Cynics!
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:44
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious
universe
How
can we know? And who loaded the dice?
arthur
Life is a crapshoot.
Yes, but sometimes the dice may be
loaded.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:09
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our
mysterious universe
P.S.: Merton met his end
in a most ironic of possible ways. He was electrocuted while
plugging in an appliance in a hotel room. A great and powerful mind
overcome by a toaster. Try to explain that!
arthur
Life is a
crapshoot.
OK, here's my take on it. It's something
I posted to a friend recently:
Ken, one of my reference points on this kind of
thing is Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk, who argued that
people have to approach the mystery of their being by using both
rationality and faith. As ever so many great scientific minds have
demonstrated, rational thought and science can give us an enormous
amount of information about the universe and our place in it.
However, there will always be a boundary between what we can explain and
understand and what we can't, and we really have no way of knowing
whether we have explained much about the state of our reality or just a
tiny bit of it. So, Merton argues, there is a boundary and, no
matter how far we push out into the unknown, there always will be.
He argues, further, that what lies beyond that boundary can be treated
in two different ways, either by denial or by faith. Denial is the
approach of the atheist - there is nothing out there that we can't
ultimately explain in rational terms. Faith is a little harder to
explain. The fundamentalist has faith, but his faith is very
close to the approach of the atheist in that he defines and delineates
what lies beyond the boundary and therefore excludes mystery. Even
though I'm a deacon in a Baptist church, my own preference and path is
agnosticism. I want to believe that there is something immense,
eternal and purposeful beyond the boundary, but of course I cannot
know.
Personally, I think that the two most
important components of religion are respect for mystery and
compassion for all living beings that share the mystery with us. A
book I read while in the slums of Sao Paulo a few years ago puts it this
way:
... in a creative universe God would
betray no trace of his presence, since to do so would be to rob the
creative forces of their independence, to turn them from the active
pursuit of answers to mere supplication of God. And so it is: God's
language is silence. The Old Testament suggests that God fell silent
in response to the request of the terrified believers who said to
Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak
with us, lest we die." Whatever the reason, God ceases speaking with
the book of Job, and soon stops intervening in human affairs
generally, leading Gideon to ask, "If the Lord be with us, why then .
. . where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of?" The
author of the Twenty-second Psalm cries ruefully, "My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?"
Whether he left or was ever here I do
not know, and don't believe we ever shall know. But one can learn to
live with ambiguity - that much is requisite to the seeking spirit -
and with the silence of the stars. All who genuinely seek to learn,
whether atheist or believer, scientist or mystic, are united in having
not a faith but faith itself. Its token is reverence, its habit to
respect the eloquence of silence. For God's hand may be a human hand,
if you reach out in loving kindness, and God's voice your voice, if
you but speak the truth. (Timothy Ferris, The Whole Shebang,
Simon & Schuster, 1997,
p.312)
Hope this helps.
Ed
P.S.: Merton met his end in a most ironic
of possible ways. He was electrocuted while plugging in an
appliance in a hotel room. A great and powerful mind overcome by a
toaster. Try to explain that!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003
10:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our
mysterious universe
Keith,
I'm probably a lot closer to
finding out the truth than you are -- even with your emphysema. Yet, I
find no evidence at all for support of the myth, any myth. Even one to
guide me, whatever that may mean.
All my life I have enjoyed
speculation on the universe, and
what it may mean, if it means anything. But, always it is for
entertainment purposes and doesn't lead to much that is
important.
The major problem in discussions
of this sort is that you
cannot argue with faith. Faith requires no logical support, no
significant evidence, nothing.
The universe is in a period of
transition from what and to what nobody knows. When we are in this
transition nobody knows and we are unlikely to find out. This
transition will take 1000 generations, or one million generations, of human beings. How can we take a
snapshot of what is now and extrapolate in all directions with any
sense?
So, enjoy your myths, as without
doubt you will. Just remember they
are myths.
Harry
-----------------------------------------------------
For those who like to ponder on the
mysteriousness of the universe and the significance (or not) of our
place within it, the following article from the New York Times
of a recent conference on cosmology is fascinating
indeed.
Even atheists have faith (in the credibility of their
own brains) but I feel sorry for them because they have no myth to
guide them. For the same reason, I feel sorry for agnostics because
they obviously would like to believe in a myth but haven't the energy
or imagination to search for, or to devise, their own. I don't have
much time for most beliefs, particularly for those which are
associated with formal religions, unless the believer can write about
it briefly and defend it adequately against criticism even if it can't
be proved to be true.
So, in two paragraphs, here's mine. It
isn't true in any absolute sense and if I lived long enough it would
probably be described in different metaphors as scientific ideas
change, but it keeps me happy at the present time, gives me purpose
and doesn't hurt anyone -- and those are the best criteria for any
sort of valid belief. My belief owes a great deal to the thinking of
Freeman Dyson, Lee Smolin, and a few more and is also echoed in some
of the contributions to the conference described below. Here
goes:
I believe that the extraordinarily precise physical
parameters of the universe which gives rise to both black holes and
lifeforms suggests that their joint existence is connected in a
significant way. I believe that lifeforms, given an evolutionary
chance, develop an informational database which conjoins with the
physical database of the universe itself. Along with Lee Smolin, I
believe that all matter descends into a black hole sooner or later and
form another universe with a slightly different physical database from
its parent. As a modification to Smolin's ideas, I believe that the
new physical database has been modified in one way or another by the
informational database of its previous lifeforms and thereby lays down
slightly different physical parameters in its progeny (summarised as
the "cosmological constant" as mentioned below)
If the new
universe with its new set of parameters also leads to life-forms which
also evolve then it will also possess black holes and will therefore
be able to produce further universes in due course. If a new universe
has a set of parameters which don't give rise to life then it won't
also possess black holes and will not give rise to a new generation of
universes. It will become a corpse in due course -- a body without a
soul. The various universes which survive (of which ours is one) will
have different survivabilities according to the informational
contributions of its lifeforms. Therefore, it may be possible that
anything a lifeform does and thinks, even if it reduces to only one
significant quantum event, may be contributing to the future
survivability of the universe's offspring. Thus endeth my evolutionary
theory.
Now follows the article -- a superb description of an
incredibly complex subject:
<<<< ZILLIONS OF
UNIVERSES? OR DID OURS GET LUCKY?
Dennis
Overbye
CLEVELAND -- Cosmology used to be a heartless science,
all about dark matter lost in mind-bending abysses and exploding
stars. But whenever physicists and astronomers gather, the subject
that roils lunch, coffee breaks or renegade cigarette breaks tends to
be not dark matter or the fate of the universe. Rather it is about the
role and meaning of life in the cosmos.
Cosmologists held an
unusual debate on the question during a recent conference, The
Future of Cosmology, at Case Western Reserve University here.
According to a controversial notion known as the anthropic principle,
certain otherwise baffling features of the universe can only be
understood by including ourselves in the equation. The universe must
be suitable for life, otherwise we would not be here to wonder about
it.
The features in question are mysterious numbers in the
equations of physics and cosmology, denoting, say, the amount of
matter in the universe or the number of dimensions, which don't seem
predictable by any known theory yet. They are like the knobs on God's
control console, and they seem almost miraculously tuned to allow
life. A slight tweak one way or another from the present settings
could cause all stars to collapse into black holes or atoms to
evaporate, negating the possibility of biology.
If there were
only one universe, theorists would have their hands full trying to
explain why it is such a lucky one. But supporters of the anthropic
principle argue that there could be zillions of possible universes,
many different possible settings ruled by chance. Their view has been
bolstered in recent years by a theory of the Big Bang, known as
inflation, which implies that our universe is only one bubble in an
endless chain of them, and by string theory the so-called theory of
everything whose equations seem to have an almost uncountable number
of solutions, each representing a different possible
universe.
Only a few of these will be conducive to life, the
anthropic argument goes, but it is no more surprise to find ourselves
in one of them than it is to find ourselves on the moist warm Earth
rather than on Pluto. In short we live where we can live, but those
can be fighting words.
Scientists agree that the name
"anthropic principle," is pretentious, but that's all they agree on.
Some of them regard the idea as more philosophy than science. Others
regard it as a betrayal of the Einsteinian dream of predicting
everything about the universe.
Dr. David Gross regards it as a
virus. "Once you get the bug you can't get rid of it," he complained
at the conference. Dr. Gross, director of the Kavli Institute for
Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif., had agreed to lead a
panel discussion on the notorious principle. Often found puffing on a
cigar, he is not known to be shy about expressing his opinion. "I was
chosen because I hate the anthropic principle," he said.
But
playing a central role in defending the need for what he called
"anthropic reasoning" was Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate from
the University of Texas. Like Dr. Gross, Dr. Weinberg is a particle
physicist who is known for being a hard-core reductionist in his
approach to science, but he evinces a gloomy streak in his writings
and his talks. He is still famous for writing in his 1977 book, The
First Three Minutes, "The more the universe seems comprehensible,
the more it also seems pointless."
Dr. Weinberg is among the
most prominent of theorists who have reluctantly accepted, at least
provisionally, the anthropic principle as a kind of tragic necessity
in order to explain the gnarliest knob of all.
Called the
cosmological constant, it is a number that measures the amount of
cosmic repulsion caused by the energy in empty space. That empty space
should be boiling with such energy is predicted by quantum theory, and
astronomers in the last few years have discovered that some cosmic
repulsion seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. But
theoretical attempts to calculate this constant, also known as lambda,
result in numbers 1060 times as high as those astronomers have
measured.
So despairing are physicists of understanding the
cosmological constant that Dr. Weinberg joked earlier at the meeting
that he would no longer read papers about it. Back in 1989, before any
cosmological constant had been discovered, Dr. Weinberg used the
anthropic principle to set limits on the value of the constant.
Suppose instead of being fixed by theory, it was random from universe
to universe. In that case the value of the cosmological constant in
our universe may just be an "environmental effect," he explained, and
we shouldn't expect to be able to predict it exactly any more than you
can calculate how much rain will fall in Seattle this
Christmas.
In his paper, Dr. Weinberg argued that lambda in our
universe could not be too big or the repulsive force would have
prevented the formation of galaxies, stars and us. Since we are here,
the constant should be small. The recently discovered "dark energy"
causing the cosmic acceleration fits comfortably inside Dr. Weinberg's
limits, vindicating in a way the anthropic approach.
In his
talk, Dr. Weinberg described the anthropic principle as "the sort of
historical realization scientists have been forced to make from time
to time. Our hope was to explain everything. Part of progress is we
learn what we can explain on fundamental grounds and what we
cannot."
Other panelists, including Dr. Alex Vilenkin, a
physicist from Tufts University, suggested that the anthropic
reasoning was a logical attempt to apply probabilities to cosmology,
using all the data, including the fact of our own existence. Dr. John
Peacock, a cosmologist at the University of Edinburgh, argued that the
anthropic principle was not a retreat from physics, but an advance.
The existence of an ensemble of universes with different properties,
he explained, implies a mechanism to produce variation, a kind of
cosmic genetic code, the way that evolution implies the existence of
genes.
"You gain new physics," Dr. Peacock said. But when his
own turn came, Dr. Gross questioned whether the rules of the anthropic
game were precise enough. What were the parameters that could vary
from universe to universe? How many could vary at once? What was the
probability distribution of their values, and what was necessary for
"life"?
Anthropic calculations are inherently vague and
imprecise, he said. As a result, the principle could not be disproved.
But he was only getting warmed up. His real objection, he said, was
"totally emotional." Ascribing the parameters of physics to mere
chance or vagaries of cosmic weather is defeatist, discouraging people
from undertaking the difficult calculations that would actually
explain why things are they way they are. Moreover, it is also
dangerous, he declared to ringing applause. "It smells of religion and
intelligent design," he said, referring to a variety of creationism
that argues that the universe is too complex to have evolved by
chance.
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, the astrophysicist from Case
Western who had organized the conference and recruited the panel,
characterized the anthropic principle as "a way of killing time" when
physicists didn't have a better idea. Dr. Krauss, who has battled
creationists over biology instruction in the public schools in Ohio,
said he had encountered anthropic arguments as an argument for
fine-tuning, the idea that God had fixed the universe just for
us.
Dr. Weinberg replied that the anthropic principle was not
really a part of science, but rather "a guess about the future shape
of science. If we didn't have things in our universe that seem
peculiar, like the value of the cosmological constant, we wouldn't
worry about it." Dr. Weinberg compared the situation to a person who
is dealt a royal flush in a poker tournament. It may be chance, he
said, but there is another explanation "Namely, is the organizer of
the tournament our friend?"
"But that leads to the argument
about religion," he said to much laughter. In fact, Dr. Weinberg said,
the anthropic principle was "a nice non-theistic explanation of why
things are as nice as they are."
By then the audience was
squirming to get in on the action. Hands were waving as Dr. Gross
called the session to an end. "Clearly there is a diversity of
opinion," he intoned. "Some people find the small value of
cosmological constant so bizarre that only the anthropic principle
will pick it out." Nobody who adheres to the anthropic principle, he
said, would hold on if there were "an honest old-fashioned
calculation," that explained the cosmological constant.
Given
the floor for the last word, Dr. Weinberg agreed that it was too soon
to give up hope for such a breakthrough. "I'm prepared to go on hoping
that one will be found," he said. "But after the passage of time one
begins to entertain other possibilities, and the anthropic explanation
is another possibility." Applying that mode of reasoning, he said,
could help make the cosmological constant less peculiar. "But we don't
know if that's the help that we really deserve to get," he
concluded.
And it was time for lunch.
Dr. Gross reported
later that younger physicists had thanked him for his stand. Dr.
Weinberg said the panel had generated more fuss than the subject
deserved. "Those who favor taking the anthropic principle seriously
don't really like it," he said, "and those who argue against it
recognize that it may be unavoidable." >>>> New
York Times -- 28 October 2003
Keith Hudson, Bath,
England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>,
<www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|