YOUR argumentation includes:
*"...is the only theory we know of ..."*
*-* well, this is *THE * insufficient argument.
With a moderate agnosticism (my kind?) we accept our ignorance of the total
with very little exception. A 'we know' is a tiny fraction and even that
in a way adjusted to the present capabilities of our mental functioning.
The 'Entirety' allows counter-arguments and counter-evidences, - maybe -
invalidating our present views.
Regards
John Mikes
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:58:11 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> \
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>> Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea depended on
>>> the notion of black holes spawning new universes, with each BH tweaking the
>>> laws of physics slightly in the new universe. But black hole theory has
>>> progressed a lot since then and I don't think anything in the modern
>>> theories allows for them to spawn new universes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Dawkins
>> said
>> "*The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only
>> theory we know of that is, in principle, capable of explaining the
>> existence of organized complexity*."
>> That's certainly true for biology, for it to be true for physics too
>> you need reproduction and mutation. Some say the singularity at the center
>> of a Black Hole is infinitely small and spacetime is infinitely curved and
>> space and time comes to an end at that point.
>> But
>>
>> Smolin
>>
>> says the singularity is very small but not infinitely small and spacetime
>> is highly curved but not infinitely curved there and space and time will
>> not end but bounce off the singularity producing a new universe. And
>> because of quantum uncertainty a dozen or so physical constants in the
>> offspring universe will be slightly different from its parent.
>>
>> As for recent developments ruling it out....for Smolin's theory
>>
>> to work at least some
>>
>> information
>>
>> would be needed to be
>>
>> transferred
>>
>> from the parent universe to the baby universe through a black hole
>> , and that may not be possible but there is no scientific consensus on
>> that yet.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>> I enjoyed Smolin's book when I read it years ago, but conceptually as an
> explanation for complexity I'm not so sure. I like the evolutionary
> cosmology, because I agree with Smolin that purely anthropic explanations
> for fine-tuning are unsatisfying, but Smolin's idea itself rests on a
> remarkable "coincidence": the fact that tuning for black holes also happens
> to be good for the evolution of life. It would be a great theory if the
> problem were explaining the surprising number of black holes, but it isn't.
> It's explaining fine-tuning for life. With Smolin's theory we're still left
> wondering why the universe isn't just a giant swiss cheese of black holes
> getting better and better at reproducing themselves with no trace of life
> anywhere. For his theory really to work, the life itself would need to
> contribute to the generation of black holes, otherwise the development of
> life looks like a "third wheel".
>
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
