BOOK REVIEW: The Romance of Reality by Bobby Azarian

The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic ComplexityThe Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity by Bobby Azarian
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Amazon.in Page

Out: June 28, 2022

This book presents a metaphysics based on the relatively new (but increasingly mainstream) sciences of complexity, chaos, and information. It boldly explores some of the major questions that consume both philosophers and scientists, such as: how life came to be, what life’s purpose is (to the degree it has one,) what consciousness is and does, and how come we live in a universe finely-tuned to generate and support life? (Particularly, if one doesn’t like explanations that are audacious and unprovable like “god did it” or “there are infinite parallel universes.”)

The book starts out in territory that is fairly uncontroversial among physicists, arguing that life comes about (and does so with striking speed – i.e. fast abiogenesis) by a process through which nature moves the ordered / useful energy that Earth has in abundance into disordered / useless energy (e.g. waste heat,) a process that runs on rules not unlike Darwinian evolution (molecules have an informational existence that allow something like hereditability [passing down of “blueprints”] and mutation [distortion in copies, some of which will make the molecule or organism more efficient at using energy.])

The book then ventures into territory that is quite controversial, arguing that life has a purpose (beyond the tedious one of moving low entropy energy into a high entropy state,) and that purpose is to be an observer – i.e. to be the first stage in a self-aware world. I should point out a couple things. First, when I say this part is controversial, I mean that it couldn’t be called the consensus view, but that’s not to say that these ideas don’t have a following among some high-level intellects. Second, I think we need people to consider ideas that might seem a bit “out there” because there is a danger of not progressing because we’re trapped in morass of assumptions. Science has quite a few self-appointed guardians who mock as pseudo-science any idea that strays from scientific consensus or from a rigidly reductionist / materialist / Copernican worldview. The author doesn’t abandon a scientific point of view, even though it might seem he does to some because he abandons the nihilistic view that’s taken as a given by many in the scientific community (i.e. that life is a happy accident without purpose, significance, or influence on the universe – and that life consists of automata, playing out programs — devoid of any kind of free will.)

I don’t know how much of Azarian’s metaphysics will prove true, but this book was superbly thought-provoking and opened up to me whole new vistas of possibility about the big questions of philosophy and science. I’d highly recommend it for readers interested in the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

View all my reviews

BOOK REVIEW: Introducing Chaos: A Graphic Guide by Ziauddin Sardar

Introducing Chaos: A Graphic Guide (Introducing...)Introducing Chaos: A Graphic Guide by Ziauddin Sardar
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Amazon.in Page

This book provides a brief overview of the mathematical and scientific concept called “Chaos” (as opposed to the colloquial definition.) Chaos theory is most popularly associated with “the butterfly effect” in which small changes in initial conditions can result in large and / or unpredictable variations in outcome (e.g. the Houston butterfly that causes a typhoon in Hong Kong.) Chaos profoundly changed the landscape in many domains of science. Before Chaos, it was generally assumed that if one had a relatively simple model without random elements that one could make short work of developing predictions. Scientists working in Chaos discovered that this wasn’t necessarily the case, despite the intuitive appeal. In fact, one could have a relatively simple model without random elements that still resulted in irregular behaviors / outcomes.

Chaos overlaps with a number of subjects including the science of Complexity and Fractal Geometry. The book explores these connections, and gives the reader a basic understanding of how those subjects differ and what they share in common with Chaos. The book also draws examples from a number of different disciplines including meteorology, biology, city planning, etc. This is a beneficial way to broaden one’s understanding of this fundamentally interdisciplinary science.

I’ve read many titles in this series because they are available on Amazon Prime and provide readable overviews of subjects that are suitable for a neophyte reader. I found this to be one of the better titles in the series. I thought the author did a good job of explaining the concepts in clear, approachable language, aided by graphics. If you’re looking for a non-mathematical overview of Chaos theory, this is a fine book to consider.


View all my reviews

BOOK REVIEW: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural SciencesThe Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Paul Wigner
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Available online here

This brief essay asks why math proves so effective for describing / codifying physical laws, and whether our physical theories — built on (phenomenally successful) mathematics — offer the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

There’s a popular story in which a drunk man is found on his hands and knees under a lamppost at night when a police officer comes along. The cops says, “What-cha doin’?” To which the drunk replies, “I dropped my keys, and I’m looking for them?” So, the cop says, “Well, they’re clearly not where you’re looking, why not look elsewhere?” And the drunk says, “Cuz this is where the light is.” I think this story can help us understand what Wigner is getting on about, if only we replace the drunk’s “light” with the scientist’s “elegant mathematics.” Wigner reflects upon why it should be that so many laws of nature seem to be independent from all but a few variables (which is the only way scientists could have discovered them –historically, mathematically, and realistically speaking.) On the other hand, could it be that Physics has led itself into epistemological cul-de-sacs by chasing elegant mathematics?

There’s no doubt that (for whatever the reason turns out to be) mathematics has been tremendously successful in facilitating the construction of theories that make predictions that can be tested with high levels of accuracy. However, that doesn’t mean that some of those theories won’t prove to be mirages.

A few of the examples used in this paper are somewhat esoteric and won’t be readily understood by the average (non-expert) reader. That said, Wigner puts his basic arguments and questions in reasonably clear (if academic) language. The essay is definitely worth reading for its thought-provoking insights.


View all my reviews

Thermoclines in the Park [Free Verse]

Running through the park,
in the light of the rising sun,
I pass through a band of cool air,
and a little later,
pass through a band
of warm, humid air.

And, I wonder whether 
I'm having a stroke.

Isn't physics supposed 
to push the warm air over
into the cold,
or pull the cold air over
into the warm,
or both, 
and to keep doing so until
the air temperature
is an undifferentiated mass?

Had I stumbled into a
glitch in the Matrix?
Was the simulated weather 
breaking down?

Why was thermodynamics
misbehaving?
I had so many questions,
but so few answers.

And so many miles to go.

BOOK REVIEW: Stoicism: A Very Short Introduction by Brad Inwood

Stoicism: A Very Short IntroductionStoicism: A Very Short Introduction by Brad Inwood
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Amazon.in Page

Inwood provides an overview Stoic philosophy as it’s discussed in a scholarly context. To distinguish Stoicism as scholars see it from how it’s viewed by those who practice it as a lifestyle, the author differentiates “large Stoicism” from “minimal stoicism.” The vast majority of books today deal only with minimal stoicism – in other words; they exclusively explore how to lead a good and virtuous life, i.e. ethics-centric Stoicism. Scholars, however, are also interested in the physics (/ metaphysics) and the logic of Stoicism.


There are several reasons for this difference in scope. First, Stoic ethics has aged much better than its other philosophical branches. Much of Stoic logic has been improved upon or superseded, and Stoic physics is [arguably] obsolete. This means that scholars studying Stoic physics and logic are more interested in those subjects as a stage of development or a piece of philosophical history than they are as contenders for understanding those subjects. Second, prominent Stoic philosophers with surviving writings (i.e. Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca) have inspired many people by discussing Stoicism as a way of life – not so much as a navel-gazing endeavor.


After discussing the origins of Stoicism, the major Stoic authors, and how Stoicism relates to other philosophical schools of the ancient world, the book presents a chapter each on physics, ethics, and logic. The last chapter investigates how Stoicism is viewed today and how it might maintain relevance despite challenges to some of its metaphysical and logical underpinnings.


Having read a number of books on Stoicism, I didn’t know whether this concise book would be of much benefit. However, by describing Stoicism’s broader context and how the deterioration of much of that context influences the philosophy’s relevance, the book offered plenty of food-for-thought. If you’re interested in this broader context, you may want to give this book a look.


View all my reviews

BOOK REVIEW: The Physics of Fun by Carla Mooney

The Physics of FunThe Physics of Fun by Carla Mooney
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Amazon.in Page

Out: September 15, 2021

This book uses skateboarding, snowboarding, trampolining, music concerts, and video games as a vehicle to teach (middle school-aged) kids some basic physics concepts. I’m not sure why this isn’t the usual textbook approach, teaching lessons via what is of greatest interest to students, but it certainly wasn’t the mode when I was a kid.

While I’m no expert on middle school science curricula, I suspect this book wouldn’t work as a primary classroom text because it doesn’t systematically cover the subject. The chapters on skateboarding, snowboarding, and trampolining explain many terms and concepts of mechanics, but not necessarily everything taught in science class. The penultimate chapter is about waves, both sound and light, and uses the idea of music and laser light shows to elaborate on the topic. The final chapter uses video games as a way to introduce the fundamentals of electricity and circuits.

I think this book is at its best when it is breaking down the physics of tricks in the first few chapters. That’s where it separates itself from the usual dry textbook approach, and any improvement in the book would be seen following that line. Granted, some topics are more amenable than others.

The book has a glossary and each chapter ends with hands on exercises students can do to improve their understanding of the material considered. The graphics are widespread and include cartoons, diagrams, and photos.

If you’re looking for a book to get a child excited about science, give this one a look – particularly if the child is interested in extreme sports.


View all my reviews

BOOK REVIEW: New Theories of Everything by John D. Barrow

New Theories of EverythingNew Theories of Everything by John D. Barrow
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Amazon page

 

This book reflects upon the various elements that any Theory of Everything (ToE) would have to reconcile. A ToE is the holy grail of physics, a theory that would unify the various forces to explain the nature of the universe as we experience it. There have been many attempts to achieve a ToE, but it remains elusive. There is the mathematically beautiful and elegant string theory that suffers that one drawback of having no experimental support. There are those who have given up on a ToE in the sense that the term is normally used, suggesting that the desired degree of unification isn’t possible and that the desire to think it must be is just wishful thinking.

Probably the most useful piece of information about this book for one considering reading it is its readability. As works of popular science go, it’s more challenging that most (but not as difficult as, for example, Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time.”) [I have little doubt that those who read physics textbooks will find it a walk in the park.] It has few equations, and the mathematics it does present is elementary. However, it does explore quite complicated ideas. The book uses graphics to assist, mostly diagrams, but many of these require thoughtful consideration in their own right.

The organization of the book is based on an eightfold way (no relation to the Buddhist eightfold path) – that is, eight ingredients with which a ToE must be consistent. The nine chapters of the book begin with a brief opening chapter that sets up the rest of the book by discussing what a ToE would really explain (“everything” isn’t necessarily the answer in a strict meaning of that word), what the eight components are, how pre-scientific ToE’s operated, as well as introducing the recurring concept of algorithmic compressibility. (The importance of compressibility lies in the idea that in order to make the equations describing the universe more concise it’s necessary that the data describing the universe be “compressible” – i.e. have some underlying order.)

After the intro chapter, the eight subsequent chapters are logically arranged into the aforementioned eightfold way. These are: 1.) laws, 2.) initial conditions, 3.) the nature of forces and particles, 4.) the constants of nature, 5.) symmetries and the breaking thereof, 6.) organizing principles, 7.) Bias and selection effects, and 8.) to what extent mathematics is integral to the universe. Some of these elements (e.g. the laws and constants) we are told couldn’t vary by much and allow us to still exist. So, the question addressed in the book isn’t only how can science get to a theory that explains the existence of a stable(-ish) universe, but further one that can support complex and intelligent life. The chapters on symmetry breaking and selection effects are particularly relevant to this discussion.

One of the most interesting discussions is the last. Chapter nine, entitled: “Is ‘pi’ really in the sky?” discusses the question of how fundamental mathematics is to the universe. It’s long been a topic of scientific intrigue that there seems to be no particular reason for mathematics to be as effective as it is at describing the way the universe works. The discussion has resulted in a wide range of replies from those who say the success of mathematics is more illusory and limited than it appears to be, to those who believe the universe not only is written in mathematics but is math (see: the work of Max Tegmark.) That is, some say that there are parts of a stable universe that must be orderly enough to be described mathematically and those are the only parts we truly understand as of yet. Others say mathematics is the bedrock of the universe.

I enjoyed this book, and found the organizational approach helped a great deal in thinking about the problem. I doubt I grasped everything the author was trying to convey, but it was a book piled high with food for thought for anyone interested in thinking about the nature of the universe. If you’re interested in the grand-scale questions, I’d recommend this book. That said, there are more readable takes on the subject out there if one is looking for light pop science fare.

View all my reviews

BOOK REVIEW: Beyond Weird by Philip Ball

Beyond WeirdBeyond Weird by Philip Ball
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Amazon page

 

Quantum mechanics is so mystifying and baffling that I even misunderstood the title of Philip Ball’s book on the subject at first. I thought “Beyond Weird” was being used as is in, “twelve miles outside of Weird, almost all the way to ‘Incomprehensibly-bizarre-burg,’ is where one finds quantum theory.” About two-thirds of the way through the book, I realized that what he meant was that it’s time to move beyond thinking of the subject as one that – while it works well for the technologist’s practical purposes — is impossible to make any sense of with the human mind. [Perhaps the author wants to move “Beyond Weird” because the popular descriptions of quantum mechanics paint a picture that’s hard for the average reader to differentiate from magic – i.e. things popping in and out of existence inexplicably, things seeming to be in two irreconcilably different states at once, particles interacting instantaneously across light-years, etc. It all sounds like the stuff of a Harry Potter novel.] Who knows, maybe Ball meant “beyond weird” in both ways, like a quantum object is said to be both particle and a wave. (Though Ball weakly rejects that notion as untrue, though stating that sometimes it might as well be true.)

What is weird about the quantum world? To oversimplify, one can think of three interconnected conundrums. The first set of challenges I’ll group together as measurement problems. This includes both the fact that observing evidence of a quantum object cannot be done without influencing the nature of that evidence, and the fact that measuring one characteristic may limit the accuracy with which one can measure another. The second challenge, which derives from the first, is often called wave-particle duality, and it’s the fact that evidence of the same entity or object may sometimes suggest it’s more particle-like and other times that it behaves in a more wave-like fashion. [As is famously observed in double-slit experiments.] A third counter-intuitive fact is quantum entanglement, which is observed when one quantum object is observed and another that has become entangled with it instantaneously displays a corresponding measure. [The reader will note that, even after reading the book, I’m sure that I’m not describing these ideas in nearly sufficient precision to make them truly accurate. And still I’m writing convoluted sentences in attempt to give it my best shot to accuracy. And that’s just how confusing the topic is.]

Because the world behaves oddly at a quantum scale when compared to the world we see (the one that is governed by classical physics,) many paradigms have been established to try to convey what is happening to non-specialists. These models are necessarily oversimplifications. A lot of what Ball does is to try to wring a tiny bit more clarity out of what goes on at the quantum scale by describing in greater detail what is true, false, or under contention about what we “see” in quantum objects. This is how Ball comes up with chapter titles such as: “Quantum objects are neither wave nor particle, (but sometimes they might as well be.” Or, “Quantum particles aren’t in two states at once (but sometimes they might as well be.)” The first half of the book is mostly spent trying to clean up the public perception of quantum mechanics a little. Completely clarifying the subject isn’t yet possible. If it was, the value of such a volume would be minimal.

In the second half of the book, Ball gets into the influence of quantum mechanics on technology (and, in particular, tries to give the lay-reader some concept of what is being talked about when technologists talk of quantum computing.) He also explores some of the theories that are being pursued in the halls of academia to try to make sense of the parts of quantum mechanics that we can’t yet wrap our heads around. This includes the many-worlds interpretation in which each [“decision”] event results in a schism of the universe, such that Schrodinger’s — much misunderstood — cat isn’t in a super-position of alive and dead, but is alive in one branch universe and dead in the other. The book ends with a chapter entitled, “Can we get to the bottom of it?” There is hope that once we are able to look at the subject from the right angle, it will all clear up. Humans do have difficulty making sense of scales that are smaller or bigger than those of our daily experience, as well as time scales shorter than we can notice or longer than we live. We are viewing the world through frames, and those frames create – in a sense – blinders. Some scientists hope that one day we’ll be free of whatever frame (e.g. inability to experience all dimensions of space, time, or space-time) is limiting our capacity to understand the quantum.

As one would expect of this type of book, there are graphics, notes, and a bibliography.

My primary interest in quantum mechanics involves its implications (if any) for consciousness, and this is not a subject that Ball gets into in much detail beyond discussing Eugene Wigner’s views on the subject and touching on the ideas of David Bohm. Wigner was a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who believed that consciousness caused wave-form collapse. It should be noted that there are many scientists who feel that there is no need to think consciousness exerts any influence outside the skull of the conscious one. However, it remains an open question, and it’s not clear whether those who reject it have much better ideas or just have a knee-jerk reaction to that which might halt the onward march of the Copernican revolutionary norm. Though ideas at the interaction of consciousness and the quantum are not explored in great detail in Ball’s book, I still found it of use for edging a little closer to what goes on at a quantum scale than past popular science books have gotten me.

I’d recommend this book for the non-physicist who wants a little better grasp on quantum theory. It’s readable and helps separate wheat from chaff with respect to popular models of quantum mechanics.

View all my reviews

BOOK REVIEW: Biocentrism by Robert Lanza

Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the UniverseBiocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe by Robert Lanza
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Amazon page

 

This book argues for an understanding of the universe in which consciousness is key – the sine qua non of reality, i.e. without which there’s nothing. While Lanza emphasizes biocentrism is a scientifically-based conception, his argument will likely find more immediate traction with people of faith than with the scientific community. Skepticism is likely to arise among the scientific community because the history of science from the Copernican Revolution onward has indicated that we are a bi-product of the universe in action, and not the reason for its existence. Humanity, with our brilliant brains that are the most complex systems we know of in the universe, is neither the geographic center of the universe nor are we its center of meaning or purpose either. Looking at it another way, our annihilation wouldn’t even register as a blip to the universe. Lanza (along with his co-author Bob Berman), fairly uniquely among men of science, argues otherwise.

Lanza and Berman present seven principles of biocentrism over the course of the book. I won’t list these, but they essentially say that in the absence of an observer the world exists only as an unresolved probability function, and that time and space are meaningless in the absence of consciousness. Not to oversimplify the authors’ case, but the heart of their biocentric argument is that it’s consistent with, and could arguably solve, two of the biggest mysteries in science.

The first mystery is the nature of quantum weirdness that has been shown true repeatedly through experiments such as the double slit experiment (which the authors discuss in some detail, but I will not.) I will mention a thought experiment designed make this subatomic strangeness clear in the world at our scale. It’s called Schrödinger’s cat. The idea is that a cat is in a box with a vile of poison that is released by a radioactive trigger. One can’t know when the radioactive decay will release the poison. (This is a bit of subatomic strangeness that can only be reconciled in the face of an observer.) It’s said that the cat would have to be thought of as being in a superposition, simultaneously both alive and dead, until the observer enters the picture. The reader also may have heard of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle, which states one can’t know both of a pair of measurements (e.g. position and momentum) with perfect accuracy. All of this says that at the infinitesimally tiny scale of the quantum, particle behavior seems erratic, baffling, and is influenced by observation. While it’s hard to relate to through the lens of our macroscopic experience of the world, it’s a notion that is completely accepted by physicists because it’s been validated by countless experimental observations.

The second truth that science struggles to make sense of that biocentrism presumes to eradicate is the conundrum of the “Goldilock’s universe.” Taken from the fable of finding the porridge that was “just right.” We live in a universe whose actions comply with a series of equations and constants that – were they slightly different – would make life in all the forms we can fathom completely impossible. Starting from the fact that our universe is so mathematically consistent (a feature that it’s commonly argued needn’t be) to the fact that turning the dials a little would make intelligent life impossible, it’s easy to start wondering whether the creationists aren’t on to something. Religion doesn’t have a problem with the Goldilock’s Universe because it presumes the universe was made this way purposefully. Biocentrism doesn’t have a problem because the universe can only exist where there are conscious beings. Of course, science hypothesizes its own solutions to the conundrum. These varied solutions generally revolve around the anthropic principle (we exist in a universe capable of supporting life because if we didn’t we couldn’t) and a multiverse of parallel universes (because the anthropic principle applied to a single universe isn’t intuitively superior to assuming a god, goddess, or gods magically “poofed” us into existence.) Under this idea, which appeals to the Copernican Revolutionary mindset, there will be many more universes where life doesn’t exist, and perhaps even ephemeral bubble universes that can’t even exist as a universe – let alone as a life supporting universe.

There’s a major challenge to biocentrism that results from the fact that we are fairly certain that the universe is 13+ billion years old and our planet didn’t come into existence until about 9 billion years after that (i.e. Earth is about 4.5 billion-years-old.) Even if one assumes the conscious life grew up elsewhere before us, it’s hard to imagine it having happened instantaneously with the beginning of the universe. Lanza’s end run around this can be found in his sixth and seventh principles of biocentrism which state that time and space are illusory in the absence of an observer. Of course, this raises questions of how this could be so and why we might believe it is so — because “it’s essential to my case” isn’t a good reason to believe anything. To be fair, there are all sorts of theories out there – many more mainstream than Lanza’s – that propose time and space aren’t what they seem – starting with Einstein’s well-proven idea that time and space are relative.

This book is oddly composed. It describes the principles of biocentrism largely in the first half to two-thirds of the book, with a few random digressions, and then it really goes off the rails. Most of the digressions are little biographical stories about Robert Lanza, many of which are interesting but completely irrelevant to the book’s proposed topic. I’m unsure which of three competing explanations account for these erratic digressions: a.) the publisher said, “this manuscript must be 200 pages or we aren’t publishing it.” b.) the author is getting up there in age, realizes there is no market for his memoirs, and thinks he can sneak the highlights into this book which is sure to have a following if a controversial one. c.) the author was concerned about being taken for a kook and wanted to establish his bona fides (note: many of the biographical digressions consist of name-dropping.) I should point out that these digressions are the main reason for my mediocre rating of this book, and not disenchantment with the case for biocentrism. (I think we know too little about consciousness and about it’s odd interactions at the quantum level to draw any firm conclusions in that regard.)

I found this book to be fascinating – even some of the digressions were interesting, though not helpful to discussion of the topic at hand. It’s a thought-provoking work. I have no idea whether it will prove to have merit as a description of how the world works. I’ll leave it to readers to determine whether they think it is a sound interpretation of observed reality or a physics-envy based attack on the stronghold of physics as the heart of science or an attempt to reduce the fear of death in a way consistent with science (i.e. time as we perceive it being an illusion makes us all immortal.) If you are interested in the big questions of why the universe exists and what is the nature of reality, you may want to give this book a read – not that it’ll answer all your questions, but it will provide an alternative to mainstream views that you may find useful.

View all my reviews

5 Ways the World May Be Weirder Than It Seems

Werner Heisenberg famously said, “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”



5.) Ancestor Simulation: The idea that we could be in a simulation isn’t only a staple of science fiction–e.g. The Matrix. It’s been given serious thought by thinkers who aren’t exactly on the lunatic fringe–most famously inventor /entrepreneur Elon Musk. The core of the argument goes like this. 1.) We are getting better and better at making simulations ourselves. 2.) At some point we will achieve a simulation indistinguishable from reality. 3.) If 2 is true, then it’s vastly more likely that we are already simulations because if it can be done, it probably already has been done many times over. (Thus, we’re more likely to be in one of the simulations than so-called “base reality.”)



4.) Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: Max Tegmark proposes that the universe may be–at its core–a mathematical structure, making us self-aware substructures. This may sound like a different way of stating the preceding hypothesis, but not necessarily. The simulation hypothesis suggests certain motivations of a simulation creator. MUH doesn’t require a creator or an objective. It could be the nature of reality at it’s most basic.



3.) A Holographic Universe: This idea sprang from thinking about what happens to the information when something falls into a black hole. The idea being that the information is trapped on the outside of the event horizon–i.e. information for a three dimensional entity stored in two dimensions. As physicists pondered this, some concluded that it might be that we are a projection of data, or–alternatively–much of what we see when we look out into space is.



2.) One of Myriad Universes: The idea that our universe is one of many (or an infinite number of) universes comes in several flavors and is a prediction of several theories widely given credence. In some versions, all the universes have different sets of laws and constants such that many flash in and out of existence and only a small proportion are capable of hosting life (but the math of infinity is weird and a small proportion of the infinite may also be infinite. I don’t know, I’m not a mathematician and the infinite never mattered in economics because ground zero is that everything is limited but desires.) This answers the Goldilocks zone issue nicely–i.e. we couldn’t exist if the equations and constants that govern our universe were very much different, but if there are many universes with many sets of laws then we just happen to be in one of the ones we can be in–hence, credulity remains unstrained. Other versions propose universes with the same laws such that there could be an infinite number of you living out lives that may be slightly different than yours (or–for that matter–in which you might be the Supreme Galactic Overlord.)



1.) Time is slowing: A couple Spanish physicists have suggested that the universe might not be expanding at an accelerating rate (as is the consensus view in physics,) but rather time may be slowing. This slowing would be anticipated to continue until one final moment is captured frozen in time–note: said point would be long after the Sun swallows the Earth.