posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:05 PM
Applying Darwinian principles to fledgling universes is interesting (I am reminded of a Stephen Baxter novel) but the proponents seem to want the
constraints on reproduction to be the viability of intelligent life, whereas their analogy (Evolution) suggests that all that is required is a
self-sustaining universe capable of reproduction (so if they could prove that universes with intelligent life are more likely to survive etc.). The
article seems a bit confused - it talks about unverses being born from black holes as well as universes both before and after ours - which would seem
to be seperate "issues". However I do like this sort of thought, which is somewhat 'out of the box', and if universes do give rise to 'baby'
universes then this is one more qualification for the idea of a living (alive) universe( - a logical extension of the gaia hypothesis) as reproduction
is one of the universally recognized attributes of living systems. The article does not sufficiently explain why intelligence within a cosmos is some
sort of cosmic DNA. I suspect this has to do with the Anthropic argument. If for instance they said it was more likely that intellient
super-advanced beings could midwife or even create more universes then this would make sense. While I do like the idea of intellligent life having
this kind of cosmic purpose - I dislike that it is coming from scientists. i cannot see any scientific reason for such a purpose and fear it may be
viewed as such - it is clear to me that such moral values are completely outside the purview of the scientific method altogether , as much as I might
admire the personal views of the authors seemingly involved.
(visit the link for the full news article)