Smolin believes in a multiverse else his fecund cosmology makes no sense.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > *The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of * > * the Platonist, Leibniz * > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin > > A. Leibniz would agree with these views of Smolin: > > A1. QM is unfinished. > A2. Time is not well understood. Leibniz did > not think of time as substantial or time as flowing, > it is just an indexed sequence of events. > A3. There is no multiverse, only the universe. > > > B. Leibniz would disagree with Smolin on these issues: > > B1. Smolin believes that computationalism is false (because there cannot > be internal isomorphisms. Here the issue of Leibniz's > pre-established harmony might be challenged. Hmmm). > > B2. Smolin is not a Platonist. (Leibniz was.) > > > > > "Lee Smolin's view on the nature of time: > > > "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general > relativity are both > *deeply wrong about the nature of time.* > It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper > problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."[11] > > Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a "final theory": > > > "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe > this because > > I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of > quantum mechanics > > that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard > about them, > and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it > stands."[12] > > > In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views > (the sentences in italics are quotations): > > > *There is only one universe [I agree. RBC.** ]*There are no others, nor > is there anything isomorphic to it. > > Smolin denies the existence of a "timeless" multiverse. Neither other > universes > nor copies of our universe — within or outside — > exist.[clarification needed] No copies can > exist within the universe, because no subsystem can > > model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside > the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. * > This principle also * > *rules out the notion ** > of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the * > *history of the entire universe [computationalism - L would disagree. * > *due to his concept of Pre-established Harmony. RBC], a notion more > metaphysical than scientific. > * > > > All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. > Anything that > > is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything > that is real is > situated in time. *Nothing exists timelessly [I disagree. This rules out > Platonism, which Leibniz and I believe in. * > *L also b elieved that time as not real, only an indexed set of > situations. RBC]. * > * > > * *[The following paragraph is in accord with Leibniz, except that L > held that only ideas are real - RBC]* > > Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the > next or > > future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this > process causing or implying > > future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an > aspect of causal relations. > > A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, > without causing or implying > > some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next > moment. Things that > > persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. > > An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom > at the next moment. > > Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed > regularities, when time and particularity > > are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical > platonism > *[ Leibniz and I are Platonists- RBC] , * > and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of > Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". > > > > He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims "cannot help us to > do science."[13] [See > below] > > He also advocates “principles for an open future” > which he claims underlie the work of both healthy scientific communities and > > democratic societies: “(1) When rational argument from public evidence > suffices > > to decide a question, it must be considered to be so decided. (2) When > rational argument from public > > evidence does not suffice to decide a question, the community must encourage > a diverse range of > viewpoints and hypotheses consistent with a good-faith attempt to develop > convincing public evidence.” > (Time Reborn p 265.) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Anthropic Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle > > " The *anthropic principle* (from the Greek, *anthropos*, human) is the > philosophical > consideration <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> > that observations of the physical > Universe<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe>must be compatible with the > conscious <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious> > life<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life>that observes it. > Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the > Universe has the age <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_universe> and > the > fundamental physical > constants<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant>necessary > to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is > unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall > within the narrow range thought to be compatible with > life<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe> > .[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#cite_note-1>" > > *[I hvae no problem personally with the AP, not sure as of the moment > about L's view. RBC]* > > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/18/2013 > See my Leibniz site at > **http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking > www.dreammail.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
