Comment Archives: stories: Life + Outdoors: Field Notes: Last 30 Days

Re: “Theory of Anything

Actually, the quote was from an interview of Lenny by Amanda Geftner of New Scientist about his book and I was in Peter Woit's forum the day that she showed up there to ask for input for her upcoming interview with Lenny. In fact it was *I* who prompted the question and response from him...

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said... other than the "undeniable (fact) that the universe appears to be designed".

String theory has virtually nothing to do with the point beyond the fact that it is necessary for the selection principle to be valid.

Posted by Rick Ryals on 05/31/2015 at 10:27 PM

Re: “Theory of Anything

Thanks for your comments, Rick.
I suspect you didn't actually read Susskind's book from which you quoted (The Cosmic Landscape) because it's the weirdest defense of string theory ever written. (Check out http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpre… for instance.) String theory is dead (as is an anthropic string theory landscape): no evidence, no predictions, no falsifiability.
(BTW, Leonard Susskind is a delightful man, who talks MUCH better than he writes!) (and who was ONE of the fathers of string theory)

Posted by barryevans on 05/31/2015 at 5:31 PM

Re: “Theory of Anything

barryevans says:
"A fine-tuned universe without apparent cause is an accidental universe: "We're here because we're here because we're here," as the song goes."

But there *is* an "apparent" although willfully ignored cause, as famous theoretical physicist, ("the father of string theory") Leonard Suskind says... "The appearance of design is undeniable".

Actually, a scientist would interpret this as... 'The appearance for a logically meaningful law of nature that requires life... is undeniable...'

And I say that it is willfully ignored because the direct observation implicates a true cosmological principle that defines the structuring of the universe from first physics principles rather than chance and selection effects so this implication takes theoretical precedence over all others because...

1) Your asserted 'incidental universe' is not what is indicated by the observation so the assumption requires that you produce a cosmological principle that explains the structure of the universe from first principles that also explain why the observed "bio-orientation" is just a consequence of the physics rather than the reason for it.

2) The unobservable multiverse assumption requires a complete and tested theory of quantum gravity to justify the assumption.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD... then the "anthropic principle" is "most apparently"... a bio-oriented cosmological principle.

But scientists are far to dogmatic to actually recognize and research their strongest lead...

and they wonder why they have no ToE... *eyeroll*

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rick Ryals on 05/31/2015 at 9:57 AM

© 2015 The North Coast Journal Weekly

Website powered by Foundation

humboldt