...Historically, scientists have viewed the cosmos as akin to a rock—complex, perhaps even beautiful, but formed through arbitrary events. Evolutionary cosmologists instead argue that universes, like living organisms, grow and reproduce, spinning off new universes with small variations from their progenitors. In doing so, these cosmic offspring are refined across generations into forms that maximize the number of universes yet to be born. Since the Big Bang, our universe, like any developing child, has been unfurling into an optimal shape.
Under this view, the universe is not a rock. It is an egg...
Smolin’s work was, in turn, inspired by physicists Bryce DeWitt and John Wheeler, who proposed that singularities inside black holes, the places where matter is crushed into a point of infinite density, might expand to produce new universes that follow different physics from the universes that produced them. Every universe—including our own—would, under this logic, have emerged from a Big Bang within a black hole.
Smolin realized that this hypothetical process would allow universes to reproduce, in a way, by making more black holes. And if those new universes could inherit the physics of their parents with small differences—just as new organisms inherit the genes of their parents with small differences—then universes could also evolve with each generation. Specifically, a form of cosmic natural selection would favor universes that make as many black holes as possible. Less fertile universes could persist, but they would produce far fewer offspring. So over time, an increasingly high proportion of universes would be optimized for black hole production—which would imply that our universe, given the odds, is one of those...
I mean, I can live comfortably. I said the experiment was fine. I have the degree and the considerable privileges that come with it.
But sure, I get what you mean. But I also "can't live comfortably" because humans aren't immortal so there aren't billions of ancestors with an incentive to make the world a better place indefinitely. Does that mean that when I die I am to blame for perpetuating the "world's failings"?
People have been looking at crimes and going "stop that" for millennia. They've even killed the perpetrators to ensure they never perpetuate crimes again. And yet crimes remained. Turns out that the forces perpetuating crime mostly aren't the crimes themselves.
I can't tell if you're an academic. If you're not, welcome to this corner of the real world. Shit sucks out there too. If you are, know that all that differentiates me from many of your peers is that I walked away. I'm an anarchist now. While you're angry at water for flowing downhill or humans for committing profitable fraud or whatever, I'm carving the mountain.
It's mostly helping homeless people get housing and food (in totally legal ways, of course, I wouldn't want to be unethical or cowardly), but I do hope to return to science at some point. Not under its flag, but with its successor's.
If the experiment was shoddy and I knew it, that would be all true. But reality doesn't stop existing just because it's immoral. You can say goodbye but I will still exist, and more importantly so will every corrupt academic who chose not to walk away. Mere outrage won't change that. Do you care to do something that will?