I don't understand what he means by an "external agency." Where is there an agency external to the universe? I'd bet more than a buck that the "answer" involves consciousness.
curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's back up just a bit and go back to Davies's article. Excellent, because this is where the most interesting point lies, his formulation of the "third choice". I give his site a read to try to understand what he is driving at and if you have already guessed what it is. > > He makes his point clear as crystal at the very end: > > "It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical > universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or > meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine > providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the > universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to > be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme. > > "In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the > universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The > specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But > until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the > universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus." > > (I'd bet a buck the explanation he has in mind involves > consciousness.) > > There's a great deal of Davies material on the Web > if anyone is interested in more details. > > Here's his personal home page: > > http://cosmos.asu.edu/ > > (Some of the links, unfortunately, are out of date.) > > Here's a link to a piece in the Guardian that's > almost identical to the Times op-ed; what's interesting > is the VERY long comments section that follows. Many of > the commenters raise the same points folks here have > raised: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
