Isn't Lee Smolin's cosmological speculation a little circular? You need blackholes to have a finely tuned universe, but you need a finely tuned universe to have blackholes. Of course, you don't need quite as fine-tuned of a universe, but in order to have GR don't you need a quantum field that is capable of producing GR fields? I've read a lot of other problems more technical in nature.

***But it is not a sufficient condition to claim that a god or gods do not exist. I think the Celestine Prophecy type of coincidence is a better argument for the existence of god than the anthropic principle.***

I'm not familiar with the Celestine Prophecy. What is the main argument the author wishes to make? As for anthropic principle, my point is that we should simply face up to the evidence that rules out WAP and other types of responses to these coincidences. This is the beginning of a discussion and does not necessarily establish the existence of God.

Warm regards, Harv

• Celestine Prophecy - yanniru - January 23, 2002 - 15:30 UTC
  • Synchronicity - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 16:16 UTC
    • A good example of circularity - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 00:34 UTC
      • That doesn't make any sense to me - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 01:32 UTC
        • I do not understand - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 14:42 UTC
          • You can never reach infinity via a finite process - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:29 UTC
            • Give me a week - yanniru - January 26, 2002 - 14:32 UTC
            • By the way, does evolution of BH multiverse produce - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 01:24 UTC
              • Still an open question in string theory - yanniru - January 27, 2002 - 18:49 UTC