Evolutionary arguments are easy to make but impossible to prove.
a) take observed current phenomenon
b) throw it back several million years to pre-history and write a story that happened back then.
Ask yourself: Would this have been asked in 1960? How about 1890?
Well, they wouldn’t because evolutionary psychology started in the mid 1970s with a pop science book by EO WIlson. He called it Sociobiology but in the early 90s, another set of authors used the term Evolutionary Psychology instead, as Sociobiology got a bad rap with all of its talk of Alpha / Beta males and “How To Pick Up Chicks” books which heavily quoted him. Under its new name, it’s gotten a better public response and some interesting studies of course.
But let’s say scientists *did* think in evo psych terms in the 1960s or 1890s.
Would they have considered anything other than typical human sexuality a topic worthy of giving an evolutionary benefit for or would they have thought of it as abnormal psychology and looked for “mom / dad” answers (nature/nurture in current times)?
My thoughts on what you said specifically Zachary Tanner Lyle (after you’ve read my thoughts on EvoPsych/Sociobiology above): It’s as plausible as anything anybody could come up with. If you like it, run with it. It’s as good as anybody’s story.
Would I say that though? Probably not because I think all humans are pan-sexual by nature to different degrees. Under the right circumstances, anything’s possible for most humans.
Ask: “How do you get to the point of having sex?”
Is it lust / fetish -> sex?
Is it love -> sex?
Depending on pathways, who your partner(s) is(are) can change dramatically.
What if your problem is that you’re too deeply thoughtful too often?
I think it’s generally correct enough, but there’s also times where constant instinctual (or rather well trained) action is required. Flow where your body just does what it needs to do in the way it needs to do it and you’re not thinking but rather in a state of acting correctly.
Ah memories. Puberty: Thinks to self : “uh oh, I think I peed myself… wait… no… oh that’s that thing they talked about? oh man…
If pop physics authors are writing about “nothings”, they’re misleading the public.
Krauss is preaching to the New Atheist camp. Among supporters of Dawkins and others in this small clique, he has a following but outside of this camp, they’re not taken very seriously.
What I believe you’ve found, is a single theoretical physicist who supports your philosophical beliefs and are generalizing that, inappropriately, to all or most physicists.
I criticize Krauss freely because he goes too far in a single direction.
But I’ll give credit where its due: He took upon himself a herculean effort, an attempt to prove something came from nothing, with “empty space” being the “nothing”.
But empty space isn’t empty. Nothing isn’t nothing. It’s very much something. A whole lot of something.