1. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184218 by robhu on May 24, 2008 at 1:26 am

Does Hawking really think that new universes are created inside black holes?

I thought it was only Lee Smolin who thought that (his theory of Fecund Universes explained in The Life of the Cosmos).

IIRC while this theory is interesting (and fun I'd say) it is a long way from being a mainstream view - there is quite a lot missing from the theory to start with. I think Smolin's theory was kinda falsifiable, although I can't remember exactly how.

Mitchell seems to be right AFAICT, what is proposed in this article lacks falsifiability. We need to be very vigilant about what we consider to be good science - we really shouldn't respond wit things like "Years ago, everyone said that about black holes. Now they are accepted in the scientific community. I have to say though that multiverses will be harder to prove." as that implies that because something wasn't accepted in the past but now is that the standards for testing future things should be low. As it happens there were falsifiable tests for black holes, and they passed those tests.

"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves" (Carl Sagan)

2. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132893 by robhu on February 25, 2008 at 11:27 am

Mitchell Gilks: Is your icon from a particular manga or anime?

3. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91928 by robhu on November 29, 2007 at 3:03 pm

What an interesting article, but I have to disagree (as some others have) with the comments about sex with someone other than the person you married.

Open marriages, polyamorous relationships, etc.. are fine, of course they are. In such situations both people know what is going on and are happy for such things to occur. In the usual type of marriage the expectation (vocalised in some marriages, say at church) is that the relationship will be monogamous. If it isn't then it's a breech of trust with your partner, which is what makes it unacceptable.

4. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91909 by robhu on November 29, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Is it really reasonable to refer to these people as 'fleas'?

Professor Dawkins has captured the public imagination with his books, so it seems perfectly reasonable for people to write books disagreeing with what he has said in his books.

Referring to them as fleas just makes us atheists look pompous.

Please, when talking to / about the religious let's stick to reasoned discussion, not name calling.

5. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51284 by robhu on June 22, 2007 at 7:49 am

I think she ought to be able to wear the ring. If schools are going to allow any religious jewellery at all then I don't think they should put themselves in the position of being the arbiter of whether the jewellery is 'required' by the faith or not. Especially given that religion belief is very much a personal thing, what might be important for one Christian (e.g. wearing a crucifix) is completely unimportant to another.

Various people here seem to think that no religious jewellery or clothing should be allowed in schools. Personally I'm not sure, but I think in society we ought to err on the side of allowing freedom of expression even amongst teenagers.

6. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46329 by robhu on May 31, 2007 at 12:03 am

Google video says this for me:

We're sorry, but the provider of this video has not authorised Google to display this video in your location.

I'm in the UK (using Bulldog as my ISP... I've also tried with another ISP).