Philosophy and Physics ~ is the physics fringe really representative of physics thought?
- From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:48:13 GMT
In a debate with a friend who happens to be a philosopher (studying) I have poo-hooed the fringe physics that philosophers so love. For instance if any event has a given probability, even if minute (such as a fully formed concord jet being emitted by the sun) and the universe is infinite, then in the infinite extent of time the probability of even the most bizzare events approaches one.
here is a quote:
"Current scientific cosmological theories say we are living in an infinite world, one with an infinite number of planets, stars, galaxies, and black holes. An open or flat universe (assuming the simplest topology) is spatially infinite at any time and contains infinitely many planets, fundamental particles etc. Hawking and Israel claim that black holes are not hairless as Wheeler believed; they are very hairy indeed. In General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, 1979) they say: "[I]t is possible for a black hole to emit a television set or Charles Darwin" (p. 19). There seems to be no reason to limit what "hairy black holes" might emit. It seems entirely possible that whole ecosystems might spring out. Or brains in a state of making a scientific observation. I confine my attention to the latter."
But when challenged, he produced a list of references:
Some references:
1.. Vilenkin, "Unambiguous probabilities in an eternally inflating universe." Physical Review Letters, 81 (1998): 5501-5504
2.. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, "On Regularization Scheme Dependence of Predictions in Inflationary Cosmology," Physical Review D, 53 (1996): 4267-4274
3.. J. Leslie, "Time and the Anthropic Principle," Mind 101(403) (1992): 521-540.
4.. M. Tegmark, "Does the universe in fact contain almost no information?" Foundations of Physics Letters, 9(1) (1996): 25-42)
5.. D. Lewis, "Humean Supervenience Debugged," Mind, 103(412) (1994): 473-490
6.. "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology," in Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Data, ed. M. S. Longair (Dordrecht: Leidel, 1973): pp. 291-298
7.. "The Anthropic Selection Principle and the Ultra-Darwinian Synthesis," in The Anthropic Principle, eds. F. Bertola and U. Curi (Cambridge, 1989): pp. 33-63.
8.. "The Anthropic Principle and its Implications for Biological Evolution," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, A 310 (1983): 347-363.
9.. D. N. Page, "Can Quantum Cosmology Give Observational Consequences of Many-Worlds Quantum Theory," in General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, Eighth Canadian Conference, Montreal, Quebeck, eds. C. P. Burgess and R. C. Myers (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1999), pp. 225-232.
10.. M. Tegmark, "Parallel Universes", Scientific American 2003 31-41
11.. F. Adams & G. Laughlin, "The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity", (Free Press, 1999)
My contention is that these are fringe physicists eg Linde, fringe ideas eg "The Universe contains no information" or inappropriate cross-discipline extrapolations, such as "The Anthropic Principle and its Implications for Biological Evolution" and "The Anthropic Selection Principle and the Ultra-Darwinian Synthesis".
Does anyone have referenced counter arguments to these philosophical musings, or is the list references really representative of modern physics/cosmology??
--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: God's antigravity machine
- Next by Date: Re: Crazy people do crazy things
- Previous by thread: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 36.0: Metrics With Exponential Factors
- Next by thread: Re: Philosophy and Physics ~ is the physics fringe really representative of physics thought?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
