Cosmologic philosophy (Introduction)

by GateKeeper , Wednesday, July 02, 2014, 13:12 (3797 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Wednesday, July 02, 2014, 13:23

David: A well thought out commentary on fine-tuning, multiverses,and cosmologic natural selection, which takes an atheistic side, but raises philosophic issues that suggest atheism is not the answer:
> > 
> > >> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/06/10/the-logic-and-beauty-of-cosmo... > 
> > Romansh:Interesting, but I don't quite see a philosophical atheism problem here.
> 
> It is his balanced objection paragraphs, which he then, by his choice, pushes aside:
> 
> "The real criticism of cosmological natural selection as a scientific hypothesis is its lack of direct evidence at this point. There is no direct evidence that the universe reproduces. Without that, no natural selection, even before issues of variation and selection come into play. True enough. But keep in mind that from a direct evidence perspective, cosmological natural selection is no worse off at this point than proposed scientific alternatives. There is no direct evidence that universes are created by quantum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, that we live in a multiverse, that there is a theory of everything, or that string theory, cyclic universes or- brane cosmology even exist.
> 
> "And the major proposed alternatives in cosmology do not directly or logically explain the "fine tuning" problem for the existence of complexity and life. Instead, they suggest things like some sort of inevitability, design, unimaginably incalculable luck or an infinite number of multiple universes where every possible universe exists. That last one is enough to make Occam cut his throat with his razor.
> 
> I'm with Occam. Bests evidence This flat- space universe ends with the big cold rip.-wow, this is what I said and you ask me for evidence. I said "...it aint much ...". But I was implying that we can look around us and see many things evolving. From forces to cosmic webs so it is not a blind leap of faith to extend it to cosmic scales.-exactly how many pieces do we have for inflation? for a flat universe? For the distances we are using in space to be correct? You know the standard model assumes the graviton? What evidence is there for that? for strings?-exactly how many pieces do you have for your god type? So I ask, is cosmic scale evolution any more of a stretch? And you know he uses The word "philosophy" to ease the transition to us thinking it is possible.-BTW, The guy that teaches this puts me to sleep in seconds. But at least if he says it, others will listen.