Natural Teleology: More Thomas Nagel (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Monday, February 04, 2013, 21:39 (4308 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: Lee Smolin has a new book coming out, expanding on his "Life of the Cosmos". This is a sort of preview:
> 
> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer&... 
> I sort of find this type of theory attractive, though I would prefer one that showed the existing laws of nature were the result of mathematical necessity,-Thanks again for a wonderful website re' Smolin. His work on quantum gravity is confusing him I think:-"The idea of cosmological variation, however, is one of pure conjecture. "It's an hypothesis," Smolin concedes.
 
But that said, Smolin points to string theory as a potential mechanism. "There could be a connection there," he told us, "it describes a landscape of different cosmological parameters — different phase transitions between them — and this is almost exactly the kind of example I had in mind when trying to explain the variation of the constants."
 
Smolin is also unsure how many baby universes each black hole is able to produce — though he suspects that it's one per black hole. "The answer," he says, "will ultimately depend on quantum gravity theory."
 
Life as epiphenomenon?
 
We asked Smolin if life in the universe is therefore an accident — that humans and all other organisms are mere epiphenomenon, a sideshow to a much larger process.
 
"If the hypothesis of Cosmological Natural Selection is true, then life — and the universe being biofriendly — is a consequence of the universe being finely-tuned to produce black holes by producing many, many massive stars."
 
But he added: "Those if statements are important."-Other prominent cosmologists pick him apart as presented on the site.-
 
> George: I've never understood this creationist claim that 'information' cannot increase except by intervention of a creative mind. It seems to me this is exactly what evolution does; build up more complex structures which must therefore contsin more information - or certainly require more information to describe how they work.-To me the initial complexity of the first living cells raises the issue you question. I think chance formation of living matter from an inorganic Earth defies all odds. That is where we differ. Life ony took 400 million years to appear. Not enough time for chance alone to work is my view.