From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 12:11:44 MDT
Paul Davies wrote in the NYT
"Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator."
I don’t agree with Davies. No theory can say why there is something rather than nothing but if the multiverse theory is correct it would explain a great many things; however even if the God theory is true it would explain nothing, it would just kick the problem upstairs. Lee Smolin wrote a book about this called “The Life Of the Cosmos”. Smolin figures that when a huge star collapses into a black hole a singularity is not formed but instead it bounced back. You would not see this from the outside but from the inside it would look like a big bang and a new universe would be formed. The laws of nature might be slightly different in this new universe and physical constants like the mass of the proton and strength of electromagnetism might be a little different too. Universes that have laws encouraging the formation of black holes will have more decedents than those that don’t and that sounds very much like Darwin’s idea of random mutation and natural selection. Black holes form mostly from stars and stars are needed for life. I don’t know if Smolin is correct or not and I don’t know if it can ever be tested experimentally, if not then it is a philosophical theory not a scientific one, but it does have one big advantage over the God theory, it actually explains something and doesn’t just pass the buck.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 12:22:02 MDT