Talk:Lee Smolin

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics: Biographies Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

No natural selection?[edit]

"Thus the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, but has no direct analogue of natural selection."

Wtf? Of course it has! Nature favours the universes capable of producing black holes. When a universe produces many black holes, it gets many offsprings. If it is not capable of producing black holes, it has no offsprings. Of course this is natural selection.

Furthermore, if the universes capable of producing black holes are the ones capable of producing life, nature must favour universes capable of producing life. This makes life a propable event, and according to the anthropic principle, we must nescesarrily be where life is.

What do you mean by propable?137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, reading the definition in natural selection article, it only requires adaptive heritable traits becoming more common in a population over generations, which would happen if this were true. Difference is probably that universes are not mortal, they don't need to die off and hence nothing disappears completely from the population. I dare not edit it, however, for I have no idea how to phrase this succinctly. Aryah (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)~[reply]

Being a "new expert" in evolutionary biology (night course (smile!)), I agree with above comments.

It definitely fulfills the categories of multiple offspring (with little energy consumption, viability of offspring, and their long life (relative to other population members). Idealist707 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the lack of competition for resources in this theory mean that it is not a form of natural selection? At least, not in the usual Darwinian sense. I don't believe this is mentioned in 'The Life of the Cosmos'. It would seem that any universe that was 'good enough' to reproduce would eventually produce an infinite number of daughter universes (barring statical bad luck). It wouldn't have to out-compete other universes (with different laws) that are even more fecund - though these would produce a 'larger infinity' (a 'faster' growing set) of descendants. 62.232.250.50 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone already explained what selection requires, even linked the article... it's not like these universes are claimed to be living, acting things. Yet contra the article my understanding is the parallel is much stronger than a formal analog. It's one and the same fundamental process, or how many would there be? In the case of living things it just gets more complex, fans out, so there's other kind of selection, drift, etc. But the very cosmos (universes) itself being evolutionary is the whole point of the theory (book at least). Lee isn't much into sloppy metaphor. -62.214.249.120 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible inclusion[edit]

Holt, Jim (2006-09-25). "Unstrung". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 2019-05-20. {{cite news}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help); Text "archive-dateMay 20, 2019" ignored (help)Oceanflynn (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron star over 2 solar masses reportedly discovered[edit]

See here T. Anthony (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish[edit]

Nothing in the article backs up his presence in Jewish categories. Even the atheist thing is barely backed up (does not believing in a creator quite count?). I'm not suggesting these things are false, but they should appear in the article before the categories. 216.8.143.101 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there is no backup in the article, and putting him in a Jewish or atheist category is especially questionable (WP:BLPCAT). I have removed those categories, as well as ethnicity = Jewish. Of course, if some editors can show it's worth mentioning and have reliable sources, they can put "Jewish" back in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was he doing between 1995 and 1999?[edit]

Dr. Universe (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]