This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Dawkins & Krauss Discussion from ASU 4 Feb

Steve Zara's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Steve Zara

Comment 20 by Schrodinger's Cat

But that's precisely why I reject the multiverse. In fact, it is also why most scientists reject Lee Smolin's 'Fecund universe' theory........the notion that somehow ( in some approximation to biological evolution ) universes 'propagate' via black holes. If Smolin's theory were true it has it's own Fermi Paradox......as one would expect more black holes to exist than actually do.

No. The reason why most scientists reject Smolin's theory is because in most models of black holes, the holes don't give rise to daughter universes. They reject Smolin's theory on grounds of physics.

My whole point is that one can turn the possibilities that one would expect from a multiverse back on their head....just as with Fermi.....and argue that their non-existence proves the multiverse does not exist.

It doesn't, any more than Fermi's Paradox shows that a large universe doesn't exist. You can't say that because we haven't seen aliens, therefore the universe can't be as large as we think it is. And in the same way, you can't say that because we haven't seen Godlike aliens, then the multiverse doesn't exist. All you get from a lack of observations of aliens is some likelihood that the aliens don't exist, nothing else.

A lack observation of Godlike multiverse aliens means that there isn't even the "aliens did it" excuse for reports of miracles. It says nothing at all about the multiverse.

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:24:16 UTC | #917084