Re: [asa] The Multiverse - Physics or Metaphysics?

From: George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com <Murphygmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Tue Sep 11 2007 - 12:23:48 EDT

Biologists rightly resist reductionist attempts to turn their science into "just" applied physics.  In turn, physicists (& everyone else interested in these matters) should resist Smolin's attempt to turn physics into biology, which is what his idea of "natural selection of universes" amounts to.  Those who regard natural selection as a kind of universal solvent for traditional beliefs, & especially religion - e.g., Dawkins (who speaks approvingly of Smolin's idea in The God Delusion - "a tantalizingly Darwinian variant on the multiverse idea", p.146) will of course like this but there is no basis at all for it in physics.

Shalom,

George

> > > The worst part of the string landscape multiverse is that it means the death of physics in that it holds that the search for a fundamental theory is a fool's errand. Susskind even likens such a search to a religious endeavor, which is not intended as a compliment. > >   > Smolin can not take the high road, however. In spite of claims to the contrary, his explanation of the anthropic coincidences vis his theory of cosmic evolution: >   > 1. Black holes beget new universes > 2. The child universes will have similar (but not quite the same) physics > 3. Therefore universes good at producing black holes will evolve via natural selection > 4.  coincidentally they, since they have stars and galaxies,  are the same types of universes that can support life >   >  is not testable, beyond his challenge to imagine a universe that is much better at creating black holes. Plus he never satisfactorily justifies why the child universes should have "close to but not exactly the same" physics. > >   > David Heddle > Associate Professor of Physics > Christopher Newport University & > The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility  > On 9/11/07, David Heddle wrote: > > The worst part of the string landscape multiverse is that it means the death of physics in that it holds that the search for a fundamental theory is a fool's errand. Susskind even likens such a search to a religious endeavor, which is not intended as a compliment. > >   > Smolin can not take the high road, however. In spite of claims to the contrary, his explanation of the anthropic coincidences vis his theory of cosmic evolution: >   > 1. Black holes beget new universes > 2. The child universes will have similar (but not quite the same) physics > 3. Therefore universes good at producing black holes will evolve via natural selection > 4.  coincidentally they, since they have stars and galaxies,  are the same types of universes that can support life >   >  is not testable, beyond his challenge to imagine a universe that is much better at creating black holes. Plus he never satisfactorily justifies why the child universes should have "close to but not exactly the same" physics. > >   > David Heddle > Associate Professor of Physics > Christopher Newport University & > The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility  > > On 9/11/07, Iain Strachan > wrote: > A small correction to my last post.The author of the Physics World review of Smolin's book is Michael Riordan, not Houghton Mifflin (which is the publisher!).  Sorry, my brain went into a parallel universe momentarily... > Iain----------- >

George L. Murphy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Tue Sep 11 12:24:26 2007