The theory provides an explanation for how a chain of descendant universes (each resulting from a previous black hole) would “select for” (akin to natural selection) universes which contain complexity - and thus the potential for more “offspring” from that universe.
It very elegantly explains their fine tuning - selection towards complexity as an analogue of biological fecundity. How do you figure it doesn’t?
edit4youredit - what needs explaining isn’t the simple presence of “constants”, what demands an explanation is why these constants, which could have taken literally any values, have the values that result in a universe that doesn’t instantly decompose but instead persists for billions of years creating progressively more complexity... seriously...read the link/watch the video and quit yapping in ignorance
What you call complexity is merely stability. God created a stable universe that doesn't instantly decompose. I did watch that part of the video and it still sounds like pure speculation with little hard evidence. You are trying to apply Darwin's flawed theory of evolution to the cosmos and I don't believe it works.
and quit yapping in ignorance
It is natural to get defensive when your favorite theory is criticized, but I'm just being honest. Calm yourself.
The alternative being we live in an environment unsuitable for life?
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle
Give that a perusal to see where this post is coming from
I heard this theory first in 2012. It sounded like a load of horseshit with all due respect.
How do you explain the fine tuning of the universal “constants”?
How does a black hole explain them?
The theory provides an explanation for how a chain of descendant universes (each resulting from a previous black hole) would “select for” (akin to natural selection) universes which contain complexity - and thus the potential for more “offspring” from that universe.
Just watch the video lol
That doesn't explain universal constants at all.
Moreover I see no problem with our universe having constants, so that doesn't need to be resolved using this theory as a solution.
It very elegantly explains their fine tuning - selection towards complexity as an analogue of biological fecundity. How do you figure it doesn’t?
edit4youredit - what needs explaining isn’t the simple presence of “constants”, what demands an explanation is why these constants, which could have taken literally any values, have the values that result in a universe that doesn’t instantly decompose but instead persists for billions of years creating progressively more complexity... seriously...read the link/watch the video and quit yapping in ignorance
What you call complexity is merely stability. God created a stable universe that doesn't instantly decompose. I did watch that part of the video and it still sounds like pure speculation with little hard evidence. You are trying to apply Darwin's flawed theory of evolution to the cosmos and I don't believe it works.
It is natural to get defensive when your favorite theory is criticized, but I'm just being honest. Calm yourself.
The evidence for black holes is overwhelming.
Globetards btfo’d
There’s no pictures of protons either genius, are they fake too?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Oh, does it? I eagerly await your sharing of your research on the matter.
2nd video doesn’t “nullify” anything, Wally just renamed black holes to plasmoids. Those guys are ok though, if a bit lacking in predictive power.