Is String Theory, and Physics, at a crossroad with Intelligen Design (ID)?
A crossroad indeed. In a book whose purpose was to debunk ID Susskind has made a case that physics and ID are on similar tracks by different names. At which point does the "Landscape" become the "Designer"?
It'll be interesting to see how they reason this one out as the value of the cosomolgical constant , which basically sets the conditions that exist in the universe, does seem more than a little "convenient" in that it appears to be the only value consistant with life.
Dr. Mordrid
Is string theory in trouble?
Leonard Susskind, who invented it, doesn’t think so. He says its description of multiple universes, each with different constants of nature and laws of physics, could reveal why the cosmological constant appears improbably fine-tuned to enable life to exist
Note: this abundance of universes is being referred to as the "Landscape"
Q: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design (ID)?
A: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.
Leonard Susskind, who invented it, doesn’t think so. He says its description of multiple universes, each with different constants of nature and laws of physics, could reveal why the cosmological constant appears improbably fine-tuned to enable life to exist
Note: this abundance of universes is being referred to as the "Landscape"
Q: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design (ID)?
A: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.
It'll be interesting to see how they reason this one out as the value of the cosomolgical constant , which basically sets the conditions that exist in the universe, does seem more than a little "convenient" in that it appears to be the only value consistant with life.
Dr. Mordrid
Comment