Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" > > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about > > > how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are explanations > > > of observations no-one ever said they were immutable, they > > > change as the evidence changes. > > > > This is really very funny. You might want to have a look > > at Davies's credentials: > > So you think he's got a point because he has a PHD? > You're very easily impressed aren't you? Look, I'm going to post his credentials again, because you apparently didn't read them: "PAUL DAVIES is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and author. He holds the position of Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His previous academic appointments were at the Universities of Cambridge, London, Newcastle upon Tyne and Adelaide. His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and includes the properties of black holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory in curved spacetime. He is the author of several hundred research papers and articles, as well as over twenty books, including The Physics of Time Asymmetry and Quantum Fields in Curved Space, co-authored with his former PhD student Nicholas Birrell. His more recent popular books include How to Build a Time Machine and The Origin of Life. "Davies was awarded the 2001 Kelvin Medal by the UK Institute of Physics and the 2002 Faraday Award by The Royal Society. In Australia, he is the recipient of two Eureka Prizes and an Advance Australia award. He was also the recipient of the 1995 Templeton Prize for his work on science and religion...." That's a helluva lot more than a Ph.D., buster. It's fine to take issue with him, but it's rather absurd for you to act like you know more about science, cosmology, philosophy of science, etc., than he does. And he's definitely a big-picture guy. > > Did you even read the piece we were discussing? > > Of course I read it, and just read it agin to see if I missed > something. Well, just for one thing, you missed that he's well acquainted with the Anthropic Principle. Virtually everything you've been saying to correct his "misunderstandings" is stuff that it's crystal clear from the piece that he already knows all about. I still don't get what his problem is, scientists don't > have "faith" that the universe is orderly it's what they've found. No, not *that* the universe is orderly. They don't inquire into *why* the universe is orderly. > The multiverse theory doesn't "duck" anything it's the best > explanation of quantum physics yet because it accounts for all > observable phenomena without recourse to gods, consciousness etc. "There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse." > Surely he gets it, why does he think the laws of physics are due to > an external agency? He doesn't. What he says is that they're external to the universe--as you go on to quote: > "And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God > for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so > physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by > eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious > to what happens in the universe." > > It's not me that got this wrong, I'm sure of it. The laws are > invented by man to explain what we see, no-one knows if they > are "real" and if they do turn out to be I would hope they are > impervious. If they're impervious to what happens in the universe, then, like God, they're external to it, by definition. Nobody "declared" anything, it's all been painstakingly > worked out and it isn't finished. I don't know why you aren't getting it, but that they've all been painstakingly worked out and are still unfinished *isn't relevant to his point*-- it's a given, he knows that, I know that, we all know that. You're getting hung up on a red herring. I think the problem here is that Davies's big picture is *bigger* than your big picture. > > As all the evidence isn't in it's an open question, but > > > the clever money goes to the natural and understood (lets not > > > forget testable) progression of increasing complexity due to > > > electrons cooling after big bang. molecules forming inside > > > supernovae, finally the earth, 4 billion years later us, then > > > comes consciousness and the wondering whether laws are > > > immutable, this Davies guy needs to see the big picture. > > > > ROTFL!! > > I'll lend you my bookshelves so maybe you can see it too. How many of his more than 20 books do you have on those shelves?
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
