12.29.05
String Theory and Darwinism?
I have been reading Leonard Susskind’s The Cosmic Landscape and find all the material on physics fascinating, and all the material on Darwinism mostly irrelevant. I can recommend reading this book, but don’t be taken in by the stuff on Darwin. It is all an afterthought. I was waiting for the punchline: some connection between the Lanscape concept and Darwinian evolution. But it never happens, save in a bald insertion of a dogmatic Darwinism, tacked onto his physics discussion. Nothing in the argument says anything whatever about evolutionary mechanisms. However, Susskind seems uncommonly fair on the Anthropic principle, and states his objections even as he shows how expectations of explaining it away have so far not succeeded. Why not the same openness on Darwinian natural selection?
I think that the resemblance pointed to, however, between the Landscape and the ‘potential space’ of evolving organismic forms is of value. But the same question lingers: the fact of evolution, and the mechanism. Anyway, disregarding the asides on Darwin, the material here gives some important updates on the rapidly shifting status of physical theories and the string theory pilgrimmage. But don’t let Susskind pull the wool over your eyes on Darwin. The real state of affairs is explained with admirable clarity by Susskind early on: physicists are in a Perils of Pauleen situation with the Anthropic issues, which is probably appropriate, since here is a case where the net equivalent of ID is tabled in actual physical theories, leaving the hope we may be able to get some real insights and maybe even some answers.