Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Yes, I've come to the conclusion that you're right. It seems to be an automatic knee-jerk response. This is especially obvious when it comes to matters of opinion--she does automatically assume that if you don't share her opinion, you must be stupid. She says she grew up in an academic environment. Well, there are two things about such an environment that haven't sunk in. 1) She hasn't learned that a variety of views (even opposing views) can be equally valid. 2) Academics, in the U.S. at least, don't treat another with such utter lack of respect for not sharing the same opinion you hold at the moment. In Germany that's a little different. You do find a lot of Judy's. a TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician) in response to the Davies piece, Judy assumed I had not read the thing. Angela, you still haven't gotten it yet. Judy assumes the worst she can imagine about anyone she feels like putting down. In your case and my case, she assumed that we never read the article in question. That, and that we are stupid and SO much less intellectually-endowed than her, of course. :-) In my case, I plowed my way through it even despite a complete disinterest in the subject matter. To me, *both* science and religion are on a par -- puny human beings trying to convince themselves and others that they've got things figured out. BORING. You're just an easy target, that's all. In a few days it'll be Delia (as it has been in the past). Or Sal. Or Curtis. Or anyone else who commits the Ultimate Sin of Not Taking Judy Seriously. Get used to it. As Curtis said about Jim, it's not about you. It's about a feeling of insecurity and the compulsion to elevate her image by lowering the image of others in her eyes. It's not personal. You're just the target du jour. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Judy sighed when I sent a lovely passage from G. Spencer Brown whose book is not called Laws of Form for nothing. I take it that she didn't get it my point in quoting that passage, so I'll try to spell it out in concrete and simple terms. We take as given the idea of distinction is the way the man begins his mathematical treatise, a work of great depth and beauty, of which Alan Watts says, No one else has gone down to the very roots of thinking like this. Now, why that first distinction is made is called the original mystery, but once it is made (as in the Big Bang, for instance), all that it is not stands implied. This is sufficient to explain the orderliness of this or any other universe. a delia555 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: the question is, *why* is the universe apparently orderly? Religionists say, That's just how God designed it. Science says, That's just how it is. Religionists?? No, that's just monotheists. Let's not confuse monotheism with all religion. Judy wrote: They're identical, actually, in that neither answers the why? question. *Why* did God design the universe to be orderly? But those are two very different why questions. Asking why the Goddess designed the universe to be orderly is a question about the intentions and emotions and motivations of a conscious and intelligent personal entity. Asking what physical causal factors there might be is an entirely different why question. Just how it is and Just how God designed it are synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how God designed it; how God designed it is how it is. There's no information content in either statement. You could say that from *one* perspective -- namely, the perspective of science -- those two statements are similar (not identical) in that either answer takes the question out of the realm of science. In that way, both make it clear that the question has now become irrelevant to science. From any *other* perspective, though, there is still a *huge* difference between those two viewpoints. The difference is in the presence or absence of a conscious intelligent causative agent. As an analogy, say somebody in your tribe just drops dead one day. Nobody knows why, and there is not the medical skill to find out what happened via an autopsy. However, there are two major kinds of possibility: Either it just happened (stroke, heart attack, etc.) or else SOMEBODY killed them (poison, hexing, etc.) In neither case will it be possible to figure out what happened; and if it was a murderer, it's not possible to know what their emotional motivation was. But it makes an immense difference to people whether it happened due to natural physical causes, or whether it was the conscious intent and deliberate actions of a person. The difference between cosmology by accident versus cosmology by intelligent design is obviously similar. It would make a huge difference to most people. The only sense in which it makes no difference is that either possibility removes the question from the proper domain of science. (Something that more scientists need to realize; as they are all too prone to invade the turf of religion.) My point is that they're effectively the same thing because they add nothing to our knowledge of how the laws came to be. Designed versus not designed is obviously irrelevant. Again - it's irrelevant only to *science*. That is what I assume you're getting at by saying that they add nothing to our knowledge of how the laws came to be. But from any other viewpoint -- say, that of philosophy or religion or psychology -- there is obviously a *huge* difference between a universe that happened by accident, or by some unknown physical causation, or by the conscious intent of a divine creator, or by the unconscious actions of a deity, or by some other metaphysical mode of causation. Here I must again interject how weary I am, as a Pagan, to continually see this issue framed in monotheistic terms; and not just monotheism but the whole western philosophy kit-and-kaboodle of a rational creator and etc. That is only one possible way that a deity might bring forth the cosmos, out of hundreds or thousands (or more) kinds of metaphysical possibilities. In Wicca, the usual cosmology is that the Goddess gave birth to the cosmos, after having been fertilized with the seed of the Horned God, in an act of divine loving Eros. (The big bang.) You could certainly call that an act of divine creation; and we do indeed refer to the Goddess as the Creatrix of the cosmos. However, it was not anything like a conscious and intentional engineering project to design the cosmos in all its detail; just as a pregnant mother does not design the fetus in her womb, the way it's formed is due to other factors of Nature. So
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:34 PM, new.morning wrote: ...by the bye, OMGAkashaNewMonitor, I seem to remember that you recently claimed you found me boring I did just get a new monitor. How did you know? That omniscience is really kicking into high gear. That's just a warm-up for Rory and Jim, new. Just wait until they start cognizing your pst lives. Bet you didn't realize you were Eva Braun, following the charismatic Hitler...? :) Just how were those summers in Berchtesgaden, anyway? I believe I did, I believe I do at times. It was not an absolute statement. It should be, IMO. How you and Curtis manage the patience to wade through their insufferably boring tracts is truly beyond me. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either trivial, not clear or no point at all! --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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? 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. 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. 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. Surely he gets it, why does he think the laws of physics are due to an external agency? 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. Nobody declared anything, it's all been painstakingly worked out and it isn't finished. 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. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Peter wrote: By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either trivial, not clear or no point at all! Post of the week--I think you've just given a perfect description of most of the discussions on FFL, Peter. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant. authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Then you should have. authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant. Uh, that isn't what I pointed out to you, Angela. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
I stopped when you took me to task for it. You were right to do so. authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you should have. If you think credentials are irrelevant, why do you keep making such a big deal of yours? (BTW, if you'd been following the thread, you'd know I raised the credentials issue only because hugheshugo was apparently under the mistaken impression that Davies wasn't a scientist at all.) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician) in response to the Davies piece, Judy assumed I had not read the thing. My comment was that it is absurd to posit something outside of the universe. So maybe a longer quote from Spence Brown will make my point clearer. This work was published in 1969: Returning, briefly, to the idea of existential precursors, we see that if we accept their form as endogenous to the less primitive structure identified, in present-day science, with reality, we cannot escape the inference that what is commonly now regarded as real consists, in its very presence, merely of tokens or expressions. And since tokens or expressions are considered to be OF some (other) substratum, so the universe itself, as we know it, may be considered to be an expression of a reality other than itself. Let us then consider, for a moment, the world as described by the physicist. It consists of a number of fundamental particles which, if shot through their own space, appear as waves, and are thus...of the same laminated structure as pearls or onions, and other wave forms called electromagnetic which it is convenient, by Occam's razor, to consider as travelling through space with a standard velocity. All these appear bound by certain natural laws which indicate the form of their relationship. Now the physicist himself, who describes all this, is, in his own account, himself constructed of it. He is, in short, made of the a conglomeration of the very particulars he describes, no more, no less, bound together by and obeying such general laws as he himself has managed to find and to record. Thus we cannot escape the fact that the world we know is constructed in order (and thus in such a way as to be able) to see itself. This is indeed amazing. Not so much in view of what it sees, although this may appear fantastic enough, but in respect of the fact that in CAN see AT ALL. But IN ORDER to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which seems, and at least one other state which is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it sees is ONLY PARTIALLY itself. We may take it that the world undoubtedly is itself (i.e., is indistinct from itself), but, in any attempt to see itself as an object, it must, equally undoubtedly, act* so as to make itself distinct from, and therefore false to, itself. In this condition it will aways partially elude itself. It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or why the world conceives a desire, and discovers an ability, to see itself, and appears to suffer the process. That it does so is sometimes called the original mystery. Perhaps, in view of THE FORM in which WE presently TAKE ourselves TO EXIST, the mystery ARISES FROM our insistence on FRAMING a question where there is, in reality NOTHING to question. However it may appear, if such desire, ability, and sufferance be granted, the sate or condition that arises as an outcome is, according to the laws here formulated, absolutely unavoidable. In this respect, at least, there is no mystery. We, as universal representatives CAN record universal law far enough to say and so on, and so on you will eventually construct the universe, in every detail and potentiality, as you know it now; but then, again, what you will construct will not be all, for by the time you will have reached what now is, the universe will have expanded into a new order to contain what will then be. In this sense, in respect of its own information, the universe MUST expand to escape the telescope through which we, who are it, are trying to capture it. which is us. The snake eats itself, the dog chases its tail. Thus the world, when ever it appears as a physical universe*, must always seem to us, its representatives, to be playing a kind of hide-and-seek with itself. What is revealed will be concealed, but what is concealed will again be revealed. And since we ourselves represent it, this occultation will be apparent in out life in general, and in our mathematics in particular 1* I can't reproduce the Greek letters of the footnote on act. In English transliteration it is Agonistes = actor, antagonist. Spencer Brown comments: We may note the identity of action with agony. 2* Unus = one, vertere = turn. Any given (or captivated) universe is what is seen as teh result of ma making of one turn, and thus IS APPEARANCE of any first distinctionm, and onlyt a minor aspect of all being, apparent and non-apparent. Its particularity is the price we pay for its visibility. delia555 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Paul Davies and his essay for the NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 I'd take exception to a number of things that Paul Davies said in this article. Physics does not accept the universality and immutability of physical laws on faith. It's an empirical observation
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic Jackpot: (subtitle here). --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. What physicists mean is that there is no reason the laws of physics are any particular way other than that if they were different the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they simply are as they are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti- reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality the laws of physics only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality. Read the whole essay: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One reader review quotes the last paragraph of the book: Perhaps we have reached a fundamental impasse dictated by the limitations of the [waking state]human intellect. There we go! Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of science course. To me he appears to be reifying the laws of physics. That is he's separating the physical universe from the laws that describe these relationships. The laws of physics are not things, they are higher-order explanations of ontological facts. Since we never have all the facts, the laws evolve over time as more and more facts are discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just don't get his point. --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. What physicists mean is that there is no reason the laws of physics are any particular way other than that if they were different the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they simply are as they are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti- reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality the laws of physics only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality. Read the whole essay: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
It is for the sake of the mystery that Meister Eckhart said, I pray to God that he may quit me of God. curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question. This is the most interesting part of it for me, facing the mystery. I know some Christian monks who would be comfortable with your equating God with mystery. Like Churchill's quote which I have heard them use in this context It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. It sort of Vedanta level Christianity. But for the most part I think religious people think that the word God and his revealed intentions in scripture have replaced the mystery with certain knowledge. This is completely different than letting it be a mystery. Ayn Rand's primacy of existence focuses on this area a bit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. His point is that science takes the existence of immutable physical law as a given, just as religionists take the immutable Word of God in their scriptures as a given. That's what he says is an absurdity. I am tying to understand his point about science taking immutable laws as a given. I see it Richard's way so far. I don't see why this assumption is necessary. Practically speaking physicist don't test to see if gravity has changed each and every day. They may be relying on a working assumption that this law hasn't changed lately, but if it does and someone discovers that new law science will move with the new information. Science is uncovering how stuff operates. The assumption that stuff operates under laws isn't really necessary. But so far it seems as if there are predicable laws. His interjection of the question why into this observation is either going over my head (I don't get his point yet) or under my head (he is misapplying the word to an area of life where the word why is linguistically inappropriate). He makes the point in that piece that if the laws aren't immutable, there must be some higher-order law determining in what ways they are *not* immutable, a meta-law, so you just move the question up a level. In other words, whether the laws we have discerned are immutable isn't his point; it's why there should be any laws in the first place. As I said to Peter, if you ask religionists why there are laws, they'll tell you it's because that's how God designed the universe. If you ask scientists, they'll say, That's just the way it is. What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
That's the problem then. The universe either includes all, or it ain't the universe. G. Spencer Brown puts it well in his Laws of Form: It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or why the world conceives a desire, and discovers an ability, to see itself, and appears to suffer the process. That is does so is sometimes called the original mystery. Perhaps in view of the form in which we presently take ourselves to exist, the mystery arises from our insistence on framing a question when there is, in reality, nothing to question. That last sentence is especially interesting in that he italicizes certain words, which I'll capitalize: Perhaps in view of THE FORM in which WE presently TAKE ourselves TO EXIST, the mystery ARISES FROM our insistence on FRAMING a question when there is, in reality, NOTHING. to question. If you take those words out of the sentence, you get: The form we take to exist arises from framing nothing. authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what he means by an external agency. Where is there an agency external to the universe? (a) God, or (b) laws of nature. Probably would be clearer if you read the article we're talking about, yes? I'd bet more than a buck that the answer involves consciousness. Funny, that's what I just said I'd bet that the answer involves. Oh, wait, you said *more* than a buck... snip (I'd bet a buck the explanation he has in mind involves consciousness.) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
