The self-made universe

Clay Johanson — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:10:46 GMT

Good reading, but why do we need to anthropomorphize the Universe by implying that it is in any way "friendly" toward life? Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest answer/solution to a question/problem is usually the correct one... and it seems rather obvious that the simplest solution is that for every Universe in which Life (such as ours) exists, there are probably many others where the conditions allow different manifestations of Life, and many, MANY others where the conditions do not support the existence of Life in any way that we would recognize (or indeed at all).

In other words, we could just be the lucky winners of the Cosmic Powerball. Even though the odds of winning a trillion-to-one lottery are very, very low, mathematics dictate that eventually, any number will come up. There doesn't need to be a higher power behind it all; simple chance prevails.

The self-made universe

Brett Johnston — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:26:12 GMT

I'm wondering if that's the biggest question about existence or the smallest. I think it's under the microscope for scientists but for the most part people are more compelled by the question of does my life matter in this world, universe, existence?

I'd like to think that someday soon humanity can finally answer that question and say yes, the lives of every human matter supremely to us. Following that answer I'd like to bring along mans best friend and former best friend and eventually every species from the planet earth into some sort of universal immortality where we all have our space throug endless amounts of time. But hey that's just me trying to matter in this universe and not some unreal one!

The self-made universe

Michael, East Windsor, NJ — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:52:49 GMT

The key to understanding this topic lies in the word - theory.
The 'big bang' is a theory.
Fractal universes is a theory.
Inflation is a theory.
Intelligent design is a theory.
(Put your theory here...)

And it's great to have a number of theories and a lot of brilliant minds exploring each of them - but so far, none of them have been, or perhaps, can be proven. Science and the human mind are wonderful but each are limited. So far, each is "unexplained".

But it is important to treat each theory with respect because one, and yes, possibly more, of them just might be true.

The elegance of the search for answers lies in the equal treatment of each theory rather than in the promotion of one theory at the expense or exclusion of the others. Calling Intelligent Design and its forms or extensions a philosophy (or 'unexplained')and all the others a science is intellectual name-calling with no useful purpose.

To the dismay of some, Intelligent Design is an answer. Those who accept this theory might even use parts of the other theories to further support their conclusion. Extensions of Intelligent Design include God, creationism and even the Bible. Intelligent Design can exist as a theory of the universe without any citations or quotations from the Bible.

There's a whole host of others, brilliant minds each one of them, who still want to explore other avenues of thought or science. Bravo! To each and every one.

A noble pursuit to say the least. My son might be one of them someday. Building on the work of those working hard today, maybe he will be the one to espouse the generally accepted theory of the universe.

God only knows.

Oops, sorry.

The self-made universe

Charles Laser — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:52:47 GMT

I find this article very informative and interesting. I am not of the scientific community, however I beieve in the world of quantum physics "thought or universal mind" is the creator of all things. Little or no effort has been expended on the nature of thought (God's thought that created atoms, molecules, photons etc. etc.), and until we find a way to enter spirital realms we will not find the answers we seek. Great article and effort nevertheless. Charles Laser

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:58:55 GMT

I can't accept the Initial Premise, that "our universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life."

There's a thin biosphere on one planet in one arm of a minor galaxy that supports our form of life. Maybe a million other planets have similar atmospheres. For the overwhelming majority of this vast universe, our life can't exist. I'm talking about the space between the galaxies. Now that matter has started to clump into stars, planets and moons, how does life exist away from the heat produced by stars? ie, the Laws of Thermodynamics and all that.

Davies said, "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." That's an entirely different concept. If intelligent life doesn't evolve, then no one would be around to announce "This universe supports life." In no way does that suggest that "a feedback loop that works in both directions."

It's like the question, "Does an ant understand human culture?" The vastness of the cosmos is simply unaware that our form of life needs to be supported. I think the Intelligent Design movement has talked about bio-friendliness so much, it's too easy to assume it's real. But it's not.

The self-made universe

Tom Hughes Michigan — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:12:04 GMT

Well,first off I would like to assure you that any comment I make is not an attack,although you may perceive it how you wish.There was no big bang that made this universe and the earth and other structures.We live in an engineered system. All planetary objects stay in place by being on the musical (cymatic) geometric grid.Check out the Google video "Cool Salt" for a cymatics demo. This earth was grown here,salts as you know will grow,and metals are the resultant of salts with other processes (Alchemical processes) and it is actually true that lead can be turned into gold by a salts and heating process.The sun is a frequency burn sir,with the hydrogen and oxygen coming into it from cymatic feed lines just as the earth has its oxygen influshed in with other gases on the nodes of its cymatic grid(Check Hagens work) for a main node rep map.So you see,science folks these days just dont understand how their earth works and the ramblings of the men of supposed science these days just beat the place up and teach students improper science.So if you are actually curious as to the rest of the story,you might ponder a bit and ask a few questions that you seek.I might reply.

The self-made universe

Scott Seely — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:22:13 GMT

What I don't get is how we know the universe had a creation in the first place.

I get that because all material in the universe seems to be moving eternally away from each other, it has led to the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. But, if there really are more than three spatial dimensions, as quantum theory suggests, couldn't this be an illusion to humans observing a four dimensional universe from a three dimensional point of view? Much like water drops rolling down a globe would appear to be moving away from each other endlessly from a two dimensional point of view?

Is it possible that humans are prejudiced to always look for a creation and destruction, or beginning and end, when some things exist eternally?

The self-made universe

James Dickinson — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:29:06 GMT

In the beginning, What if not God, what? There is sooo much evidence for Intelligent Design, that it is staggering. But there is no man so blind as a man who refuses to see. Jesus came to earth to explain God so that it would be more plausible, but did it work? No it didn't, all men went on as before, some to there careers, some to marry a wife, some to farm and some to shop, in other words religon is a waste of time. But to some He (Christ) gave the power to become the sons of God even to as many that believe. If the record that God gave, is not true, then any thing you say is as good an idea as the next. But if the record that God gave is true, then if you do not believe it you, and a whole bunch of people are in trouble. I believe much of this type of question stems from the fact that people do not understand how God feels about those who are first obedient, verses those who are disobedient. Of all the people of the whole world, God views them as a drop in a bucket of water, as nothing, as less than the least of all things. But man has made a big mistake in thinking that God feels as we do but he doesn't. Man does not think that God will put the majorty in hell and take just a few if necessary, to heaven. As touching the cosmos, I believe it was created in imperfection on purpose, no one travels there now, but when He (God)makes the new heaven and new earth it will be all a inviting and enjoyable place and those With Christ will come and go freely always within the influence of the Father(there is no place where the Spirit of God isn't) Oh what Joy, that our dwelling will be with the Son, and within the father, and we shall as now be filled with the Holy Ghost. Could there be a better plan that this? What are the qualifications for this? You must be born again, and the Spirit of God is given to you as a guide, as a comforter,as a rebuker at times, and a leader to bring you to the fullness of the stature of Christ. As He was the Son of God, we will be a son/daughter of God. As He came to do the will of Him who sent Him, We will be here to do the will of God who saved us, by His Grace.

The self-made universe

Byron Raum, Beverly Hills, CA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:53:37 GMT

It's a pity that Cosmic Log has deteriorated to pseudo-science. I used to quite enjoy reading it.

The self-made universe

Edwin Lee, Bend Oregon — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:53:39 GMT

Paul Davies speculations, which I find fascinating and attractive, remind me of some of the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin (a Jesuit and an anthropologist)... who suggested that consciousness was intrinsic to the universe, much like matter, space and time; it was not inserted into the universe nor did it accidentally pop up a few billion years ago. Evolution, to him, was a process of restructuring matter/consciousness into "higher" forms through space and time. Early on, at the Big Bang, the potency for our level of consciousness was part of the universe in a way that the potency for a tree is intrinsic in a seed. To him, matter (in space/time) in any form has an intrinsic aspect of consciousness. Needless to say, his ideas (which were his attempt to reconcile science and religion and his own transcendental experience at age 10 that everything was alive) wern't well received by the Catholic Church.

The self-made universe

Blythe Guvenene, Sierra Vista, Ariz. — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:01:07 GMT

It is known as the anthropic principle. (And even with it, we are incidental to the universe's existence.) The universe has the properties we observe simply BECAUSE we are here to observe it. Because if they were any different, we would not exist. And with new research into parallel universes and even infinite cosmological constants and natural laws, it seems increasingly obvious that we just happen to live in a spacetime configuration that supports life (even though the most of the universe is lethal to us still).

The self-made universe

Steven E. Romer — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:03:05 GMT

This theory is excellent, but is already covered in detail in the 2003 book "The Textbook of the Universe; The Genetic Ascent to God" (see amazon.com) to explain Anthropic Cosmology and many other things (including how the brain works) based on the backward-time effect via the "Mirror Universe" work of Russian Physicists. Also new methodologies are presented in that book that people can be trained to do showing this backward-in-time effect in everyday life. Lots of data is presented from this methodology throughout the book showing "collapse of probabilities" effect as unlikely (non-random) synchronicities in conscious life perceptions. That book was saying how revolutionary this new way of looking at the universe was (would explain such inscrutible science problems as consciousness and the "binding problem" of brain science) , and Paul Davies work really supports this. The Textbook of the universe has diagrams showing what this "backward-in-time" effect has meant for the history of life since the beginning of time -- and most excitingly, where it is going. Looks like a real revolution in science is shaping up. Awesome stuff!!.

The self-made universe

Alan Boyle — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:12:48 GMT

Having just come back from Davies' lecture, I realize that there are a couple of big things we glossed over in our talk because we assumed so much from the outset. A couple of the messages, including William's, pointed that up.

First, about the "fine tuning" ... scientists have been looking at the fine-tuning question not from the perspective of whether Earth is a "privileged planet," as one ID-friendly DVD once put it, but from the perspective of physical constants. For example, the mass of the neutron is just slightly more than the mass of the charged proton, and neutrons decay into protons. If it were the other way around, would protons decay into neutrons? If so, the universe would quickly fizzle out. There are "30-something" such undetermined parameters that act as fine-tuning knobs to allow the universe as we see it to exist, Davies said.

If the universe were just a little smoother an instant after the big bang, it would consist merely of diffuse gas, and stars and galaxies would not form. If it were a little clumpier, all galaxies would collapse into black holes.

The cosmological constant, which is a way of stating the influence of dark energy in the universe, is just a little bit above zero ... something like 10^-25, in fact. And that's what's responsible for making the current distribution of matter what it is. It's a little worrisome to theorists that the cosmological constant is that darn close to zero but not exactly zero. Here's more from the estimable Sean Carroll on that subject:

http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/encyc/

These are the sorts of things that have led Davies to say that "we live in a Goldilocks universe" ... just right for things to hang around long enough for life to develop.

Davies counts the multiverse theory ... the idea that we are "merely winners in a great cosmic jackpot lottery" ... as one of the possible explanations for the rightness of our universe. In fact, that's where the title of the book comes from. But to him, that's not a satisfying answer, because it depends on some cosmic bubble machine operating out of the realm of our own little universe (see the original item above).

Another point that Davies brought out with a bit of humor had to do with the religion (God did it) vs. science (physics did it) debate. He compared it to the old story of the woman who confronted a physicist after a lecture and told him that the earth rested on an elephant standing on a turtle. You know, the joke in which the physicist asks in response what the turtle is standing on, and the woman snaps back, "You can't fool me, young man ... it's turtles all the way down." In Davies' view, both sides in the origins debate are assuming that down there somewhere is a "levitating superturtle."

So, referring to the science vs. religion debate, Davies told the audience, "I'm really bored with it ... at the end of the day, what they're saying is, 'My superturtle is better than your superturtle.'"

The nicest thing about the talk, at least the way this old literature/philosophy major sees it (that's right, I never was a professional scientist), was that Davies ended with a bit of poetry by Francis Thomson:

"All things in heaven and in earth linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower, without troubling a star."

I'm not totally sold on Davies' theory ... for example, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Davies' turtles are standing on (I guess it's a fuzzy superturtle, or maybe the head of the elephant). But for years and years he's been stirring the scientific pot, and I think there are some intriguing ideas here to follow up on.

The self-made universe

Chris Kapilla, Issaquah, WA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:24:26 GMT

I just returned home from Davies' talk and was surprised to find your article referring to it. I found the talk to be quite fascinating and mind-bending; I'm happy to be able to read more of his thoughts on your log/blog -- thanks.

The self-made universe

Chris E. — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:25:22 GMT

I completely disagree with the widely held premise that this universe is so unique and “conducive” to life. Hydrogen atoms had to undergo billions of years inside the inferno at the heart of the stars to create the heavier elements that we are all made of. Then we had to endure a literal shooting gallery of asteroids to get where we are. Not an easy task by any means. I also completely disagree with the idea that only a narrow range of laws even allow for such matter as if to imply that those laws can somehow be infinitely different. That to me is just guessing that other possible laws exist whereas nothing would exist without the laws we have. Do you see the irony of trying to argue it the other way? The laws they’ve drummed up in mathematical formulas still do not properly describe the universe we have so I give them no ground to assume that still other laws might exist. To me, we are six- or seven-dimensional beings inflated ‘around’ some original one-dimensional oneness that exists within the very fabric of space which all matter is construed from. This oneness was stretched by the second through fifth dimensions to give us the properties and forces of the atoms from which we are made.

The self-made universe

Luke Lloyd, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:28:19 GMT

IF "God" was an infinitely powerful and loving Alien Being from a different dimension in the infinitely grand multiverse and was the first being ever to come into existence ever in all possible existences of science and "evolved" that way. THEN would it be possible that He could have created our small universe or say our planet in 6 days? If you believe humanity might one day be able to do these things then would you admit maybe there was another possible intelligent being or "race" out there that already has? Seems to me the "Old White Man" always loves to claim he is the First to have done something! Now lets say this Great Alien Being we might call "God" came to this earth and humbled himself and died a cross could he not possibly have the technology to raise himself from the dead. Then being raised from the dead this "Alien" said he would come back and run things his way soon. Then lets say this "Alien" whom we might call "Jesus" came back and we waged war on him then would you BELIEVE?

I am a 26 year old social conservative caucasian canadian male, for those who might care.

The self-made universe

Pippen Took, Albuquerque, NM — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:42:54 GMT

There are other theories that are just as plausible. My personal favorite theory is that just about any type of universe would be suitable for some kinds of life. There may be other types of life in our own universe. For example, perhaps magnetic fields in some stars have evolved into life forms. Or perhaps 'dark' man has evolved in the dark matter and dark energy that makes up most of our universe.

The self-made universe

Jessie Randolph, Pacifica, Ca. — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:06:48 GMT

This is a great site, and I think your page is not only informative, but unbiased in the way you present your arguments. I think that if kids want to be taught evolution in school, then go ahead and teach them! But I also believe that at the same time, if kids want to learn about Christianity, then the same priveledge should be given. Another thing I appreciate about your page is that you not only give people the chance to show where their coming from, but you are genuinely interested in their viewpoint and beliefs. This is a page where someone who has questions and wants answers can come to for a great discussion.

The self-made universe

Pete Moss, N. Miami Beach, Florida — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:33:13 GMT

There is no problem. Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark most cosmologists, and I all agree there is a simple answer. Every possible universe exists. The universe includes every thing that can be. If every combination and permutation is played, you will win every lottery. The universe is in the exact same position as Buridan's ass. Since the universe is logical it can't randomly choose one path or choice over other equally good paths or choices. Hence it must take every path and encompass every choice.

The self-made universe

James — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:59:44 GMT

It's obvious that people don't know the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific sense.

That makes sense because no one except scientists are taught the meaning, so don't feel bad about it.

It's not what most people think.

The self-made universe

Sven, Seattle WA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:17:23 GMT

I'm in awe of the hard work physicists put into understanding the principles of our very being. But, alas, we can and therefore will never be certain about a lot of questions, and we won't be able to change much anyway. The way it looks we're nothing but the evolutionary result of a coincidence in space - if there was a god out there who did all that then he certainly wouldn't play those stupid and cruel mind games with us - what a waste of time for both him and us, shouldn't he know that with his eternal wisdom! So yes, it sucks, but our death as well as that of planet earth (caused by the sun which will have to die eventually) are easily calculatable - though I'm sure those religious lunatics on earth will make sure we're going to be extinct quite a bit before that. But ah well, then Noah comes along, puts a pair of each of us into an ark (but no hanky-panky!), and off to a second round :)

The self-made universe

George Duke, Camp Verde, AZ — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:24:24 GMT

As a theist I must say that I am facinated with the possibilities of the theory. I have always had difficulty reconciling the apparent 'free will' of man with the determinism of absolutes. Likewise I have had difficulty reconciling 'miracles' within a cause and effect system. It seems that 'fuzzy' laws and mechanics leave room for both. Neither do I see this theory as an assault on my beliefs, simply an attempt to explain our observations from within our own dimensional existence. None of the theories can have any effect on God the Creator. He is as He is. Just as if He wasn't, no theory could bring Him into existence as creator of whatever this is after the fact. To me, we can only learn more about how God works through such this closed system analysis. The total computational power of the universe being limited, it seems obvious that we will never be able to rationally compute beyond its total number of dimensions. Thus there will always be room for faith or the lack thereof.

Don't be so narrow as to construe what I am saying to mean that there is no unique consciousness in a group that extends beyond the consciousness of the individuals, that we can't create for ourselves lessor gods, that there isn't any more there than what meets the eye. But if there is, the group must remember that it created that entity and not visa versa, and if that is so, that entity or consciousness is explainable from within universe, and once so explained must be regarded as no more significant than ourselves.

Finally, I must speak to Mr. Raum of Beverly Hills and ask what is psuedo-science other than the fuzzy pre-script of the science of the future. If no one ever asked why this or how that and then actually tried to come up with answers, however limited, this blog would not exist and you would be hunting your dinner every night.

The self-made universe

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:39:01 GMT

Perhaps ambiguity is a trap for fools? This doesn't seem to me to have much to do with, "ghostly action at a distance". However that might not be a false definition of us and where we'd be headed should we accept it.

The self-made universe

Hue Man — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:50:58 GMT

Davies seems like an theoretical artist. A big brush, a big empty canvas and artistic expression. And, like an artist it seems like his painting is an expression of how he feels, reads and needs his Universe. It may impress and intrigue as one reflection of the 'Universe' but it may be more 'art' than discovery. 'Art' is in the eye of the beholder...and sometimes, the theoretical physicist too I expect....

The self-made universe

Doug Sargent Eugene OR — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:57:39 GMT

Experience is nothing but the process of summing itself up.

On the other hand there is nothing to fear but nothing itself.

The self-made universe

Scott Seely — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:25:44 GMT

I'd like to try and make my point again in a different way.

Wrap two or three rubber bands around a ball and it looks like they are moving away from each other. Of course, they move away from each other in a curve. But, that curve takes place in the third dimension. If we were two dimensional, it would look like they are moving away in a straight line.

So perhaps, all matter in the universe is actually moving away from each other in a curve, but that curve takes place in a fourth dimension. To us, we are observing it moving away in a straight line.

Some say that the universe could be some kind of a doughnut shape. If you wrapped the rubber bands around a doughnut, you would observe the same phenomenon.

So perhaps there was no big bang and no creation and no end to the universe. All matter is just revolving eternally. Could it be that we are looking for a beginning and an end because we have never before observed anything that doesn't have a beginning and an end?

The self-made universe

Scott Seely — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:40:20 GMT

I like the doughnut model better because if you wrap the rubber bands around the tube so that they go through the hole, not over the hole, they give the appearance of move apart until you get to the event horizon, but as thay get closer together over the observable horizon, they never intersect.

The self-made universe

Adam, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:58:03 GMT

Hi Alan

Great interview and a handy summary of Davies' ideas. Like you I really wonder if he's not invoking another Super-Turtle by having the Universe engineer itself - is the Universe its own Intelligent Designer? If so, how? And more importantly, why? We're here, and that needs explaining, but why would the Cosmos "want" us? Or is bio-friendliness a by-product of some other fine-tuning goal like Smolin suggests? Or maybe Frank Tipler is right - the Universe is evolving into God, in the forward time direction, but actually is being created by God/Omega Point in the reverse-time direction.

Meaty issues. Davies hits the nail on the head - invoking either God or the Multiverse is arguing over super-turtles - but a Universe that engineers for Life is a lot closer to Intelligent Design than a super-Cosmic lottery.

Perhaps we can't escape something outside our Universe as First-Cause?

The self-made universe

Peter Kapnistos, Athens, GR — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:12:02 GMT

Maybe the universe always exists, pulsating between two phases of expansion and contraction. The bible seems to suggest this. The first phase is described in the book of Genesis, where original creation takes place. But the New Testament's Revelation also mentions "a new heaven and a new earth," indicating that there's also a final, second phase. Once we have a two-phase universe, we can assume that it probably oscillates between these two phases forever, as a "world without end." Of course, we can't really know for sure unless we cross over to the second phase. God could then be seen as the sum of all life in the entire system, pulsating like a living heart. Perhaps we have to get over the idea of “nothingness” or the conviction that everything came out of zero. Because zero or “nothingness” represents a false statement, it doesn’t really exist.

The self-made universe

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:24:15 GMT

“”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.””

Sorry, Alan, but you’ve left out a conclusion many scientists (including myself) have come to: that ‘life’ (easier said than defined…give it a try!) fits the Physics we have; the Physics weren’t ‘designed’ to suit life as we know it. Different Physics, different forms of life. “Twiddle the knobs” on the Physics of our universe even a little bit, and ‘life’ as we know it couldn’t exist….in no way does this mean it wouldn’t exist in some other form, if the ‘fine-sructure constant’ or ‘permittivity of free space’ were tweaked, it’d just be different. Maybe it would look like a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Clay Johanson invokes Occam’s Razor; I submit the above for consideration.

Tell me, Michael of East Windsor, NJ what’s your statement of the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics? I’ve blown a couple of so-called “I.D. scientists” clean outta-the-water when they went to invoke their ‘personal’ versions of that one at ‘talks’ I’ve been to. The fact that REAL scientists are cautious (to a fault) and consider almost EVERYTHING theoretical, in no way justifies the use I.D.-ers make of that fact, in equating crap that’s contrary to easily observable facts, to scientific theories. For my part I’m glad to see less apathy among my collegues nowdays, and more other people consulting their ‘bulls**t meters’ in comparing Science to ID.

““the ramblings of the men of supposed science these days just beat the place up and teach students improper science”” Do you mean ramblings like de-coding DNA, ferreting-out climate changes, and developing electro-optical communications, Tom Hughes of Michigan?

Scott Seely: you seem quite a thoughtful guy, though I can’t say I completely ‘get’ your analogy (of 2 water drops on a globe). But also: consider what you mean by ‘eternity’; no science worth the name can help you out there.

“”Cosmic Log has deteriorated to pseudo-science. I used to quite enjoy reading it.””

No it hasn’t Byron Raum of Beverly Hills, CA, it’s still what it has been as far as I know: a forum for people (yes, even ID-types) to post their thoughts for others’ consideration. You, like I, don’t have to agree with them . . .

“”The universe has the properties we observe simply BECAUSE we are here to observe it. Because if they were any different, we would not exist.”” Consider the reverse of your first sentence, Blythe Guvenene of Sierra Vista, Ariz. Id est: ‘We are here to observe it, because of the properties it has.’ I think your second sentence says this very thing . . …which I happen to agree with.

Sorry for the length again, Alan. I hope you'll continue to post-up inquiries like the ones from 'Carlee', 'John of Kansas', and 'Sierra'.

The self-made universe

Robert Brantford Ontario — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:38:02 GMT

Interesting article and comments. What I want to know is why Davies thinks that biological quantum observers are selectively superior to non-biological quantum observers. I suppose that he must propose an answer to such an obvious question, but I cannot imagine what it would be.

The self-made universe

Gary, Montclair, NJ — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:54:24 GMT

I like the idea that the laws of physics have some kind of feedback loop and that they may have "evolved" - with the strange result that when they change they do so for all of time, since time is one of the parameters. But there is no need to bring religion into the discussion and god/God. If god/God is out there, please, broadcast your message to us - say, through a video on youtube.com!

The self-made universe

Patrick Phillips, leeds, uk — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:48:20 GMT

well i mean this is a hard subject, but i like it because its hard.

i mean the crazy thing is, try and picture the Earth in your Mind, the the universe.

Now take away the Earth, take away the universe, whats left??

but my biggest argument is we are trying to find out how we got here, but how can find out the existence of existing, its inpossible, becuase i feel we as a human race will nevr really know the questions the universe and why we are here! if we wasn't which really hurts your mind then you wouldn't even asking the question becuase you wouldn't even be here.

I mean our brains are so complicated we carnt understand our own nature, and the nature of the universe may still be a mystery for billions of years to come.

The self-made universe

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:16:47 GMT

Intelligent Design (aka "Stealth Creationism") is not a scientific theory. It only "uses other theories" in the sense of pub-jacking. As the brilliant ID "scientists" don't seem to practice much of what could actually be called science, they have resorted to reviewing the work of actual scientists and drawing mistaken conclusion which they then distribute directly to a gullible public.

You can read about it here:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/
08/02/in_search_of_the_intelligent_d.php

To many people in the lay public, "theory" is no different than "speculation" or "any random idea one manages to pry from the sphincter."

The self-made universe

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:17:58 GMT

"That thou canst not stir a flower"

Prelude to the Butterfly Effect, the heart of the emerging sciences of complexity.

"All Nature is but Art unknown to Thee..."

The self-made universe

Rod Luhn, Middletown, NJ — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:31:25 GMT

It is the human ego that asks questions of existence. It is that same ego that tricks us into believing that we have some inherent importance in our own universe. It is this same self importance that allows the belief in deities.

I would rather ask: Can we just get some real science (good data and theory) and let the true nature and beauty of our universe become evident? We all are living, breathing violations of the laws of thermodynamics. Let us take solace in that and relish our time in our universe.

The self-made universe

fleshapple — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:59:05 GMT

James is correct; most people do not know the meaning of "theory" in the context of science.

Basically, a theory proposes a mechanistic underpinning for an observed phenomenon. Discover that things in chemical reactions tend to fit a particular predictable pattern? This happens because these reactions are goverened by atoms (and mostly electrons): voila Atomic Theory. Notice the planets have slightly elliptical orbits? Apparently, the sun resides in the center of the solar system: The Theory of Heliocentrism. See the evidence for a big, hot explosion some years ago in the universe? Probably because there likely was one: Big Bang Theory.

People have this idea that theories progress to laws, and therefore that a law holds more scientific weight than a theory. They are very wrong. A Law in science serves as a description of phenomena, usually fairly general, within a certain field. For instance, in mechanics, we have Newton's Laws. However, F=ma is simply a descriptive statment. Newton's law of Gravity is also descriptive: Force= mass1 times mass2 times some constant, proportional to the square of the distance.

Notably, this makes no claim about **where the force is coming from**. The Law describes on the behavior observed, but no mechanism.

Then Einstein comes along with his Theory of General Relativity, and suddenly, the Law of Gravitation has not only a few corrections, but an explanation of sorts: matter acts on space and tells it how to curve, and space acts on matter and tells it how to move.

Obviously, these ideas are supported by a great deal of evidence, and possess (generally) certain properties such as testability, falsifiability, repeatability. Though things in science do occasionally change, espeically at the edges of our understanding and our techonolgical prowess, it's worth noting that many things (including theories.. the sun was still in the center of the solar system, last I heard..) do NOT change. Newton and Kepler continue to rule the physics of certain scales, while the fathers of quantum mechanics rule another.

If you want to understand science, it's best to start with this: the term "theory" in science is never preceded by "just a".

The self-made universe

charles miller — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:00:34 GMT

The Lord Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe, we see that in "Hebrew 1:010 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:...". "Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". The Bible tells us, fom fron to back, that God created the universe. About the theory of self-made universe, it is pure speculation, and has no solid fondation.

The self-made universe

Mark_ — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:34:28 GMT

In the vastness of outer space is it proper to refer to one H2O molecule as anything but H2O?

The self-made universe

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:51:40 GMT

Does the phrase "self-fulfilling prophesy" ring a bell? We are here so the Universe (Cosmos) is obviously able to support at least one occurrance of life. So, does this require any special constraints? No. If the Universe were unsuitable for life we would not be having this discussion.

In as much as this particular bit of philosophical psycho-babble has been hashed out ad nauseam in the past, can't we come up with something new? Consider the potential of vastly extended lifespans. Hearing the same jokes, comments and philosophy over and over and over! Starts making 4 score and seven look better and better!

Methinks that our Welsh friend has been overthinking this, a bit. Now that the Universe has observed itself, would the last one out please turn off the lights?

The self-made universe

Jim Delk , Muncie ,IN — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:32:51 GMT

What happens to the Us vs Them (Science vs Religion) argument if God is energy? It exists in and moves through all things. It can never be created or destroyed based on our current understanding of the "laws" of science. What effect would this concept have on any applied science or religion? None , becasuse it fits in both? What could we gain from it?

The self-made universe

Dave Cooney, San Antonio, TX — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:41:20 GMT

I view all I see in the universe with only three questions (with subtitles):

1. Why is there something instead on nothing?
(The arrogance of the Big Bang or how infinite is infinite?)

2. Why does consciousness exist?
(If I think, do I exist?)

3. Why is compassion so prominent in all living beings?
(Is caring used to justify existing?)

The self-made universe

patrick phillips, leeds, u.k — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:51:53 GMT

To me the Universe is like a studio. it's constantly changing to create an image, a picture or energy or look within itself.

my real belief is that we as humans have been created from possibility rafther than a defiant compound.

for example a plant won't grown without light, if there was no sun, no plant. The earth has created itself, so has the universe through the possibilties of law. i do feel that we are not alone, but the question we are asking is impossible to ask.the question of existing from the existence. if we don't exist then we can't answer that question therefore to exist we will never know that nor do we really need to whether we should be here or not. becuase if we do that we as humans could feel really lonely.

The self-made universe

Bill Ramsey — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:00:13 GMT

How much theology could we deduce from the fact that only Mr. X won the lottery, or that a ping-pong ball released from the top of a tall building landed on this square inch of space? Logically, both might be considered too improbable to have happened by "mere" chance, and further consequences of either event soon become statistically unthinkable. Get over it.

The Book of Job was written by a theist criticizing those who think they can put their "creator" in a book.

The self-made universe

Chance Williams — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:22:47 GMT

"There are three popular responses to the fact that the universe does seem to be weirdly fine-tuned for life"

I challenge the statement's premise. "Weirdly fine tuned" is a subjective notion, not a scientifically quantifiable fact. Even subjectively, I question the description, after all, the universe is made up 90 % of dark matter and dark energy, which may or may not be necessary for life to exist, we don't know. If the answer is no, then life is an afterthought of the universe, and is hardly "fine tuned" for it. Finally, how do you define life? If other universes do in fact exist as has been hypothesized, have different laws of physics and totally different forms of life, have they been "fine tuned" as well?

The self-made universe

William Thompson, Frederick MD — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:40:58 GMT

Seems to me that scientists are reverting back to the day when humanity believed we were the center of the universe and the sun revolved around planet earth. To say our universe is conducive to life when we have no proof that life exists outside of earths atmosphere is being quite egotistical. We are such a small, insignificant part of the whole but we still tend to believe that we truly matter. The earth is equivalent to an ameba as the universe is to a human. I think we, being the earth, galaxy, universe, are the equivalent of a quark, or possibly an even smaller particle, that makes up the matter of something incredibly huge. Possibly, the big bang was really a microscopic science experiment conducted by a scientist and the universe is a result. Time moves very quickly to us, coinciding with our size, while to the scientist the experiment takes a matter of minutes, or seconds. When we cut the grass, or set a fire, or create a chemical reaction, how many universes so tiny that we can not comprehend are we destroying? Or possibly creating?

The self-made universe

Jose J. Gonzalez, Leesburg, VA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:09 GMT

I think Mr. Davies' theory is interesting and thought provoking. Where his theory fails as many others do is where it tries to trancend the physical universe. I believe all sciences should seek the ultimate truth and push limits of our understanding as far as they stay within the boundaries of science. Even if scientists could figure out all the laws of physics, they will fall short of explaning things like ideas, virtues and emotions to name a few. The pursuit of the 'Theory of Everything' is a noble cause with the understanding that everything is not all. In other words 'give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God'. Otherwise is not science, Astrology comes to mind.

The self-made universe

Chad — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:02:13 GMT

Here is your standard problem with "understanding" the start of the universe. It is proven science that if something inanimate is sitting still it will not move unless something moves it. If everything in the cosmos just stopped it would never start up again unless there was something to move it; gravity, explosions etc… so the question is this. Even if the Universe (and let's be clear he is not saying anything new) has been opening, and closing, and resetting itself each time to get its components right, what started that?

There could be little doubt that when everything formed it was in its purest form, chemicals and gases (really is would be like atoms and protons, or Quantum’s or what ever), but in order for them to ever come in contact with each other there had to be a movement caused to push them into each other. You would think that would be gravity but something had to give that gravity force and existence, and there are no maybes about that. It could be caused buy some type of device or science used in another dimension, but wouldn’t that still be intelligent interference? Without that force to push chemicals together potent enough to explode they would just sit right there next to each other and do nothing. To get this universe there would have to be more then just chemicals exploding to because that would just cause then to burn each other up. Space had to be compressed together.

What is the point of my ramble? Until we can actually define what caused the compression and where it started and how, then all 3 theories are right. Intelligent Design, One law of Physics, and Multi-verses are all right. That doesn’t mean our Earthly religions describe or even pertain to the super-intelligence that created all, but just because you don’t believe they’re right doesn’t mean there not on to something.

The self-made universe

Maur Bentein, Ostend, Belgium (Europe) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:34:57 GMT

Interesting, but wrong. The author tries to prove the concept of a god through the (wrong) concept of a bio-friendly universe.

We (and all "bio") are an exception to the rule that the universe is cold, hard, lifeless and stranger than we can ever imagine.

The self-made universe

Harry — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:40:35 GMT

It is amusing to see those who say the belief in a creation comes from too many assumptions. Especially, when they make so many assumptions to make that statement. Why do some assume that life should just naturally spring up wherever conditions are just so, and enough time goes by? What hard evidence is there for that assumption? Why are we continually being told that similarities in designs of life here on Earth prove a relationship between the life forms that hold those similarities? To say that one life form is directly, physically related to another life form, just because there are similarities in their design, is like saying the bicycle has a common ancestor to the plane. They may both use similar mechanical functions, but in reality their only real connection is the designers who built them. I think we would all profit by taking a few moments and realizing people need to learn to live with their lack of ability to figure it all out at times. When science can admit that their lack of ability to prove something right fails to prove it is wrong we all come out ahead.

The self-made universe

patrick — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:41:06 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Robert Murdock Alto Texas — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:24:06 GMT

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!

The self-made universe

Aaron McCarroll Gallegos, Toronto, Ontario — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:26:48 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

CT — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:44:41 GMT

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?

The self-made universe

Monique, Knoxville, TN — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:48:55 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Don, Nashville — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:07:25 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

patrick, leeds, uk — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:32:26 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Tom Berry, Winterset, Iowa — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:47:16 GMT

This whole thing gives me a headache.

The self-made universe

MB — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:01:59 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

John White, Yuma, Arizona — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:16:28 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Steve, Tulsa Oklahoma — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:31:06 GMT

Help! Everywhere I look quantum wave functions are collapsing!

The self-made universe

Bruce Parker, Woodstock, NY — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:43:57 GMT

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

The self-made universe

Tom Hughes — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:51:28 GMT

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

The self-made universe

James N., Radford, VA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:56:13 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Guy in Illinois — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:14:15 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

JR Pennsylvania — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:25:56 GMT

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...

The self-made universe

Randy Breedveld — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:32:33 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Daniel Puzzuoli, Toronto Ontario — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:35:01 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Christian; Kansas City, MO — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:03:23 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Nate, Anacortes, WA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:04:52 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Karl, Seattle, Washington — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:15:49 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Scott Seely — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:30:09 GMT

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?

The self-made universe

Dan Ellington — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:37:17 GMT

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!"

The self-made universe

Stacey, Gillette, Wyoming — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:57:00 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

John Charles Webb, Jr. — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:06:17 GMT

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'.

The self-made universe

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:23:47 GMT

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?

The self-made universe

Patrick, Davis, CA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:24:36 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

James Monday, Chicago, Illinois — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:36:16 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

John Brady Hamilton Ontario — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:07:04 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

john doe — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:38:30 GMT

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

The self-made universe

Michael Gareri — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:43:47 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:24:28 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

El Canemo — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:13:08 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Dave Hamner, Silver Lake, OH — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:37:29 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:26:23 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Tom Hughes — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:11:57 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Tom Hughes — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:15:25 GMT

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

The self-made universe

Robert Wasley, San Francisco, California — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:29:10 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Ysmael, Jacksonville, Florida — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:56:32 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Des Emery,Th Carborundun Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:12:05 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Dale C. Rice — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:31:12 GMT

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)

The self-made universe

Kelly, New Orleans — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:21:44 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:57:36 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:21:52 GMT

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."

The self-made universe

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:17:08 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Scott, Pink Hill, NC — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:50:15 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:53:36 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

jhc, riverton, ct — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:39:19 GMT

The Lamarckian Cosmos.

The self-made universe

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:50:19 GMT

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

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:30:21 GMT

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.

The self-made universe

Carlon Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:57:26 GMT

WHY? and Two Plus Two
If one honestly believes (not just tryig to get others attention) that there is no purpose or meaning, why does one participate in discourse? Is there any purpose in saying "there is no purpose"? Sorry, once uttered, an implicit purpose contradicts the claim being advanced. With honest no purpose belief, what purpose can there be in any of one's statements or arguments? Honest belief in no purpose can only be guaranteed or supported by not speaking at all. Yes, speaking has purpose. If saying "there is no purpose" is an attempt to reveal some kind of truth, then one tacitly invokes purpose, exposing either lack of candor or a self-contradiction. Clearly, the statement "there is no purpose" must include itself as being without purpose or meaningless. Small wonder the universe did not come tumbling down at its utterance. It is very like the self-contradictory (and therefore, useless) statement "There is nothing absolute." having no effect on absolutes. The statement "There are absolutes." at least is not self-contradictory and not useless in that it can lead to things of interest. Incidentally, two plus two makes four is an absolute of mathematics (and our physical universe) because it does not depend on the base or symbols used to indicate its meaning, it's a universal. Those who use two plus two makes four for argument (argument has purpose) are making use of its absolutism (universality) to support their claims as being absolute (universal) or valid.

The self-made universe

Chet Twarog, Milky Way galaxy — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:24:48 GMT

A rationally attempted reply to Peter Kapnistos, Athens, GR “in the book of Genesis, where original creation takes place. But the New Testament's Revelation also mentions "a new heaven and a new earth," indicating that there's also a final, second phase.”

[...]

The Hebrew Genesis mythologies are different than the thousands of other ancient mythologies that you can also find, research, and compare because you just have faith in "Genesis". Have you not ever read any of the ancient Greek mythologies? Ancient Roman mythologies? Ancient Egyptian mythologies? Religions of their day?
They all were explanations based on their own human-centered knowledge of their own times. How can you equate the Ancient Hebrew “Genesis” mythology with our modern, 21st Century scientific knowledge?

Most of the “core” beliefs of the modern monotheistic religions are evolved from the ancient Egyptian religions. “Death” was symbolized as the Sun God “setting” descending below the western horizon to the “underworld” where “he” journeyed for 12 hours. As the eastern horizon dawned (the “Light was good” of Genesis 1) symbolized as the “coming of the Sun God (Lord God/Jesus). As the Sun God “rose/ascended” above the eastern horizon (resurrected) becoming and symbolized as “the light/life giver of the world”.

The “new earth/new heaven” also came from Ancient Egyptology, too! (Well, I could be incorrect in that other ancient peoples had similar “beliefs”, too.) Instead of the Sun God setting (dying) and rising (resurrecting) below/above the horizon in/out of the underworld, they now explained a total Solar Eclipse over Egypt with the end of the “old universe” (old earth/heavens) and the beginning of a “new universe” (new earth/heavens).

I highly recommend reading the Egyptian Book of the Dead as a reference.
It is quite simple if you just try to “open your mind and thinking” to the realm of thinking of the ancients as they tried to make “human sense” out of the “uncommon sense” of their “universe”.

Just as the ancient Hebrews tried with their mythology within the Old Testament. And, Christians in the New Testament.

[...]

Chet Twarog

The self-made universe

Steven E. Romer, Woodstock, IL — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:48:27 GMT

Most of the protests I read about Paul Davies Ideas seemed to me to be from people who do not fully understand it. Paul seems to be arguing from physics only and saying which theory is more "satisfying" to him for various reasons. However, the MORE evidence from diverse fields of study you consider, the more complete this idea gets. It explains SO MUCH MORE than just the physics. In my book, I developed an experiemental methodology which i have used to amass data showing that the "backward in time effect" is the most likely explanation for a whole host of phenomena -- such as the problems of consciousness and the "binding problem" of brain science. Also, it is a ready explanation of how brains can perceive meaning at all -- which is something that seems so easy to us but is actually quite impossible given current explanations of neuroscience (my field--I did 4 years of PhD work at Emory University in behavioral neuroscience). This one idea can greatly simplify and revolutionize our world view in many fields. I came to these same ideas from brains science, then actually found a mechanism both in the glial cells in the brain and in the "Mirror Universe" mathematical theories of a couple of Russian physicists I corresponded with. I think all of you might find my results presented in my book very interesting. I truly believe this idea is the future -- it makes sense on so many levels. It is like the periodic table of the elements, once we know enough, the structure of the knowledge itself on so many levels indicates further knowledge which can only play out one way. This "backward-in-time" effect is a solution to MANY MANY things -- I seriously think it could be the key to the "COnsilience" that E.O. WIlson talks about in his excellent book of the same name -- the coming together on a grand scale of all scientific knowledge. My book with the evidence and methodology I developed is called "The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God". Any of these books are readily available on Amazon.com. This is a real revolution that is coming. I highly recommend becoming familiar with these ideas.

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:30:03 GMT

Reply to: "If one honestly believes (not just trying to get others attention) that there is no purpose or meaning, why does one participate in discourse? Is there any purpose in saying "there is no purpose"? Sorry, once uttered, an implicit purpose contradicts the claim being advanced." (end)

This ^ is exactly kind of manipulative, oppresive type of atmosphere that I remember growing up in. It brings back so many bad memories, I have to stop for a moment and calm down.

   First, the opinions I stated are honest. They're not beliefs because they're based on observed facts, not imagination or revelation. You don't need to say "If you're not just trying to get attention..."

     Let me explain. I've done more investigation than research than you. I'm not the victim of a silly con game. Thus, when I share my opinions, it's not for ANY other reason except that I'm trying to help others recognize the con game and escape from it.

   Second, you ask "Why do you participate in discourse?" And you can't figure that out? You're really so caught up in the con game that you can't see the motivations of anyone not caught in the trap?

   The universe is largely empty space. We see Hubble photos of galaxies and go, "Wow!" And some might come away with the impression that the universe is full of spectacular nebulas. But the photos never show how much empty space lies between earth and those glorious nebulas.

   Space is empty. Space is vast. Space does not have a purpose "to make itself bio-friendly so that human life can exist."

   Third, trying to explain how I feel about religion is a purpose attached to MY life, but that's NOT the same as saying "all life has a purpose" or "the universe has a purpose."

   Religion is a scam. Part of the scam is saying "Anyone who doubts the divinity of Jesus must be working for Satan" or "I think you're just trying to get attention for yourself." I have been subjected to that kind of attack countless times. (ie, More than I can actually remember, so I have no way to count them.) When I was a child, I was driven to Sunday School and rewarded for memorizing Bible verses. When I started asking questions (the same kind Einstein asked when he attended a Christian camp) I was subjected to this same kind of psychological assault. I was told to ignore "4" as a possible answer and embrace the glories of "5". Well, I'm not going to do that any more.

    Today, we're celebrating a mission that will travel near the region of space, where physicists and their admirers can share a childhood dream. Everyone has a dream. One dream might be to come back as a spirit after you die. What I object to is packaging and selling that dream as a correct interpretation of reality, and then browbeating anyone who realizes it's only a dream.

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:33:02 GMT

Strawmen, Again, and Opinions "Based on Data"
Strawmen (discussed at length when many appeaed in earlier Cosmic Log) may be able to confuse some, but the wise are not taken in. Con artists find them a profitable tool among the unwary. Humans are often not aware that they are using strawmen, but some use them regularly even in Cosmic log.

Making a clear statement is important to help understanding. First making an attention grabbing statement then clarifying it later exposes the original as a slip of the tongue (not enough careful thought?) or maybe an attempt at attention grabbing.
Saying "there is no pupose" may get the attention of the unwise or those who don't see the potential for self-contradiction therein; but, when "there is no purpose" is CHANGED to (clarified by) "the universe has no purpose", one may be taken more seriously and honest discourse may begin.

Further saying that "the universe has no purpose" can be supported by observed facts requires, if not just trying to gain iconoclastic fame, presentation of said facts. Meanwhile, self-contradiction may be lurking, if one claims to have a personal (egocentric) purpose and one is a part of (exists in) said universe

"Religion is a scam." is obviously iconoclastic (maybe an attention grabbing attempt which fails among the wise). Clarification to "Organized religion is a scam." may open the door to intelligent discussion.

"Space is empty" is FALSE as evidenced by a tremendous amount of scientific data; whence comes any contrary data? Besides, space, by itself, is not a scientific reality (even a scam, although showing the great help of exploiting such?). Space-time is the reality for our universe. Leaving aside the not-scientific reality of space, the claim "space does not have a purpose" runs against the common definitions of purpose and space. One may make up definitions to fit one's private goals and arguments; but, other people, in return, should be allowed similar definitions, especially those having common acceptance. These ideas can not be ignored if intelligent discussion is to arise.

Finally, Dr. Paul Davies is basing his approach to "bio-friendly" research on scads of scientific data, where is similar data that can show he is wasting his time? I am certain that Dr. Davies would have been well aware of any such data BEFORE devoting his and others efforts to this quest. One may cast doubt about his ultimate success, but there is no doubt he has plenty of supporting scientific data to merit the effort; again, where is any plethora of contrary data? Dr. Davies is not so foolish as to begin a quest in the face of scads of contrary data. Like Einstein was not so foolish as to say that everything is relative or there are no absolutes in our universe (ideas held by many even today) which would have stopped his theoretical research. Indeed, Einstein's Special Relativity shows that some things are relative and some things are absolute in our physical universe as well as showing us how to distinguish between that which is relative and that which is absolute in physics.

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:01:22 GMT

Reply to: ""Space is empty" is FALSE as evidenced by a tremendous amount of scientific data; whence comes any contrary data?" (end)

   How difficult is a Google search? I grew up before there was an Internet and I'm always amazed at how easy it is to obtain facts. For example,

   "The Boötes void is spherical with a diameter of 250 million light-years, which is about 2% the diameter of the entire observable universe. Its density is somewhat less than that of the universe’s average, which is about one atom per cubic meter. The void’s density is certainly lower than that of typical intergalactic space."

    This term "average density" is misleading because so much of the matter has clumped into stars, but there's a number. ONE atom per cubic meter.

   Let's look at the idea of "voids":

   "The Boötes void, named after the constellation where it can be found, is the largest known region of empty space in the observable universe. Because it is so large, it is sometimes referred to as a supervoid.

About 98% of the volume of the universe is consumed by intergalactic voids. The universe is made up of superclusters forming thin “walls” around these huge voids, perhaps reminiscient of the way organisms consist of cells whose main density lies in walls enclosing cytoplasm. Interestingly, there is no gap in the cosmic background radiation in the region of the void. The void (might) contain dark matter and energy, perhaps even at densities no different than those found within superclusters. And the void (might be) filled with endless quantities of virtual particles, which are created and annihilated constantly on the smallest timescales." (end)

    I suppose you could play wordgames, but "~98% of the volume of the universe... intergalactic voids."

When I say "Space is empty," that's what I mean.

   Is this universe programmed for "bio-friendliness"? If you look at the evidence instead of playing to uneducated beliefs, then answer is no.

    I have much more evidence supporting the statement "religion is a scam." Because religion is much easier to examine, test and quantify than the composition of the universe.

The self-made universe

Alan Boyle — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:04:27 GMT

William, please resist the temptation to roll out all the evidence that "religion is a scam." ;-)

I don't think it's worth getting into the atheist vs. believer point-counterpoint. We do know for a fact that the universe is bio-friendly enough to provide one example, and that's the puzzler. If the sufficient conditions to foster life on Earth exist elsewhere (Mars or Gliese 581c), will we find life there? How would it be organized? If we don't find life, what are we missing? Finding life that's organized differently would pose all sorts of intriguing larger questions. Not finding it would leave the largest question hanging.

As Douglas Adams said, space is mind-bogglingly big, and there's a lot of empty space. But it's not totally empty. There should be no doubt that the universe is bio-friendly (or at least bio-tolerant) in the sense that Davies means it. Physics permits the self-replication of long strings of molecules into assemblages that can do physics. The big question, and perhaps the scientifically unanswerable question, is why? Can it be any other way? If so, what is the reason why our universe is the way it is? I don't mean to reiterate Davies' whole argument here, just trying to summarize it.

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:50:43 GMT

Alan,

   Like the legion of Harry Potter fans impatiently lining up for Book 7 and the oft-promised showdown with Lord Valdemort and the Forces of Darkness, I'll wait for the right opponent and the appropriate forum (definitely NOT this little Message box). In the meantime, you said:

"There should be no doubt that the universe is bio-friendly (or at least bio-tolerant) in the sense that Davies means it."

   That's an assumption that I'm not willing to concede. Not when our universe has an average density of one atom per cubic meter. If there's a bio-feedback loop operating where our universe was selected over all the other possibilities, I would expect a lot more bio-friendliness.

ALAN: "Physics permits the self-replication of long strings of molecules into assemblages that can do physics."

Since you brought it up, I do have a pet theory that I've been dying to share. Never seen it on the Internet, so the Hays Hypothesis goes like this:

   An early form of life was a single cell with a membrane. There was a hole in the membrane where objects were scooped up and used as raw material for a chemical factory. And there was another hole on the other end where waste products were expelled. Same basic structure as a shark.

    Not only did the chemical factories provide energy, they also expelled the waste products in a very precise form. Perhaps not a double helix, but certainly "long strings of molecules."

   I think this explains why DNA is so sophisticated. Sure, there are incredible odds against any combination of random molecules coming together, but when billions and billions of single-cell organisms are pushing said random molecules out a single hole at the end of the train... and other single-cell organisms scoop up the strings and process them again... and again... and again.... eventually we come up with something that looks like the double-helix structure.

   It's NOT a bio-feedback loop. It's not random chance, either. The different pieces all fit into a process that dictates the form. I think that's the Correct explanation for the apparent bio-friendliness you (and Charles Darwin, many others) observed.

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:40:04 GMT

THANK YOU ALAN
Your Friday, April 27, 2007 4:04 PM comment was very imporant and helpful to make clear some errors made by some contributors. For example, it seems some people have never heard of or choose to ignore gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields (radiation) which pervade ALL space (space-time). There are other candidates that attest to space not being "void" anywhere in our physical universe, but the two mentioned are surely the most widely known and based on the vast and firmest scientific evidence around. One can speculate about the existence of physical voids outside our visible universe; but, because they are invisible or unobservable, they do not belong in physics. Now, some may define their "void" to exclude radiation or fields in order to preserve their opinions about parts of space being empty, but such definitions are not supported by science or most knowledgeable people and may be seen for what they are, a vain attempt to defend ... FALSE scientific concepts rather than provide enlightment or grounds for scientific progress and inquiry.

Again, thank you, Alan, for setting many of the facts straight, thereby protecting the innocent, and making an attempt to help most (it is becoming ever clearer there may be at least one who your rectitude will have little chance of reaching, hence, "most" instead of "all") to see that Dr. Davies is not some kind of idiot who is hoplessly wrong but, instead, he is a very thoughtful, loving, great-goal establishing, and intelligent human.

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:42:21 GMT

Hi Alan,

My THANK YOU ALAN message was sent without my knowing of the disagreeing-with-you message that followed your effort to make Dr. Davies clearer. Here is an attempt at further clarification [...]

Dr. Davies' scientific evidence for a bio-friendly universe comes from our (and the multitude of other biological entities) existing in our universe. If biological things did not exist, then such non-existence, scientific evidence could be seen as showing the universe might not be bioligically-friendly (no biological stuff existing does NOT prove biological- unfriendliness, maybe just bad luck?). Likewise, any biological stuff found to exist, does NOT prove biological-friendliness (maybe luck, again, but ever greater luck required the more widespread and diverse the biological stuff), but it does scientifically and obviously show our universe has biological stuff. "Proof" is difficult to define with universal agreement. Where one chooses to draw the line for enough biological stuff for scientific validity can vary from individual to individual. Some, even scientists, may want to find life on many (just one more may be enough for some) other planets before signing on to biological-friendliness. Dr. Davies may avoid the unnecessary, where-to-draw-the-line problem by letting one planet be sufficient to meet his definition of bio-friendly (draw his line), if he so wishes. Those who wish to dismiss him because they insist on there being more biological stuff in our universe, LACK scientific evidence that there is no more.

One is allowed to have the opinion that it seems to require more faith than science to believe in a universe putting all its eggs in one basket (scatter only one acorn) than the contrary. This last point will remain opinion or faith for the more demanding scientist until one scientifically finds life elsewhere in our universe. Some, non-scientists, may want to find life in every galaxy before signing on to a bio-friendly universe and that is their right. However, valid scientists do not require seeing that every dropped stone in the universe follows Newton's law of gravitatiion before signing on to Newton's (or Einstein's) law of gravitation. One, indeed, is allowed to doubt that Newton's law of gravitation works in other galaxies until going there to check it out; however, one's scientific credentials will, thereby, come into question.

Did you ever notice how your comments sent to Cosmic Log seem more profound, wonderful, beautiful, clear, etc. than those of other contributors? If not, then your human ego, may be less strong than usual. How about your children compared to those of others? May all enjoy and bask (let egos run wild) in their good and honest efforts. Most of us will not be able to surpass or even come close to matching the efforts of great scientists. Just because our theories and ideas do not contain the elements required for a great and successful scientific theory (is in agreement with predictions of well tried theories and shows their limits, predicts new facts of our physical universe, is simple, scientifically elegant and beautiful, etc.), we should NOT stop from trying to develop them and enjoying basking in the beauty we see in them, like our children, again. Also, we are likely to become better humans and can find more enjoyment in life if we see the good points in other peoples' "children".

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:57:48 GMT

Reply to: "Now, some may define their "void" to exclude radiation or fields in order to preserve their opinions about parts of space being empty, but such definitions are not supported by science or most knowledgeable people and may be seen for what they are, a vain attempt to defend ... FALSE scientific concepts..."

   Something to think about. Certainly the next time I drive by an empty lot, I will think about all the electromagnetic fields, radiation and gravity that prevents said lot from actually being empty...

   On the other hand, I didn't invent the name for the "Bootes void." Legitimate astronomers did.

   The question on the table was, "Is the universe bio-friendly to such a degree that we could conclude it was picked from all the possible alternatives by a super-human intelligence?" And the presence of intense gamma radiation in intergalactic voids that make up 98% of the volume of observable space... means the universe is much LESS bio-friendly than if the voids were simply empty.

My thought is, we live in a universe that is unfriendly to life in the extreme. IF the average density is only one atom per cubic meter, that doesn't seem like the best of all possible game plans for organic life. (And, if the velocity component of the Big Bang had been less, our neighbors might be close enough to visit occasionally.) No, I think the premise of "Cosmic Jackpot" is incorrect, but I realize the guy has to come up with a concept that might sell some books in a country where over 90% believe in some form of a god. Just not to me.

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:49:59 GMT

Quotes from Dr. Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" exposing errors or sophistry seen in some comments.

Page 76: "The concepts of empty space and of nothingness take on a whole new meaning when quantum uncertainty takes the stage. Indeed, since 1905, when Enstein did away with the luminiferous aether, the idea that space is filled with invisible substances has waged a vigorous comeback. As we will see in later chapters, key developments in modern physics have reinstituted various forms of an aetherlike entity, none of which set an absolute standard for motion like the luminiferous aether, but all of which thoroughly challenge the naive conception of what it means for spacetime to be empty. Moreover, as we will now see, THE most basic role that space plays in a classical universe -- as the medium that separates one object from another, as the intervening stuff that allows us to declare definitively that some object is distinct and independent from another -- is thoroughly challenged by startling quantum connections."

Page 330: "In prequantum (and pre-Higgs) physics, we'd declare a region of space completely empty if it contained no particles and the value of every field was uniformly zero*"

Physics has advanced from the ancient "classical" physics (prequantum physics); but, humans, who have not studied or understood current, quantum physics or have been unable to overcome human bias toward the thinking of "classical" physics, may still make the pertinent errors of "classical" (prequantum) physics. In quantumphysics there is no permanent, "completely empty space". The void in the so-called Bootes void, for legitimate astronomers, does not mean that legitimate astronomers are saying there are no atoms in the region, let alone radiation. "Legitimate astronomers" understand this use of "void" may be misleading to some, but they know it is not "void" in the sense of empty or a (physical) vacuum. "Empty" can be ambiguous; therefore, one must take care to clarify one's use if one wishes to avoid chances of misleading or being misunderstood. It seems that one contributer hit the nail on the head with a comment that those who wish to make scientific their denial of the existence God bear the same burden of extensive, supportive evidence (proof?) that they would impose on those who wish to make scientific their affirmation of the existence of God. Those denying seem to have the added difficulty of trying to prove a negative. If one stays on strict scientific grounds, neither should expect (nor can they get) success. If one does not like one's life or all the ugly stuff one sees in our universe, one may be looking for a type of perfection that is only possible in a robotic universe. If a universe is going to have FREE WILL (not be robotic), then things must be able to go wrong. It seems most would agree that a robotic universe comes off as a tinkertoy universe when compared with our universe. So, cheer up, maybe we got the best deal after all.

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 01 May 2007 18:30:41 GMT

Reply to: "Legitimate astronomers" understand this use of "void" may be misleading to some, but they know it is not "void" in the sense of empty or a (physical) vacuum. (end)

Hmmm. It's difficult to visualize space because (a) there's so much of it, and (b) most of it consists of empty space between galaxies and clusters, which isn't very interesting to photograph. EMPTY means (in THIS context) that when you try to take a photograph, all it shows is the object behind the void. Let's run the numbers:

(From a site) The Boötes void is probably the most perfect vacuum in the universe. Like the rest of space, the most plentiful form of conventional matter to be found within the void is ionized hydrogen. The density of lead is 11.34 g/cm³. The density of the Boötes void is about 1.674× 10 ^ −29 g/cm³, approximately a million million million million million times more diffuse than lead... Interestingly, there is no gap in the cosmic microwave background radiation. The void almost certainly contains a lot of dark matter and energy.. And, of course, the void is filled with endless quantities of virtual particles, which are created and annihilated constantly on the smallest timescales. (end)

I think there are three normal galaxies in the Bootes void. (Feel free to check.) So it's NOT a vacuum, but it IS a void. In fact, MOST of the universe could be considered "void" - 98% by one estimate.

It's very easy to PROVE that God does not exist. When Alan posts a relevant topic, I'll show you how that works.

From a page on today's msnbc: "Over the next 100 billion years, dark energy is expected to accelerate the most distant galaxies and stars in the universe beyond the speed of light, meaning most of the universe will be invisible to future astronomers. In about 10 trillion years, only the local cluster of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, will be visible. "The future is bad," Krauss told Space.com. "A universe with dark energy is the worst of all possible universes for the long-term future of life." (end)

Instead of trying to argue for a religious belief, Krauss was making a (somewhat) off-the-cuff observation that our universe is "the worst of all possible universes for the long-term future of life." Is that the ultimate answer to the bio-friendly "feedback loop" question? Or did he actually consider the fate of enough universes without dark energy to make a valid judgment?

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:05:55 GMT

A definition of "void" has been clarified (maybe even changed or a new one offered), but it should not be confused with or accepted as the definition of "void" that says "containing or holding nothing" (Random House). There is possible confusion, even inconsistency (self-contradicion?), in the statement "-- the void is filled with --" when one has not set down a special (unusual or private) definition of "void". "Its not a vacuum but it is a void" does not help others to find understanding or knowledge, rather confusion. Especially, considering Funk & Wagnalls has the definition of "void" as "an empty space; a vacuum".

To "-- PROVE that God does not exist." requires a definition of "proof" that will need to be as contradictory (maybe even self-contradictory) as the specialized (personal?) "void" used in recent comments is contradictory to the definition of Funk & Wagnalls. In any event, science realizes that ultimate proof is as elusive, impossible, as ultimate definition. Besides there is the logical impossibility of trying to "prove" a negative.

"There is nothing absolute." is self-contradictory, hence, invalid for "proving" anything; "There is something absolute" does not share the same difficulty, but its ultimate proof still runs into the difficulties of ultimate definitions. There is fun, joy, etc. in trying such "proofs" (wasting time if start with or try to prove a self-contradiction), but in the end, valid scientists and valid theologians both know that neither's field can ultimately prove or disprove the existence of God. It's, clearly, a matter of FAITH. This fact can not actually be surmounted without changing definitions of the words involved to peculiar, even unacceptable definitions, like defining "no proof" to be "proof", "up" to be "sideways" or "down", etc..
Remember that "proof by induction" (lots of testable examples), the basic tool of science, is not an ultimate proof. Deductive proof (showing how a new truth follows from accepted truths) still needs truths that all can agree on (accepted truths) to begin and there's the rub. Science does not take majority vote as a basis for truth or establishing truth. The sophists among congressional people who keep saying that the majority who voted them into power must be right and obeyed (said publicly, but don't have much credence in their saying it privately), are readily exposed by intelligent people.

So Krauss pessimistically said "The future is bad". Tipler and many others, however, have optimistic views. It seems the optimists may have a better, more fulfilling and happy, life. Krauss surely was "off-the-cuff" when using simply "worst", certainly not scientific.

Finally, as has been seen in other contributors, science is not the only reality; we are blessed with many other exciting, interesting, joyful etc. realities (thanks to the "FORCE" -- of gravity?).

The self-made universe

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Wed, 02 May 2007 23:50:53 GMT

I apologize for two mistakes in my previous post. First, I meant to type "fifty-three" instead of "three" observed galaxies in the Bootes void. (A simple typo, and there may be a lot more.) Second, the statement "So it's NOT a vacuum" was incorrect. Earlier, I had posted "The Boötes void is probably the most perfect vacuum in the universe" and that statement IS correct. Some of our conventional definitions (such as the one you might find in a Random House dictionary) don't apply to a supervoid with a diameter equal to two percent of the diameter of the entire observable universe (about 250 million light-years.) There can be 53 galaxies in such a vast space and it still meets the correct definition of vacuum. A vacuum is a relative measure of the number of particles in a given volume, and a space qualifies as a "vacuum" if it is significantly less than atmospheric pressure on earth. As a lawyer, I use different definitions of "prove" and "proof" on a daily basis. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt is different than "by a preponderance of evidence." We are living at a wonderful moment in history, when the preponderance of evidence finally makes it valid to say "God does not exist." (If there was even a single piece of credible evidence FOR a God, it would not be possible to say that.)

The self-made universe

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 03 May 2007 21:06:54 GMT

For the Record

For bona-fide astronomers, Bootes void is not intended to imply or mean some physically (scentifically) empty space in the Bootes constellation. Bootes void refers to a NEARLY empty space in Bootes which has no (is empty of, void of) galaxies. When bona-fide astronomers use Bootes void, they mean EMPTY as far galaxies are concerned, DEVOID of galaxies, not devoid of all matter. Bona-fide astronomers know that saying "the Bootes GALAXY void" might avoid some possible misunderstandings that arise from using the briefer "Bootes void" and, may, therefore, say something like "Bootes Galaxy void" when talking with non-astronomers, but among themselves such misunderstandings would not arise. Obviously, the length of (but less open to misinterpretation) "the region of Bootes that has no galaxies" makes one like the briefer "Bootes void" (in spite of possible misinterpretations).

The self-made universe

W. Richards, Lake Oswego, Or — Fri, 11 May 2007 22:17:05 GMT

I'm so fascinated by this discussion. I'm obviously not a scientist but the point of reverse causality is interesting. The author of the observation relating human development to the universe has a point. If you relate the early universe and its development to a self evolving program and a mere 10 billion years later operating at a trillion terebytes the entity (universe) realizes that it is alone. It understands nearly perfectly how the universe works so goes back in time to alter the the rules so that there will be companions (observers). One analogy could be like a child that grows up with a genetic disorder and becomes a brilliant medical doctor. She creates a way to alter her genetic make-up so that the disorder disappears and she becomes the picture of health. She grew in power, knowledge and understanding (after all, isn't she basically just a bag of chemicals like the universe) and like the early universe, got to a point where she had the ability to change the way things were to the way she imagined them. The universe and we, evolve all the time. Why couldn't the universe have evolved before we were here to observe it?

The self-made universe

Mark Jamison, Vancouver, Canada — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:25:53 GMT

Hi:

I agree with Paul Davies that the universe engineered its own biofriendliness, but the universe is more like an organism than a computer. An organism will change and develop depending on the data and circumstances.

A computer can only perform based on its frame of reference hardware, software(logic). A computer is deterministic. An organism has free will, is indeterminate, is creative, and can generate something completely new. A computer can't do that and never will.

Just like the reality we observe contains the quantum mechanical(organic) universe of uncertainty, indeterminism, and the freedom to create. It also contains the a universe of cause and effect, Newton's laws and determinism. The universe is a wonderful paradox. I wouldn't want it any other way. A universe balanced between Art and Science, or intuition and logic.

The self-made universe

Sidney Williams, Granite City, Illinois — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:58:53 GMT

Your statement, "The self-made universe" is at odds with the "destroying of the earth" which has been going on steadily for over 20 years. The news of homes and nature steadily being destroyed is appalling. But this was predicted in the Bible.

The self-made universe

Sidney Williams, Granite City, Illinois — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:07:27 GMT

"We will become one of the world's leading think-tanks."
The men of God have always known the future. I wrote about "the closing of the Catholic churches in 2004" in 1997. I have written "Revival 2015" which will also come true. But I am not a prophet, only a believer in Jesus' prophecies (like the ewnd of the world).

The self-made universe

bill carson gretna la — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:19:10 GMT

Life Friendly Universe? Or just a “stacked deck”

Our universe happens to be “friendly” to carbon based life like our own but as far as it being a special miracle it really is more like dealing out 5 blank cards from a 52 card deck then painting a straight flush on the cards after the fact.

Carbon based life (the straight flush) occurred to fit with the environment, maybe somewhere else silicone creatures are roaming their world marveling over the “life friendly” environment allowing their species to thrive.

The self-made universe

Chris Leary — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:52:18 GMT

I am so sick of all the self-delusional religious nuts who are so frightened by the possibillity that their existence is random that they must try to convince themselves and others that some stupid man-made book contains "Truth" when in fact, it is only one of hundreds of man-made books written by humans in an effort to gain power over other humans.

No human being knows if there is or isn't a god or gods, and no human being knows the origin of existence. Science at least tries to understand how the universe really works, even if that understanding in and of itself brings no meaning. Maybe we are random, and maybe there is no God, no intelligent design. Maybe there is no "one true faith" and maybe we are jsut molecular machines which slowly evolved by a very, very long series of chances...both successful and not...and that maybe, or best choice is to accept that we don't know, try to learn more, using science and reason, and then use that knowledge to better ourselves and therefore make our OWN meaning.

The bible is just a book, and it has no truth, only pleasant and sometimes violent stories...like any mythos, it is the product of man's fear of the unknown and his fear of eachother.

We owe it to ourselves and to our planet, and in the words of the late Dr. Carl Sagan, to that cosmos, ancient and vast, to survive for survival's sake. And in doing that, we can and should put aside the bedtime story of religion and accept the challenge of the growing oppotunity for learning that our adulthood as a species offers.

The self-made universe

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:11:02 GMT

I didn't notice if Paul Davies believes that this bio-friendly universe spawned untold other observers. Why wouldn't it, or why would it?

Does his ideas lead only to humanity and this world of observers? I suppose the answer is...as far as we know. Which doesn't seem too far.

The self-made universe

Plisko, Phoenix, Arizona — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:23:46 GMT

Did I read this correctly? The chicken invented the egg that invented the chicken?

The self-made universe

M L Kelly Coloardo Springs — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:58:50 GMT

If the truth is stanger than fiction, then reality is stranger than Ideas.
This can only mean that the reality of all things is far beyond human comprehension. Therefore I must resort to the anthropic principle by default.
Pretending to have some superhuman insight into the unknowable is a vain and usless persuit.
Having said that, I will never stop pondering the nature of all things till the day I die.

The self-made universe

Barry U. Headinsand, Lakeland, Florida — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:39:27 GMT

There are a lot of books these days that are trying to bridge the gap between scientific materialism & theology. I think we're seeing the beginnings of a new religion, similar to the development of monotheism or eastern religious philosopy thousands of years ago. My prediction (for what it's worth) is that in a couple hundred years' time there will be a new major religion that bases it's belief in God on vague, half-understood, drivel about quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, string theory, etc. and the public will spout this crap out to each other, thinking it's some sort of legitimate proof of God's existence, but it will really resort to the same circular or unproveable arguments that religion has always used. But maybe it will be a less dogmatic, more humanistic religion that can be more accommodating towards, & benefit from, ongoing research into things like psychology, sociology,& genetics. Maybe it would take the stance of "this doctrine is God's will because it's been shown to be effective in dealing with this situation" and not "this is God's will because some pseudo-historical dirtbag goatherd with bipolar disorder ranted and raved at people & convinced them he was hearing God's voice"

The self-made universe

Jim Anspach — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:25:13 GMT

Nobody knows and this guy is no different. He just thinks, he knows. Instead of explaining, how the universe works, lets try explaining how our brain works, or evolved, without bringing GOD into it. The universe is benign and man is still trying to explain its mechansisms. William James' book; "Varieties of Religious Experience", is still the classic text on this subject. Please, drop the; GOD this or that...its a waste of time and creates (no pun intended) ambiguity and assumptions in any discussion.

The self-made universe

JB, Asheville — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:24:44 GMT

My theory; The universe is alive and aware of itself both in its entirety and in large and small overlapping subsets of itself. Life will apppear to evolve anywhere in the universe, taking advantage of what ever circumstances are available in any given place at any given moment, when in fact life was first and it is instead the circumstances which evolve. Life is the means by which the universe is aware of itself and it will always exist, everywhere, in cosmic and subatomic sized subsets, and countless overlapping subsets between as well as beyond our understanding.

We do not have the capacity to understand life as a whole or in part, and only recognize it in biological form and circumstances similar to our own and when formed in subsets of the universe that do not exceed our own subset.

A bio-friendly universe? I find that to be an idiotic concept. Not only because biological life seems to develope and evolve in spite of ideal circumstance but also because I believe most life in the universe is most probably not even biological.

The self-made universe

ChemDaddy — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:19:08 GMT

"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."

The laws "focus"? The universe "engineers”? Are the laws (of physics, science etc.) capable of action? How does an inanimate universe "engineer" anything?

What are the proposed mechanisms by which this "feedback loop" (through which, according to Mr. Davies the universe "engineers" bio-friendly parameters) operates?

Mr. Paul Davies seems to be more of a philosopher with some very interesting and creative ideas, than a scientist. (That could just be the perception I'm taking away from this article as it seems to be focused more on the underlying philosophy, and not so heavy on the hard science behind it.) No offense intended to Mr. Davies, but given his philosophical prowess, I expect he is likely big enough to take any critical evaluation of his ideas into consideration without being personally wounded. Thank "something" or "nothing" that the universe "engineered" (itself?) such that a Paul Davies could exist and be capable of creating these ideas and making these statements.

But where's the science in all of this? Where's the practical application of the scientific method? Where are the testable, falsifiable experiments to support this language?

These are very important topics worthy of discussion. But can we please be clear about whether we are talking about science or philosophy here?

The beauty of science is that it allows us through rigorous application of the scientific method to learn many things about the nature of the physical, material, natural world. It can't answer spiritual or philosophical questions any more than I could talk to God by picking up a telephone. And there will always be many questions about the nature of the physical universe that it cannot answer. Even so let us soldier on and learn what we can (hopefully more for the benefit of our fellow man, than as seems to be more and more the case, just for personal and financial gain).

The beauty of philosophy and spirituality is that they allow each of us to choose freely our interpretation of that which science can not answer. And hopefully it gives us the capacity to appreciate and respect the different interpretation someone else has freely chosen. Ideally it also allows us to critically evaluate the different interpretation someone else has chosen, and allows our own interpretation to be critically evaluated by someone else, all without anybody getting personally offended that somebody dared to question someone else’s personal interpretation of the nature of existence.

The atheist says, "There is no God". It's a philosophical statement made by the free choice of the person making the statement. There can be no scientific experiment conducted to prove or disprove this statement. The same could be said of the person that says, "There is a God". Each has their reasons for their belief. Each can string together logical statements to support their belief. But neither can conduct a scientific experiment to prove or disprove their belief.

And because of the unique nature of each person's experiences and perspective on life, we hopefully choose to respect the position of both the atheist and the person who believes in a personal God (or any other variety of personal belief).

Without an established philosophy, we know that our practical application of science can't exist. But without the experiment, anything we say about the nature of anything is just philosophy, no matter how logical it may sound.

The whole reason scientists cling so dearly to the established theories is because countless (well, actually countable) experiments have been conducted to support them.

Now this seems funny to me. It says on this page "time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing".

Or should it read "the nature of the time and space constraints that exist are determined by the comments that appear"!

Was this blog, at its "creation", "engineered" via the "feedback loop" of the Internet?

To recap:

'Then the issue we are confronted with is, why do the laws (of the Internet) focus in on this (blog)-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 (Internet), then the way lies open for the (Internet) to engineer these (blog)-friendly parameters through this feedback loop.'

Sorry, Mr. Davies, I was just having a little fun with your quote from the article. I hope all can see the humor in it, and rest assured that I have no ill intent in any of my comments here!

The self-made universe

Peter Kapnistos Athens, GR — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:22:43 GMT

Chet Twarog wrote: "The Hebrew Genesis mythologies are different than the thousands of other ancient mythologies that you can also find, research, and compare because you just have faith in Genesis."

The Bible actually goes beyond "faith in symbols" by describing human meetings with advanced beings or angels. I cannot dismiss all such reports as mere fantasies. Some kind of encounters probably took place in bible stories that may be linked to higher intelligence and advanced (Type 3) civilizations from space (the heavens). Perhaps these beings also wanted us to know about a two-phase universe?

I find it odd that scientists will use Drake's Equation to show there are half a billion stars to support life in our galaxy alone. But the same group of scientists will shrug off any notion that our "religious narratives" are really about human encounters with advanced beings from space. For now (it may change some day) our scientifc community prefers to suggest that ancient religious leaders were either mentally disturbed or just plain dishonest. Yet the mainstream population is not in agreement with scientists on this matter.

The self-made universe

dariush mahdavi, Temecula, California — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:05:44 GMT

Carl Sagan also said universe created life to understand itself. Dr paul davies has a way of explaining things that make sense even to non scientists. I never forget how I was affected by his book "Other Worlds" His ideas of 30 years ago are being proven today and I will always believe in his theories for he is one of the greatest minds of humanity.

The self-made universe

Gordon Mackley UK — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:10:54 GMT

'Even though the odds of winning a trillion-to-one lottery are very, very low, mathematics dictate that eventually, any number will come up.'

Sorry Mr. Johanson but there is no law in Mathematical Probability that states that any specific number or sequence MUST come up. All that probability states is that the more times you do the lottery the less chance there is of a particular one not occurring at least once but that chance never becomes zero probability (at least not in finite time anyway).

The self-made universe

Dov Henis — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:37:19 GMT

The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe
Focusing

The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

Astronomically there are two physics, a classical physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

The onset of big-bang's inflation started gravity, with formation - by dispersion - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original
pre-inflation masses back to energy, and with endless quantum intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempts to delay-resist this reconversion.

Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=495&#entry412704
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/100/122.page#1407

The self-made universe

phillip d. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:46:57 GMT

Anthropomorphic nonsense!! Most of the universe is NOT suited for us or other lifeforms as we understand them. Once again, we humans think it's all about us.

Virtually every instance in the past where man has put himself in a privileged position in the universe, he has been proven incorrect. I doubt this hypothesis will be any exception.

As for "intelligent design", it belongs in a classroom delving into the origins of fairy tales and urban myths, or hopeful delusions; it is not science.

The self-made universe

Brian — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:29:25 GMT

mmMMM ....Grapefruit...

The self-made universe

Matt L — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:42:50 GMT

I'm with the (capable of thinking scientifically) doubters on this one... the casual assumption that an observer has to be a biological entity being my main complaint. The entire 'observer' phenomenon arises from the fact that we have found carrier particles for 3 of the 4 fundamental forces (I'm excluding the 'force' of dark energy expansion as it might be another example of the distortion of space as Einstein says gravity is an example, i.e. there are solutions for Einstein's equations of relativity that allow for 'white holes' that constantly EMIT space instead of drawing it in... and I'm including gravity just because, maybe they will find the graviton): no force is transmitted if no particle receives the carrier particle, the particle receiving the force-carrying particle is the 'observer.' No biological entity, a single subatomic particle is not alive.

And that brings me to my second complaint, the claim that the Universe is somehow bio-friendly. I think others such as "Chance Williams" have stated my opinion on that well enough.

My third complaint is about the insistence that there is something special about biology besides its complexity. It's just complex chemistry folks! Simple applications of evolution (which is PROVEN [what is not proven is the descent of man from apes but the evidence is overwhelmingly for it] and also which DOES NOT REQUIRE BIOLOGY, it only requires a replicating system, hence its broad applicability). Biology is a macroscale phenomenon of complexity that arises from the interactions of microscale phenomena between trillions of individual components (can you see the complexity of dealing with trillions of unique [no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time], interacting components?) and attempting to assign a quality of "life" as anything other than an organizing principle is folly.

And a special thanks to "fleshapple" because so many English-speaking people just don't understand the concept of a specialized vocabulary with strict definitions.

The self-made universe

Chris Harrison, Hamilton, MA — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:47:36 GMT

So.

Waves are all that exist in the future and the past. Waves that have unlimited permutations and possibilities.

But when we observe these waves, they collapse, and become particles.

And since we must be here to observe the waves, they become particles that allow us to exist?

Am I getting all this?

The self-made universe

dennis, tijeras nm — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:16:13 GMT

i read davies' book, "the accidental universe", three time. he is a fascinating guy. is the schedule for his tour available?

The self-made universe

laszlo viola toronto ontario — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:54:55 GMT

till today humanity is on his own, it is difficult to accept the responsibility having our own acts as they are. Society is built on a base we call interest, the human nature is competitive the stronger male takes the female and as the society growing more complex this strength is aided by external forces ideologies and other weapons, humanity is own worst enemy and enjoys to kill not only for food, but to eliminate and adversary idea, based on this science can not be clearheaded, the researchers' mind is "infected" by social influences not related to the facts. Human intelligence is developing and by an accelerated speed and get hour by hour more factual information but by its own human nature wants to know everything including information we have no access yet! Searching the particles of matter needs adequate tools and instruments sometimes we are forced to make brain surgery with the help of an axe and it is not a good idea to kill a colibry by a cannon the result is defective.
No theory has been proven by the meantime science without boarders shows real things and occurences which do not match any idea, searching for the final frontier is a very noble and chalanging task but collecting information of an infinite complexity needs an equally infinite effort and time and we do not have it. Paul Davies noble approach to have a new ideology giving his God another name does not change the fact his view is theocratic even though by his view -if I caught it well- wants to have a proof of something which does not needs that proof matter has its infinite capacity to put in existence whatever form comes out and by that it is humanity and life on Earth -we do not know any other yet- having conscience and by that be able to recognise itself, develpo itself and modify itself, whatever we do it is matter's movement and own transformation. We have our senses, intuition and other "divine" capacities including our medium ever more complex "created" by ourselves (but it is matter's own) matter can not be eliminated by the way can not be created that mind sweat idea of the form of the matter right "before" the Big Bang is the same matter which is not coming out of the blue (even that bangs my mind with its unnecessary mind boggling distorted thought) the pictures and real information we receive from the our Sun and closer environment does not prove any of these theories giving surprises and the bigger picture also seen on the images generated by Hubble, Cassini and other medium shows nothing of this genre, I think Paul Davies has a complicated tautology, and many others included even Einstein himself stated about his mathematical appraoch than it is at the reality is tautology. We do not need those ideologies let science work, if society needs religion to make more slaves for material gain purposes let be it.