Talk:Cosmological natural selection

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there any paper published?[edit]

I have tried to find any paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about this topic and have found none. Can anyone refer one to me.

Another thing.

We live in a universe where a star needs only a mass of 1.5 to 2.5 times the mass of our sun to collapse into a black hole. What Lee Smolin proposes is that a universe which produces more black holes than any other would in fact possess the laws of physics our universe does. He argues that cosmological natural selection is superior to the anthropic principle because it is falsifiable. That is, if we discover anything in our universe suggesting our universe is not ideal for producing black holes, the theory is disproven. A theory must be falsifiable or it is not scientific, because observation holds no power over it.

I suppose Lee Smolin is a physicist, and for this reason I doubt that he has proposed this as is. While models predict a 1.5-2.5 times, it is false to assume that a star 1.5 to 2.5 times the size of our Sun will become a black hole. This does not take in account of what will be left of the mass of a star after it has consumed it's hydrogen and the second phases start when it start burning whatit has produced and so on, and after it start expending and dissolving its masses (which stars at that size will eventualy do). So, in short, I doubt and I doubt Smolin actually says as a physicist that stars of that size could actually form a black hole.

Also, considering that most stars are in the average range of stars only slightly more massive than our Sun, had the universe been selected through natural selection, from fitness, we would expect more bigger stars than what you do presently observe, so that they can end up to be black holes. It is either this or that the universe has more advantages forming smaller ones so to make more environments possible where intelligent being could evolve and later after the universe start dying out and that its low density doesn't permit the formation of stars anymore, for the survival of those intelligent being they start forming stars themselves and that many of those start becoming black hole, so that for the universe it would be more advantagious to have little stars so that it permit life that will in their turn build stars and black holes. Which is plausible and very interesting. Is there any papers published about this, is this hypotheses even notable at all? Fad (ix) 21:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 "I have tried to find any paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about this topic and have found none. Can anyone refer one to me."

If you work as scientist then you may have access to the ISI Web of Science. With this tool you can know all the papers he has published in peer-reviewed journals.

Merge[edit]

Why on earth are there two separate pages on this, each referring to the other? Obvious case for merger, surely! PaddyLeahy 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]