http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-...

"Like part of a cosmic Russian doll, our universe may be nested inside a black hole that is itself part of a larger universe.

In turn, all the black holes found so far in our universe—from the microscopic to the supermassive—may be doorways into alternate realities.

According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes."

Towards the end of the article, they say:
"By saying our universe was created by a gush of matter from a parent universe, the theory simply shifts the original creation event into an alternate reality.

In other words, it doesn't explain how the parent universe came to be or why it has the properties it has—properties our universe presumably inherited."

Could we be looking at cosmological evolution? Where earlier, simpler generations of universes are slightly less complex than their children universes? That could eventually explain the first universe. (Our universe is very complex, but imagine a first universe some billion generations back, whose likelihood of existence is higher than its likelihood of not existing.)

Of course, that opens up the possibility that once that universe reached the "Reality barrier" all universes became more likely, making successive generation more likely, and so on ad infinitum. Generations of universes would then have come into being virtually on the heels of their parent generations.

Of course, this begs the question of irreality versus reality. If there was absolutely nothing how did something happen, let alone appear? We're going to hear a bunch about how perception might be a requirement for there to be something versus nothing- but there is no evidence for or against this, no math that suggests it, just the biased speculation itself. Until there's any indication that such a thing might be true- beyond the assertion that it is true, it's a FALSE PREMISE and ignorable.

The argument would look something akin to: Intelligence is a must for there to be any universe.

Even if it was true, it still wouldn't justify a creator intelligence, or a merely-god-like intelligence, without begging the same question: if the universe couldn't exist without an awareness to observe it, then how did the awareness arise?

Cool stuff, though. As we discover more about how the force of gravity actually works/propagates, especially on the quantum scale, we'll be able to better answer essential questions, like: Is this theory valid when we know more about how things be? The answer may be no; but, right now, it could equally be yes.

Additionally, I don't have the math to check this, but I wonder about the bias/reporting of matter. From the comments attributed to the guy who came up with the theory, there's talk of matter transference from one reality into another. However, matter could be misleading to the layman. It might not mean chunks of things. It may mean "energy"- electrons, quarks, etc- or it could mean "information" (an even more nebulous concept than that of "energy"). There's so much this could, potentially, entail that the assumption of transference from one universe to the other may be flawed, or only right during particularly energetic, opaque, early-states of universes of comparable complexity to our own.

You know what? You just gotta love this shit. Science, bitches, it's full of awesomesauce!