The self-made universe

Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:25 PM by Alan Boyle

Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life – including intelligent life capable of asking that “why” question? Believers simply say that God did it, while scientists are trying to come up with complicated extradimensional multiverse theories to explain our lucky break.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies takes a completely different tack in a new book titled "Cosmic Jackpot." He argues that the cosmos has made itself the way it is, stretching backward in time to the very beginning to focus in on “bio-friendliness.”

Paul Davies heads up the
Beyond Center for
Fundamental Concepts in
Science at Arizona State
University.

Davies admits that the idea has theological overtones - but that's nothing new for the London-born deep-thinker. He's perhaps best-known for provocative books such as "The Mind of God" and "God and the New Physics," and for holding forth on speculative topics such as whether physical constants are actually inconstant.

After years of teaching at universities in Britain and Australia, Davies moved to Arizona just last year to start up Beyond, a research center devoted to fundamental scientific questions: How did the universe begin? How did life arise? Where do humans fit into the grand scheme? What does it all mean?

"We've been up and running for only about three months, so it’s early days," he told me Wednesday. "But we have high hopes that this will become one of the world’s leading think tanks for confronting these foundational questions."

He's currently on a cross-country tour to promote the book; on Wednesday, he lectured at George Mason University near Washington, D.C., and tonight he's giving a talk in "the other Washington," at Town Hall Seattle (and I'm planning to see him there). During a half-hour telephone interview, Davies touched upon his key theme of the universe's curious bio-friendliness. Here are excerpts from the conversation:

Cosmic Log: Why is the universe bio-friendly? Is it intelligent design, or blind chance, or none of the above?

Davies: There are three popular responses to the fact that the universe does seem to be weirdly fine-tuned for life. And I think all three are found wanting.

The three are the intelligent-design argument; the idea that if we had a final theory of physics, then all of the undetermined parameters in the laws would be fixed by that theory; and the third is the multiverse – the notion that there is a multiplicity of universes, with laws that vary from one to the other.

I think all three of these explanations are found wanting – and I have my own preferred view, which is that the universe has engineering its own bio-friendliness through a sort of feedback loop that operates in both directions in time.

Q: You’ve noted that some experiments have already been conducted – John Wheeler’s experiment in backward causality, for example. And there’s another experiment that the University of Washington’s John Cramer has been hoping to conduct, although he doesn’t seem to have the money to do that quite yet. Are those the sorts of experiments that can shed light on the type of phenomenon you’re talking about?

A: Yes, there are many examples of what you call backward causation. You have to be very careful about the use of that term, because the sort of experiments that I discuss in the book can’t be used to send information back in time. The essence of quantum physics is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. This operates in both directions in time to prepare a state now. The situation in the future is uncertain, but the situation in the past was uncertain, too.

In the conventional way of conducting a quantum experiment, you prepare an initial state and you make some sort of measurement on it as it relates to time. But in the case of applying quantum physics to the universe as a whole, that’s not really an appropriate way to look at it – because we don’t know what the initial state of the universe was, and we certainly can’t prepare it. We make observations now, and we infer things about the past.

The best way of thinking of this is that in quantum mechanics, many different possibilities combine together to form an amalgam, and the present state of the universe is made up of all of the possible past histories that amalgamate together, to give us what we observe. So if we think of the universe as this multiplicity of histories, we must obviously restrict ourselves only to those histories that give rise to life and observers, because that’s the universe that we’re in.

In essence, what happens when we make measurements or observations of the universe today, we’re resolving some of the quantum ambiguity that exists in the past, as part and parcel of quantum uncertainty. Stephen Hawking has made this very explicit just in the last few months in a paper published with Thomas Hertog, in which he says that the way to apply quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole is to project backwards in time from our present observations. This brings in the role of the observer in a very fundamental way.

So although it looks like this is being couched in the language of backward causation – that what is happening now is somehow affecting the past – it’s entirely in accordance with our understanding of quantum mechanics. There’s nothing new that’s being included here. Einstein expressed it very well: He said quantum mechanics is a form of ghostly action at a distance. Well, action at a distance can be action through time as well. The one goes with the other. This action goes both forward in time and backward in time. Quantum mechanics naturally links past and future, and different points in space.

Once you’ve got that linkage, you have the basis for the universe being able to engineer its own bio-friendliness through this sort of quantum feedback.

Q: We should probably spend a little more time on that idea, and the popular notion that this opens the way for backward time travel – the paradox that says you could go back and kill your grandfather before your father was born. Such ideas may hint at the scientific reality, and make for a great movie, but might not completely reflect the truth.

A: We’re not talking about time travel here. We’re not talking about changing the past, or sending information back into the past. We’re talking about merely using the existing quantum ambiguity. When we make observations, we in part resolve some of the ambiguities that are inherent in the system.

I’ll give you an example: You prepare an atom in a particular state, moving in a certain way perhaps, and quantum mechanics tells you that at a later time that atom can have a variety of behaviors. When we make observations at that later time, you find one particular behavior. You’ve resolved that ambiguity that was inherent in the initial quantum state. But this goes back in time as well, and when we make observations today, they can resolve ambiguities about the past.

In that manner, what we must imagine is that the origin of the universe is an amalgam of realities, and only those realities that lead to observers who can resolve those ambiguities are going to be selected for. So the universe can engineer its own bio-friendliness, because the very observers who arise at a later stage are those who project out from the bio-friendly histories. The universe explains observers, and observers explain the universe.

Although this sounds very radical, it’s a very old idea. It goes back at least 30 years to the work of John Wheeler. A number of other well-known physicists – including Hawking, and Murray Gell-Mann and Jim Hartle – have suggested something similar. I’m here at George Mason University with Yakir Aharonov, who is also suggesting something similar. He calls it the destiny wave function from the future.

These are just ways of reformulating standard quantum mechanics to bring out in a dramatic way the fact that you can’t chop time up into slices and expect them not to be connected. What’s happening now links back to the past just as it links to the future. And in quantum mechanics, there’s always such a clever mechanism that there is no way of using this to send information back in time or change the past.

Q: Right, and you’re not talking about some super-intelligent being who is able to engineer the past by going backward.

A: Some people have suggested that. They have suggested that cosmic bio-friendliess is precisely due to some super-intelligence that went back in time and fixed up their own power, or something like that. Or that a super-intelligence in another universe created this universe with bio-friendly parameters. All of those things have been tried – all wildly conjectural, of course. But what I find lacking in all of those theories, including the more conventional intelligent-design argument, is that they appeal to something outside the universe that has to be accepted as given and cannot be proved. I’d like to try to explain as much of the universe, including its bio-friendly laws of physics, from within the universe – and in a way that doesn’t appeal to something outside of it.

Even standard physics says the laws of physics are friendly for no reason, but have just been imprinted upon the universe at the time of the big bang from without, by some unknown mechanism. Again, the argument makes an appeal to something outside the universe, instead of something intrinsic to it.

Q: In the book you mentioned that Hawking’s scenario calls for the origin of the universe to be fuzzy in a quantum way. There’s not necessarily some sort of “hard start” for the universe.

A: Right. Once you apply quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole, everything becomes fuzzy. But I want to go beyond ordinary quantum fuzziness, which I think needs an additional step, and introduce fuzziness into the laws themselves.

Most people think that although you have many quantum histories, you’ve got the same underlying physical laws. But I argue in the book that we should abandon the notion of fixed, fundamental laws and instead advance the notion that the laws themselves have a fuzziness or ambiguity. We can still appeal to this feedback mechanism that we and others – Cramer as well – have introduced from quantum mechanics, but extend it to the laws as well as the states of the universe. So that’s the radical step: the idea that there are fuzzy laws as well as fuzzy states.

Q: And as physicists observe the operation of those laws, there is some decoherence going on? And that’s what makes the laws seem to be firmly set laws?

A: Well, I wouldn’t use the term “decoherence” because that has a specific connotation, connected with the quantum superposition. It is that there is an inherent fuzziness in the very mathematical nature of the laws, which is time-dependent.

If I can back up and tell you where all this comes from, the traditional notion of the laws of physics is that these are absolute, universal, immutable, mathematical relationships existing in some Platonic realm which transcends the physical universe, in some realm of mathematical forms. The orthodox interpretation of the laws is that are these infinitely precise external entities. But increasing numbers of theoretical physicists have an entirely different take on the nature of the laws of physics, which is that they are more like software being run on the great quantum computer called the universe.

So we think of the universe as an information-processing system, a gigantic computer, and the laws of physics are simply the algorithm that is being run.

Q: And we all know that the answer to the ultimate question is 42.

A: Right, heh. Anyone who’s got a computer knows that all real computers are limited in resources and processing speed, and the universe is no exception. We can work out the information-processing capacity of the universe. It’s finite – and it comes out with a very big number, about 10¹²². That number is so big that for almost all practical purposes, it makes no difference whether we think of Mother Nature commandeering this finite-resourced computer, or whether Mother Nature computes in the Platonic heaven with infinite precision.

There are certain senses in which there is a difference – including senses we can experiment with in the lab right now. But the significant thing is that in the past, the number was much smaller. When you go back to the time when the structure of the universe was being laid down – the time of inflation, 10^-34 seconds, the bits that the universe would have contained was only about 10²⁰. So if we restrict our description of the laws of physics to have that accuracy – one part in 10²⁰ – then that starts to become significant.

NASA / WMAP

A sky map from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe shows minute variations in temperature that
were caused by "ripples" in the early universe.

The image that we have of the laws of physics is that at the beginning, they are completely fuzzy and indeterminate and unfocused. Then, as the universe expands and its information capacity rises, the laws become meaningfully focused. It simply has no meaning to apply laws of physics to more precision than the entire universe itself could actually compute to. In this view, the laws focus in from this “higgledy-piggledy origin,” as John Wheeler says.

Then the issue we are confronted with is, why do the laws focus in on this bio-friendly set? That’s where we get this feedback loop. Once you concede that the laws themselves has this wiggle room, because of the finite capacity of the universe, then the way lies open for the universe to engineer these bio-friendly parameters through this feedback loop.

Q: One of the issues you’ve been looking at over the years is the intersection of science and religion. Do you find that these new ideas – about the cosmic landscape, for example, or the quantum nature of the universe – are informing religious or spiritual thought as well?

A: Well, they clearly impacted greatly, because we’re talking about why the universe looks like it’s been fixed up for habitation. For most people, the first interpretation is, “Well, God did it.” What I’m saying is that that gets us nowhere at all. It just shoves the problem off to some other realm. But saying “God did it” is no worse than saying “the laws of physics did it.” They both basically appeal to something outside the universe.

The problem with saying God did it is that God himself or herself is unexplained, so you’re appealing to an unexplained designer. It doesn’t actually explain anything; it just shoves the problem off. But to say that the laws of physics just happen to permit life is no explanation either.

What I’m trying to do is to go beyond this rather sterile back-and-forth between religion and science on these ultimate questions. We’re trying to come up with a new set of ideas, in which we try to let the universe engineer its own bio-friendliness. So we try to find the explanation from within the universe. Now, that’s perfectly consistent with having a universe that has some sort of deeper meaning or purpose, but that meaning or purpose is intrinsic to it. It’s not imposed upon it by an external deity. So these ideas obviously have theological implications.

For more about the big questions in cosmology, check out our "Beyond the Big Bang" online tutorial. And feel free to add your own comments – but this time, please refrain from taking shots at the comments of others.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

What an incredible bit of tortured conjecture to deny God. Just another example of people who refuse to believe even though the odds and facts overwhelmingly point to a creator. God must just shake his head at the obtuseness of man and laugh.

patrick (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 11:41 AM)

Mortal man will never know the secret of the universe, but maybe he can come close. God said behold man has become like us etc. but we haven't the mind of God so we will never be able to completely figure it all out. One thing will always lead another. People say there is no need for God with Brane theory, so where did the branes come from and so on. I think it amazing that God said I am the light. If the Big Bang is correct what did the universe consist of in the beginning? It consisted of pure light and that is what all things are made of, condensed light. Remember the Transfiguration of Christ when he gave Peter a preview of the second coming, Christ shone like the sun. Time is something that people stumble over God says that a day to him can be like a thousand years. I belive it could even be that a day could even be a million years or even a billionth of a second to God, even to us time is relative. I like the holographic theory of the universe which should in theory let you see back in time or into the future since even the smallest part of the universe contains the whole and time is more of an illusion than an demension. To Byron Raum. Everything in this universe is science, there is no such thing as pseudo-science!

Robert Murdock Alto Texas (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 12:24 PM)

Isn't this theory of backward causation nothing more than the ultimate spin-doctoring on the origins of the universe? We've known for a long time that the presence of the observer determines what is observed, so what's the news here? Davies' study seem to shed more light on the role of the observer than actually telling us anything new about how the universe came to be the way it is.

Aaron McCarroll Gallegos, Toronto, Ontario (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 12:26 PM)

Why doesn't God strike down those heretics and unbelievers who say such blasphemous things?! Could it possibly be because he, she, it does not exist? Or could care less even if he did?

CT (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 12:44 PM)

While reading this great article, Mr. Davies, WOW, I couldn't help but equate the life of the universe to that of the human, at the cellular level.

Take the birth of the human and observe at different ages the human at the cellular level, can you see how it equates to our universe itself, an understanding of it?

The stage of observation will produce different results. When the big picture of the entire organism is known all the observed stages make more since and the algorithm of its life can be found and even manipulated.

Monique, Knoxville, TN (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 12:48 PM)

I am the first to admit that most of what is talked about here is somewhat over my head. I don't know if we are the only universe or if there are multiple universes, parallels, etc. I keep coming back to the same question: atoms/molecules/building blocks of the universe, in my humble opinon, just don't come into existence suddenly by themselves; they just don't pop up by themselves out of nothing and say here we are -"let's start building a universe". There has to be a starting point at some time, something/Someone that created these particles. What existed prior? Blackness/Nothingness? It boggles the mind in spite of all the theories proposed. To me it all leads back to some kind of Divine Intervention - some powerful omnipotent Entity had to have created this universe, provided some "spark" to set events in action.

Don, Nashville (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 1:07 PM)

you know what, this is a really crazy subject. But what i feel as my own opinion, the way i feel about the matter is that when i think hard of why we are here. It really is difficult to process that in your mind!!!

Because if we wasn't, i wouldnt even be typing this message. so my belief is that we are not meant to know and therefore the religions, the imagination into why we are here, how the universe was created make us think of a theory that we cant prove or
provide data. i therefore conclude that something bigger than us put all TOGETHER!! They want to Keep it that way.

patrick, leeds, uk (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 1:32 PM)

This whole thing gives me a headache.

Tom Berry, Winterset, Iowa (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 1:47 PM)

To Patrick: 04-20-2007 11.41AM

Sorry but there was nothing denying GOD. Davies spoke from a physicist viewpoint.

I interpreted him as saying that as a scientist to use something that doesn't have a physical element that is defined and observable doesn't make sense when you're defining something physical.

GOD and even some of the laws of physics doesn't provide answers, they rather shuck the buck to the unknown and science can not do this to be correct with its answers.

Use what is known and/or observable to find answers to what is unknown. All of science found discoveries this way. Everything we discover was already physcially there, it took what we did know to find the physical discoveries of what we had yet to physically know.

There is no denial of GOD when doing this. GOD, for now, is a spiritual belief. A physical knowledge of GOD doesn't exist or hasn't been proved to exist. In order for science to provide correct answers we need to use the physical. Atoms are physical, we can physically show their existence with instrumentation and use this to conduct scientific inquiry to find answers.

For me, the physical existence of GOD will be proved by using/observing the known physical elements that do exist, we haven't discovered the needed physical yet for this answer.

Science finds answers through observation, how can you observe GOD(scientifically) without physical elements?

Many of the most advanced scientific minds believe and have faith in a Higher Being, a GOD, but science is not based on this sort of faith or belief, science learns from the physically observable. This in no way denies GOD existence.

MB (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 2:01 PM)

I read the interview and comments hoping for a small sign that when I'm gone I will still be able to know that which is me. I found the certainty of those with faith in God beautiful. I found the certainty of those with faith in science beautiful. I even found the humor, cynicism, hope, and the brave, differential positioning of perspective heartwarming and fun to read. I was proud that I belonged to such a thoughtful and caring species after reading the comments. I look forward to knowing what's next when I die, assuming, of course, that there is something to know and that the desire to know something, and knowing that something, is more than an artifact of the selection process for some variation or another in one of our ancestors.

John White, Yuma, Arizona (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 2:16 PM)

Help! Everywhere I look quantum wave functions are collapsing!

Steve, Tulsa Oklahoma (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 2:31 PM)

This appears to say that the universe is as it is because that's the way it is. Fascinating.

Bruce Parker, Woodstock, NY (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 2:43 PM)

TO JC from Fairbanks Alaska.. I would hope to not have you assume that things that are out of context with the discussion would sway you to have a period of inattention to my small tasking lesson.I of course believe that the technical sciences that are invention based are transmitted to the best of everyones ability. One should ponder of course why the spin is incursed into the DNA helix,and why our body has field strength and where this field strength has its origins.And of course why is it that our nerve frequency can be measured at 44.6 KHZ? And why is it that the same frequency will split apart hydrogen and oxygen to a gas that burns?The aetheric force is the answer to the previous statements of processes on this Big Blue Marble and the rest of our universe.The aether (electrical force if you will) comes in attached to the gases and is drawn into our earth's center.The oxygen with its aetheric component attaches is brought through the lungs of mammals and gives us our oxygen and the field our nervous system runs on. Astronauts don't do as well in space because of this fact.We have that cymatic grid I spoke to in my quick post that is the process of our gases and motor of our planet.When we have an energetic field perturb that grid system ,that grid is energized to a higher power input,simple as that.Our 11 year solar cycle is a periodic perturbation as are cometary showers.So you see the when we have a long term energetic anomaly that perturbs that system that has involved our planet for many years now,we have bad weather and magma heating that the climate guys are teaching as a green house process from human contribution of C02 because they have not had the pleasure of understanding how our planet and universe goes forth and so my chastisement to them stands and is proper.Black holes are system grounds sir,simple as that.Aurora are gas frequencies that cann ot reach a ready ground ,so must slowly deplete.Rainbows are bode shorts ,cumulus clouds are built on grid nodes exclusively.Have you ever wondered why the cumulus clouds are rowed up in the sky?? So you see,all of the shenanigans of the "Proper" science men are causing way too many economy problems on this earth of ours and just think of that fact I shared about gases coming in as frequency and oxygen being one of them and go out side and see just how really fresh air is outside of a pollution area where the wind has not swept it away yet and ponder if you will my next bipp to the uninitiated science men which states that the proper conclusion and fact is that plants do not make oxygen from a photosynthesis process,ponder if you will ,the carbohydrate genesis through that plant and the fact that oxygen separates from the aether at ground level and ask yourself how that plant gets rid of its waste processes through the stomata of its leaf. Please process the shared info I gave you and understand this old man,earth scientist that I am has alot more little tasking lessons for those who have a curious nature and the ability to process. pyramid.man@verizon.net

Tom Hughes (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 3:51 PM)

I read quite a few comments asserting that faith in God is no different than "faith" in science. I wanted to address that assertion. I have no quarrel with those who choose to believe that God created the Universe; I am in fact one of them, though I do not purport to know the mechanism through which that feat was accomplished. So I ask questions and look for answers. The problem with a creationist viewpoint is that once the question is answered, the questions stop. "God did it," end of story. Scientists have to perform their work assuming some things are true and building on those axioms. But what differentiates the scientist from the creationist is that he will go back and test the very axioms on which his work was built. When a question is answered in science, it generates more questions. Science, by its very nature, will never provide a completely satisfying explanation for why we're here and how the universe works. But if we stopped asking questions, where would we be as a civilization? Discovery sometimes comes by accident, but most discoveries are made by those asking questions, unsatisfied by the answers available to them, in search of their own answers.

James N., Radford, VA (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 3:56 PM)

I'm puzzled by all this talk about a "bio-friendly" universe, when in fact the universe appears to be 99.9999999999% lifeless. We're a fluke. We're an exception, not the rule. To suggest otherwise is rampant anthropomorphism -- as is this "god" creature people keep going on about -- and killing each other about.

Guy in Illinois (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 4:14 PM)

I like how Scott Seely demonstrates observing a higher dimension order from a lower dimension viewpoint. I wonder how our view would change if we could observe time in a non-linear fashion?

My problem with the Big Bang is this: If we are constantly looking out to the heavens and astronomers are viewing objects that are said to have been created only a few (relative) years after the Big Bang, how are we observing them? In order for the light or radiation or radio-waves to just be reaching us now, we would have had to cross the speed of light at some point in time. Theories supported by laws dictate this is impossible. So, either the theory is wrong (or maybe we did this during that fuzzy law time) or we are not observing what we think we are.

I'm a little shaky on the quantum observation thing though. Sounds like he is saying if I place a glass on a table and come back to observe it later there will be a glass on the very spot I placed it. Since I planned on observing it in the future, and did observe it in the future, my future observation had influence on my past action of placing the glass on the table. Now, if I observe a glass on the table, and I did not place the glass on the table, are you saying that someone placed that glass there because I went to observe it at a future time? Where's that pile of money I planned on observing this afternoon...

JR Pennsylvania (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 4:25 PM)

Yes, a lot of this stuff is hard to comprehend, a mystery, but exciting! I've appreciated C.S. Lewis's ideas on the natural and the supernatural, on the universe, life, creation, God etc. Check out some of his thoughtfully written works, such as Miracles. They might even provide some clarity.

Randy Breedveld (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 4:32 PM)

Harry, you say that science needs to admit their lack of ability to prove something. You say that they need to accept their lack of proof, and yet you believe in a higher power, whos only proof is an old book and the fact that it makes you feel good about yourself. I used to be religious and I personally find much greater comfort in knowing that there is no god.

To patrick: IF there were a god - and I use if in the sense of imagination, not in the actual possibility - to even consider that it would share the same feelings and emotions of humans is ludicrous. Would your god find amusement in knowing that the creatures it created were lost?

As far as overwhelming evidence pointing to a creator... if you show me any REAL evidence, I might be inclined to listen. In my entire life, I have not been shown a single piece of evidence that isn't faith based. You have faith that the bible is right, you have faith that our lack of understanding points god. The most frustrating thing is when someone calls a non-believer uneducated, then quotes the bible like it means more than some words on a page. You point out the ignorance of not knowing and accepting god, but fail to notice the astronomical arrogance of thinking you can comprehend what a god existing would mean.

Daniel Puzzuoli, Toronto Ontario (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 4:35 PM)

I agree with the comments of Robert Brantford from Ontario: "What I want to know is why Davies thinks that biological quantum observers are selectively superior to non-biological quantum observers."

Both organic and inorganic matter cause quantum conditions to clarify themselves. These conditions are solidifying constantly, we just aren't aware of the results of which we haven't taken a measurement. Whether we are talking about quantum conditions or even laws, I’m not sure how one would establish that there is an innate universal preference for living matter to interact with and thus solidify these conditions.

I applaud Davies' scientific rigor in attempting to work with only the observable universe. In this context, a description based on coherentism may seem attractive. I’d be interested to hear what realistic experiments could confirm this world-view.

Christian; Kansas City, MO (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 5:03 PM)

Davies' ideas come down to symantics.

If I freeze time and then notice a bullet mid-flight, I can look back toward the direction it came from and figure out who/what caused it to fly across the room.

There is nothing "Quantum Physics-ish" about that. I'm not looking at how the bullet "resolved ambiguities," I'm just looking at what happened in the past.

Nate, Anacortes, WA (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 5:04 PM)

Can we please once-and-for-all remove all superstition (God/Zeus/Apollo/Baal or any other deity you fancy) from supposedly scientific articles? I know we are fighting a loosing battle with delusionists, but let's not perpetuate these myths... We won the cosmic lottery - if we hadn't, we wouldn't be here.

Karl, Seattle, Washington (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 5:15 PM)

I do believe science and religion will reconcile themselves. But like any two antagonists, forcing them to reconcile is not really a solution.

There are other questions I would like to ask scientists.

-We can see evidence of things existing extra-dimensionally. Can objects exist in one or two dimensions, or even without dimension?

-If they did exist, could we develop the mathmatics to perceive them?

-I've heard it explained that life is nothing but chemical reactions. Most chemical reactions cannot adapt themselves to survive. A fire cannot slow itself down until more fuel is available. Is this purpose, or a form of intelligence, or are we just prejudiced to believe it is?

What I'm trying to get at is, there are things science can't even begin to explain yet and certainly things that religion can't explain. Is it really time to start trying to reconcile the two, or should we keep scientific method and religious thought seperate for now?

There may be something to thinking backwards like this. Like reverse engineering a toaster. If we take it apart and put it back together again, we can find out how it's made. I do think this is a very good way to get new ideas. But imagine if we reverse engineer what we think is a toaster, and it is really a hair dryer? We still can't prove whether life is an end product or a by-product. We don't know if life is a toaster or a hair dryer, so how can we reverse engineer the cosmos from it?

Scott Seely (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 5:30 PM)

Relative to the initial comment in this thread and possibly subsequent ones: The theory of multiple universes (10 to the 500th by current theory?) -- wherein we are the lucky recipients of the kindness of this particular one -- implies statistics. Statistics derives from the activities within this particle-driven universe and would seem to have no independent existence in some equivalent "Platonic forms" realm of mathematics (mathematics itself having been thrown up by this universe, by its matter and interactions thereof, and by human intelligence). It has thus always seemed odd to me to assume that "statistics" can explain anything beyond "this universe". (Such as "the probability is/was/will be that one of the well nigh infinite number of universes would just have to turn out to be supportive of life!"

Dan Ellington (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 5:37 PM)

If there is a concious creator, what did it make everything FROM? Where did IT come from? Just because I REALLY REALLY want a cheeseburger, there still have to be the components OF the cheeseburger there for me to make it.

The universe has no beginning and no end, because matter has no beginning or end. Matter (that which the universe is made from) cannot be created or destroyed it can only change state. The "universe" we are presently able to observe is just all that matter in it's current state. Life is a consequence of the changing states of matter, if not US on THIS planet, then someone else (referring to THEMSELVES as "us") on a different planet. Life happens or doesn't happen, we can observe it because we live, lack of life does not observe itself.

The universe is so huge we really cannot grasp the meaning of that much bigness. The chances of everything/anything happening or having happened in this universe before is 1 to 1. We boggle at the odds of our existance, but we shouldn't. It had to happen somewhere.

Stacey, Gillette, Wyoming (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 5:57 PM)

I like Paul Davies' approach, however, I question his assertion regarding the 'bio-friendliness' of the universe. True bio-friendliness, it seems, would have the universe teeming with biological life forms. So far, it seems, that the only inhabitants are us here on the Earth.

Nevertheless, I especially favor his assertion that the universe is presently running (manifesting) only one variety of 'reality' out of infinite other possibilities.

It seems that since the invention of the lens (telescope) Man has taken not only his curiosity into space but also his paranoia. Paul Davies' approach is much more sane in that it presumes a potentially user-friendly intelligence that is embedded in space-time.

Hey! Speaking of user-friendly (Alan) why not give your grandfather a break (go back in time and kill your grandfather, etc.) and go back in time and buy Microsoft, Casio, Google, Yahoo and Apple stock!

Anyhow, Paul Davies thread of investigation is right on-point from a metaphysical perspective. The key is the ancient adage "As Above, So Below", meaning that the human being is a microcosm of the universe who is embedded with an intelligence that can transform 'reality' and is capable of running different 'operating systems'. Essentially the dichotomy is matter/form (experience) on one side and spiritual/intellect (commanding) on the other.

The most promising possibility, as stated by Davies is the notion that there is a multiplicity of universes, with laws that vary from one to the other. "The universe is infinite and is composed of infinite realities that obey infinite physical laws that vary within the infinite dimensions".
(From, http://www.templeofsolomon.org/
Quantum_Thought.htg/thought.htm ) .
The ultimate issue is 'how can we navigate to and experience these different dimensions'? How is it that we can get free of the laws that govern this dimension and enter into the infinite?

So far this (inter–dimensional travel) has been the exclusive 'realm' of religion, metaphysics and science fiction. Legitimate scientific inquiry is a welcome companion that can add (perhaps) a fresh approach to breaching the barriers between successive 'realities'.

John Charles Webb, Jr. (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 6:06 PM)

If I understand this anywhere approaching correctly, the laws of physics evolved with the universe? Is that it? If so are we observers at this point in time and subject to laws as they stand now?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 6:23 PM)

I'm in partial agreement with Scott Seely. If Occam's razor is to be followed (simplest explanation is usually the correct one), and our perceptions tell us that energy and matter can't be created/destroyed, merely interchanged, then the simplest explanation is that there was no creation and there won't be an ultimate destruction. Things just are. Forever. Period. How simple is that? Just because we're born and die doesn't mean that the parts that make us us won't be around forever.

I think our perceptions of things like the Big Bang and increasing Entropy are just products of the small part of the universe we're in (which, if infinity is to be believed, has no end).

Does the universe really have "boundaries" or are we just limited to viewing things out to a certain distance of light-years?

I don't know if there is a God, and frankly, I don't care. Think of all the things we applied a God to, and then we found out the reasons why they happened, and God wasn't DIRECTLY involved (maybe indirectly through a means we can't prove).
At this point, Occam's razor tells me that man created God. I'll never belong to a religion. Why use a crutch when I can walk just fine? There are things beyond a limited idea like God.

When the ship I'm on is going down, I won't be looking for something I can't see to save me. I'll try to save myself. Willpower can demolish a God, any day, and I'll take my chances with myself and infinity. It'll all come back around sometime, and where I died, I might live the next time.

Patrick, Davis, CA (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 7:24 PM)

Interesting theory, and it makes sense, although I think it would work best if it's combined with the multiverse theory.

Oh and as a reply to Brett Johnston post about does one person's life matter? It does. The proof is in the Butterfly Effect, where one seemingly insignificant detail can change the whole course of events.

James Monday, Chicago, Illinois (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 8:36 PM)

If you measure the universe, with the King's foot, it is going to turn out, looking a little bit like the King, or if you measured it with a piece of string, with knots every centimeter, then it would begin to look a little stringe, we have to do things like mother nature, look at the most complex thing in the universe, the brain, it don't look like it was made with a ruler, and no binary code, if we don't get rid of the numbers, it will always look like it was made with us in mind.

John Brady Hamilton Ontario (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 9:07 PM)

Based on the VT killings and the moon, I don't see the universe being all that comfortable for life.

john doe (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 9:38 PM)

If the universe is a computer running an adaptive learning algorithm, with our luck, we are probably trapped in a beta version caught in an endless loop which may require a reboot.

Michael Gareri (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 10:43 PM)

Good blog, Alan! Reading all these entries opens one's mind wonderfully. It would seem that a lot of respondents mix 'hard science' and 'soft philosophy' and end up with confused ideologies. I am not a mathematician nor a great mind, but I believe fervently in certain things, based on a particular type of logic. Gravity, for instance, becomes the fabric of the universe, existing between all things, weakly, but able to exert great power because of its constancy. Under this logic, the other three forces (weak atomic force, strong atomic force, and electromagnetism) are connected to each other within gravity, but not to gravity itself, precluding the search for TOE as we have it already.

I know Chris E. holds to a belief in extra dimensions, but my logic says it ain't so. Only three dimensional objects can exist in our space,using up the available dimensions in that existence. Under that logic, the universe was condensed by gravity into a step beyond a black hole until inward pressure from gravity was overcome by outward pressure from within the particularity and the Big Bang occurred. When the universe has expanded to the limits of that pressure it will start to condense again beyond the black hole and then start the Big Bang again.

In religion, the universe (and us) is physical, but God is considered pure spirit only, existing outside of time and space (extra-dimensional, I guess) and therefore not subject to the laws of these three dimensions.

This is getting very long and boring, so I'll stop here.

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 11:24 PM)

It's ok to call intelligent design a theory. But to try to put at the same level as a scientific theory is to lack intelligence. Cause religion or the bible does not explain anything about the universe. The bible its so lacking in knowledge that I haven't seen in my whole live a western countries that use the bible to answer any of the questions about the origin of the universe or live on the planet and elsewhere. Had the bible has the answer to all the questions and the necesary information to teach the basics of survival to the people, not to mention that refering to the bible and takin the god that is mentioned therein, as the source of the creation of the universe, is to be limited minded.

El Canemo (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 12:13 AM)

Davies uses an anthropomorphic word "engineers" for something "the universe" does. An unfortunate choice, IMO. Either ultimate reality is personal or it is impersonal. If you are going to be a materialist, then don't use anthropomorphisms.

If some force like gravity, perhaps over vast or extremely small distances and time, results in some type of self-organization, then where does it fit with entropy? And why doesn't some of that ever drop into my sock drawer or garage?! Seriously, the questions he raises are worth asking, but how do you test at horizons that are so far away from where we live? He's thinking outside the box, where all innovation and discovery happen and we should encourage that.

But I agree as some have said, that fuzzy laws are more wordgames than so-called natural science. It means that these patterns we call laws apply, except beyond our experience, where they don't.

A-All-righty then! I'm always amazed when folks get all riled over the intrusion of "religion" into "science". Cosmology has always lived at the interface between the two, so deal with it! What is science? What are scientific laws? It's just another word for knowledge. There aren't two kinds of knowledge, scientific and religious. Everything we know is what patterns we recognize in observed phenomena.

The question always come down to the "reality" of the phenomenon and the accuracy of the observation. We are very limited. The universe is vastly greater than we are or ever will be, and always will be, no matter how much we try. Our brains, senses and tools are restricted to a very narrow band of what is. Our cognition is based from infancy on association, relating what we see to a library of increasingly complex archetypes or models built from prior experience. Language allows us to share them - amazing. Mathematics, a symbolic discipline of logic, has allowed us to extrapolate beyond even these - astonishing! So thinking about things outside our four-dimensional experience can only go as far as the richness of the models we've built within our little four-space brains, and the discipline we exercise to build new models to fit the observed phenomena.

So what I'm saying is that all scientific laws are fuzzy (read LIMITED, CONTEXTUAL). They only go as far as we have gone, so to speak because they are a human product.

Case in point: the physicists and mathematicians have concluded that to unify the physical forces requires at least 10 dimensions. We know so little about the four where we live, and next to nothing about the next six, and who knows how many are beyond that and what they hold? So do we throw in the slide rule and call it a day? Nah, what fun is that? DO YOUR MATH HOMEWORK and keep exploring!

Oh, yeah, there is one more possible source of knowledge: revelation. If someone outside our tiny corner of what is were to communicate with us telling us about what lies beyond us, someone, say, 8- or 15-dimensional, it would probably seem to be REALLY strange and not make much sense because of the context of the meaning, but still have an uncanny appeal, a "ring of truth". Kinda like, y'know, religion.

Dave Hamner, Silver Lake, OH (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 2:37 AM)

I take exception to the continual reference to the "observer" as the primary effect in collapse of quantum wave function. The primary effect is rather that of "measurement". There is no requirement in the theory or in the experiments for consciousness to be invloved. Indeed, the results of experiments such as two-slit interference tests produce results recorded by physical objects in the absence of an observer until after the fact of the results. Bell's Theorem (or rather the successful refutation of Bell's proposition that "ghostly action at a distance" was not in fact occurring) showed that objects within a system continue to be part of that system despite distance. No system is as closed as a singluarity. The Big Bang was a singluarity. Every part of it interacts with at least some other part, even still. Each would "sense", in effect measure, another part. The universe itself and parts thereof would collapse each other, if for no other reason than that which was the reason the Big bang occurred. Yes, there seems to be a logical error in the last statement. It is due to the lack of an essential reason underpinning both the statement and the hypotheses regarding the reason for the Big Bang itself. The proposed Higgs Boson, broken symmetry, strings and membranes etc. are mechanisms, not explanations. If "it suddenly happend", "it would have sooner or later given infinte possibilities and 'time' to wait for it to" and similar statements are to be taken seriously as reasons, they should be also taken as reasons for the present state of the universe, via Bell's Theorem. As an experimentalist, I find this unsatisfactory, and refer back to the data showing that measurement via interaction of physical objects, not necessarily those exhibiting consciousness, collapse wave functions and lead to existence. That's hard numbers from testable hypotheses. Dr. Davies' position is that of a theorist, which is fine in and of itself. But theorizing should lead to testability. I look forward to suggestions which can differentiate the effects of the universe itself, vs. "observers" with respect to the decision to incorporate anthropomorphization into cosmology. It'd love to put my money where my mouth is, and have applied to the BEYOND foundation in order to do so.

Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:26 AM)

Gentlemen, This BIG BANG nonsense needs to end.Yes there was a big bang 28 thousand ago,and it tore the hell out of our planet with the resultant energy and material from the planetary object that exploded.The planet mars was right in line with that explosion and had its grid annihilated and it water and people depleted.All of the spacey folks are seeing lots of evidence of life,cuz it was there.That was our habitable sister planet.Gentlemen there are many habitable planets and like mars ,they too have a 24 hour day.And as to the statement that says"As above,so below" that simply means that the laws of the universe are in place everywhere,Ya know you boys should read the works of Mr.G.I. Gurdjieff for a start as I did in my twenties to get an idea of the laws of the universe.Gravity is a very simple explanation that few understand,and I assure you it certainly was not mr.Einstein and definitely not Mr. Hawking who understands nothing except the same garbage science that has gone on long enough with your BIG BANG theory that made all of the galaxys of which number approx 30,there have been taskers coming here for centurys from these other systems and if you just go down highway 40 in New Mexico alone and look for the similar types of hills and the red buttes ,you might notice there are similar hills and heights of the red buttes.This planet has been mined for its metals for centurys,simple as that.Those pyramids protocol our grid and ground system,simple as that,only marauders called Egyptians found them handy to de-hydrate things because the A tone does not allow bacteria to propagate well.Sure BIG BANG boys there have been some bangs,and lots of material going all over the place and the anomalie that has been effecting this planet and the other planetary objects is from the 28 thou. ago catastrophe and come back approx every 1050 and beats the hell out of this planet with the grid revv we are experiencing rthat those oh so foolish climate scientists are calling global warming caused by man,not so gentlemen,not so.

Tom Hughes (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:11 PM)

Gentlemen,Another tasking I forgot before closing my last posting,THERE ARE TWO DIMENSIONS ONLY--PHYSICALITY AND HYPERDIMENSION . TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

Tom Hughes (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:15 PM)

Of interest was Davies drawing the likeness between traditional religious and scientific explanation. At their root they are systematic tries of explaining the hows and whys the world is the way it is. Historically, they emerge out of the same source of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophical thought. From the late Middle Ages science gradually emerged out of theology to a point in the 19th and 20th centuries when science superseded it as the primary explination of the world. So it is understandable how science could fall into the same trap as theology. As for me I see physical laws as emergent properties, which evolved as the universe itself developed. For instance, we now know the speed of light has changed overtime. As the universe inflated, parts interact among themselves creating areas or periods of equilibrium and instability. Naturally, the early universe having lost its stable singularity state was notably more unstable. However, the universe became increasingly stable as it matured. The operating principles that serve the basis of that stability we have come to identify as physical laws. Then there is the question of the purpose or meaning of a life compatible universe. It is only now becoming recognized that biology and consciousness are also among these emergent principals and properties. As Carl Sagan stated, it was through us the universe became self-aware. Now that consciousness and intelligence is asking what was it all for. But this question suffers the same failing, as does the notion of intelligent design and classical scientific explanation as identified by Davis. This is because any answer would necessarily fall outside the universe. I agree the question has theological implications, but as theology assumes the existence of god or gods, its roots are not theological. It is more fundamental than that. That is because religious belief is only one possible response to the question. So what is the answer to the question what is the purpose and the meaning of it all. The short answer? There is none. All there is is simply the result of operant physical principles. So, the ‘answer’ to what gives our existence purpose and meaning is not ‘out there’ - it is something that is found only within us.

Robert Wasley, San Francisco, California (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:29 PM)

Why does man hardly recognize the work of God? If man sees a hammer on the road he readily recognize that it is made by someone with intelligence. He knows it did not become a hammer just by chance. If you dump a billion set of alphabet characters on the street, what is the possibility that the wind or any action of nature can create even a simple poem? So even if all the necessary elements are there to create a man, it needs a superintelligent being to create him. I could never believe that we exist just by chance.

Ysmael, Jacksonville, Florida (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:56 PM)

Dennis McC-F presents the scientific method really well, and applies it rigorously to the discussion. Like him, I think 'observers' often have difficulty remembering or utilizing all the 'facts' involved in examining our place in the universe, or in extrapolating those facts into new theories. I'm afraid Dr. Davies sees how well this universe 'fits' us and imputes our existence as a 'cause' for that to have happened rather than as a 'result' of the happenstance that the planet Earth had the correct amounts of water, hydrocarbons, electricity (lightning), etc., by which to conceive life and had the proper amounts later on by which to support that life's development as a result of the evolution of the solar system.

El Canemo dismisses the Bible out-of-hand. He (and a lot of others) could try looking beyond the words alone. The Ten Commandments, for instance, are a familiar icon. But they are easily divided into two groups, the first containing the primary three points of Man's relationship with God, and the second dealing with Man's relationship with People. They call for reverence toward God, and then for respect for all persons from each individual. If indeed the human race lived by the essence therein, we would not have wars, massacres, celebrity fits, or Global Warming caused by the alternate deity, The Bottom Line, otherwise known as Pure Profit.

Des Emery,Th Carborundun Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada (Sent Sunday, April 22, 2007 12:12 AM)

All events in time/space conform to known laws of physical/energy relationship...I.E. there is only one universe we have to be concerned about and we just need to trust that our humanity inhabits the space that most effects us. That said, Einstein stated that E=MC2 therefore according to the principles of Mathmatics E/C2=M or the physical universe! Our universe is the product of a phase change in energy states and it is really a useless exercise to imagine what came before energy: energy simply is, and the outfall of energy is the physical universe as it slows down from it's singularity state of uniformity...so, as the universe ages and slows the result is matter, and Gravity is the God of Matter ergo the physical world we inhabit...Lastly, because humanity posess an electro/magnetic sensing system in the nervous system, we can plug into the energy state which surrounds and bathes us with information, in this way we can see beyond our animal selves and sense the greater universe in a mental configuration that makes sense to us and only us...Get it? We imagine what we can because gravity gave us a place to be rather than being spread atom by atom across space time...(I think)

Dale C. Rice (Sent Sunday, April 22, 2007 2:31 AM)

Isn't the idea that something had to start the universe in motion an assumption as well? I mean, we know that an object that is still has to have a force to act upon it in oreder to set in motion. But, we also know that an object in motion has to have a force act upon it to stop it.

How do we know that being still is the natural state? Perhaps being in motion is the natural state.

Kelly, New Orleans (Sent Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:21 AM)

CHANCE?

Saying, trying to prove, or believing "it all happned by chance" is not the ultimate solution. There are laws of probability. If the probability is not zero, then how large is the non-zero probability and what established this value? If the probability is zero, then something (what we see as real or existing) came from nothing (zero probability). Whence comes the power to make something from nothing (usually the definition of the power needed for ultimate creation)? If the probability is zero, then mathematical infinity must be invoked (scientists usually eschew infinities). In mathematics, zero needs to be multiplied by infinity to result in something different from zero. In mathematics, zero times infinity is said to be indeterminate (it may be zero, finite, or infinite), but often the product can be resolved under specific circumstances. Ultimate resolution for the issue at hand cannot be found by simply invoking chance.

Let's all be happy that "chance" is not the ultimate answer and, therefore, we all can continue to bask in the pleasure of discovering the wonders around and about us including many scientists and others finding how a concept of God helps them to discover wonders in our physical and non-physical universe.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:57 AM)

A Couple Quotes from Dr. Paul Davies "The Mind of God"

(1) A quote by Dr. Davies of Dr. Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would truly know the mind of God."

(2) From Dr. Davies' Preface: "However successful our scientific explanations may be, they always have certain starting assumptions built in. For example, an explanation of some phenomenon in terms of physics presupposes the validity of the laws of physics, which are taken as given. But one can ask where these laws come from in the first place. One could even question the origin of the logic upon which all scientific reasoning is founded. Sooner or later we all have to accept something as given, whether it is God, or logic, or a set of laws, or some other foundation for existence. Thus 'ultimate' questions wll always lie beyond the scope of empirical
science as it is usually defined. --------- Probably there must always be some 'mystery at the end of the universe'. But it seems worth pursuing the path of rational inquiry to its limit."

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Monday, April 23, 2007 6:21 AM)

When the universe started, there was hydrogen and helium first. From that and gravity the other chemicals were formed in the "suns" of the universe. The only result of these various chemicals such as carbon and oxygen is what we see today. Look at the other planets and stars we have found. There are many that have water, hydrogen, methane, etc.

The universe's ascendance is evolutionary. What ever didn't make it, is on a "branch" that died out, much like our ascendacy from these same chemicals have created life that branched out and died. We are the universe because we are intelligent enough to know it is there and can communicate it to each other. There is the dimension of intelligence. Without it, all other dimensions do not exist.

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin (Sent Monday, April 23, 2007 4:17 PM)

Let me start to say that i am no scientist nor very spiritual, but i have always loved science and my grandfather was a Southern Baptist Preacher. I think that to belive in a god that allows children to die in such occasions as 9/11 in the name of free will for men, as a little game he has with his poker buddy(the devil) to see who can gather the most heads in their flock, is crazy and borderline depressing. Not to mention the fact that if their was a supreme being somewhere, all knowing and all seeing as he is described, why would he put a disease ridden virus such as man in his heavens. Whatever or who ever created and started all in motion our universe, you can rest assured that they werent concerned wether or not we would learn how to jump planets before we get sucked into our sun. But for the sake of MANKIND lets try not to destroy it before we learn a little more about the whole thing.

Scott, Pink Hill, NC (Sent Monday, April 23, 2007 10:50 PM)

Delmar, Scott, and Others

Delmar, radiation (energy) came before hydrogen and hydrogen before helium, quarks before hydrogen, etc..

Scott, any god that made a robotic universe (a universe without FREE WILL and nothing therefore going wrong) would not merit the respect given to more worthy gods. FREE WILL is manifest in our universe and, where FREE WILL exists, things can go wrong. You can fault your grandfather's or anyone's concept of god, but things going wrong in a universe (which may be seen as evidence of free will in the universe) can be used to see that any robotic universe, where nothing goes wrong, is a trivial one, hence, only worthy of a trivial god. To have the wonder, power, etc. of our universe seems to require FREE WILL and, perhaps, a God rather than a god. We experience only our universe, not some imagined, different universe. One may imagine (conjure up, speculate about a universe without FREE WILL and things going wrong, but it is not our universe (things go wrong). Would you prefer giving up your FREE WILL and become a robot in exchange for nothing going wrong or choose to stay in our universe with FREE WILL and things going wrong? FREE WILL without the chance for error is a self-contradiction or inconsistency. The consistency of our physical universe is manifest; we show our reliance on it to detect fabrications (lies) of witnesses (observers, scienists). The ability of science to detect falsification is a major pillar of science that stands on the foundational belief of a consistent physical universe. Our consistent physical universe protects us when we witness to things as they scientifically (actually) happened. Our consistent physical universe exposes our lies when we witness to things contrary to what scientifically (actually) happened. Humans can be self-contradictory and inconsistent in what they say; our physical (scientific) universe does not share these faults, The inconsistencies (lies) we create in our discourse have no effect on the consistency of our physical universe. We lie (make errors) and are allowed to lie (make errors) because there is FREE WILL, but our scientific faith is that our physical universe does not lie. As Einstein said "Subtle is the Lord but not malicious.". Einstein said "Lord". Nitpickers can replace "Lord" with "universe" if it helps their understanding of Einstein's point. Our scientific experience in our universe finds that our physical universe is self-consistent, not self-contradictory. Our universe would have a gross self-contradiction if it had FREE WILL without any chance for error or mistakes The often heard: "Can God make a stone so heavy He can't lift it?" involves a self-contradiction. We can make up self-contradictions, but we cannot expect a god worthy of respect to not recognize their nonsense or disregard them. One can imagine a universe without any chance for error or mistakes and still be self-consistent if it is without FREE WILL, robotic. A god that is self-contradictory or inconsistent (hence, ala Eintein, is malicious) is certainly to be honored less, if at all, than one that avoids these things. Scott, I do not think your grandfather has such a god. However, if your grandfather has a god and the devil, a possible inconsistency exists. Human experience and knowledge has advanced to the point of finding the usual concept of a devil to be self-contradictory and contradictory to knowledgeable concepts of a God. The quantum theory of physics has support for FREE WILL which allows the concept of a devil to be avoided as the cause of things going wrong (errors). When something very bad happens to you, it will not help much to say that's the price of FREE WILL or the price of not wanting to be a robot. It should beat saying the devil did it or God allowed the devil to do it, especially when the devil is not needed and obscures the great gift of FREE WILL.

If you concentrate on your grandfather's message of Jesus not so much as bringing the forgiving of your sins but more on Jesus showing that you and our universe have a purpose and infinite love is far, far (infinitely) greater than finite love, you might be better able to understand him and your grandfather might be better able to understand you.

Finally, don't let some of your grandfather's literal readings of his Bible cause you to miss the important and loving messages that can be found therein. The often controversial idea of a resurrection brings so much hope to many and can even have a scientific basis according to Dr.Frank L. Tipler, eminent theoretical physicist, in his "The Physics of Immortality". Some recent astronomical observations raise questions about some of the things in his book, but they do not flasify his showing why immortality (resurrection) is not necessarily contradicted by science and a not-necessarily-in-vain hope.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 8:53 AM)

The Lamarckian Cosmos.

jhc, riverton, ct (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:39 PM)

Those interested in further exploring the idea of a 'self-creating' Universe may want to read:

'Time Travel In Einstein's Universe' by J. Richard Gott:

http://www.nnbtv.dircon.co.uk/Books/2002/Time.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Richard_Gott

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001910/01/VAASTIME.PDF

Frank Glover Rochester, NY (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:50 PM)

Reply to: "If you concentrate on...Jesus showing that you and our universe have a purpose and infinite love is far, far (infinitely) greater than finite love, you might be better able to understand him..." (end)

   I grew up in a crazy world.

   At one point, I started asking questions. For example:

   2 + 2 = ____

   I was raised in a part of the country where I was told "The answer can't possibly be 4. You need to understand that "5" gives you an infinite amount of love and insight into the meaning of the universe."

   As I grew up, I finally figured out what was going on. The Correct Answer was so obvious, they were terrified that I was going to say it out loud.

   (ie, there is NO Purpose to the universe, or to our short lives.)

   It's not so much wanting to announce "I know the right answer" as the insanity of not being able to see it anywhere in the media. Because we live in a country where 83% of the people belong to a silly con game and they're willing to go to any lengths from having to face the truth.

   2 + 2 = 4

   Jesus was an ordinary human being and he's dead.

   There is no scientific evidence for the resurrection of a human being after their body has been dead for more than ten years.

See? The world didn't end when I wrote it.

William Hays, Tustin, CA (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:30 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=160480

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG