<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe> > .[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#cite_note-1>" > > *[I hvae no problem personally with the AP, not sure as of the moment > about L's view. RBC]* > > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/18/2013 > See my Leibniz site at > **http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking > www.dreammail.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
