I think science is going places where it can’t survive. Scientific method relies on evidence, but what happens when science will have to wait for evidence for a 1000 years of technological advancement? It becomes worser than faith.
Proponents of string theory gets far too much attention and money, despite a complete lack of evidence. String Theory is a system of belief in science, something that people must believe in, and invest a billion dollars and a hundred years of their life for experimental evidence. If String Theory is right, atheists like me will be happy, because it supports the idea that the fundamental physical constants of this universe seem just right for life because this universe is one among many universes in a much larger multi verse. And that this universe is just right for having people like us in it asking why we exist.
But String Theory is still a belief, and they could be wrong. Consider another theory “The fecund universes theory” advanced by Lee Smolin. In this view, a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the “other side”, whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. (Thus the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of “reproduction” and “mutation” of universes, but has no analogue of natural selection.)
If this theory is correct, the odds strongly favor this universe being not the first to ever exist, but a descendant of many that have existed through time. And, since a universe with conditions favoring production of many ‘child’ universes, i.e. favoring black hole creation, would have many more ‘children’ than one that did not, it is reasonable to expect a late universe to have ‘evolved’ towards conditions favoring black holes.
Some critics have claimed that this theory is not falsifiable, and therefore unscientific. By definition, existence of “other universes” cannot be verified by scientific tools working within the time-space and physics laws of our universe. Smolin’s counter-argument is that an observation of very many black holes in the known universe would be evidence for this view, while if black holes are rare or unusual, it would be quite strong evidence against; and since the hypothesized evolutionary process would be expected to find local maxima in fecundity, were a small change in cosmological parameters found to give rise to a universe favoring black hole production more than ours, this too would provide evidence against the theory.
I am a fan of Lee Smolin because I like to think String Theory is all hype with no experimental evidence or even a suggested method to find evidence. The discovery of “dark energy,” which seems to be pushing the universe apart faster and faster, isn’t explained by string theory and is proving troublesome for that theory’s advocates. Physicists are making the mistake of searching for a theory that is “beautiful” and “elegant” instead of one that’s actually backed up by experiments.
What if Lee Smolin’s Theory of Fecund Universes is right?
Louis Crane a supporter of Lee Smolin’s ideas has proposed a meduso-anthropic principle, which suggests that universes could be fine-tuned for life by intelligent beings themselves manufacturing new universes. He argues that the destiny of highly evolved intelligence (perhaps our distant progeny) is to infuse the entire universe with life (similar to what Ray Kurzweil proposed in The Singularity is Near, eventually to accomplish the ultimate feat of cosmic reproduction by spawning one or more “baby universes,” which will themselves be endowed with life generating properties.
If Lee Smolin is right, I may have to reconsider the questions about the existence of God…