Prof. Paul C. W. Davies "Where do the laws of physics come from?" Lecture as part of the conference VARCOSMOFUN’16 SZCZECIN, POLAND #pauldavies #physics #science
Agree wholeheartedly! Physics today is afraid of the metaphysical questions it begs -- and thus operates within dogma without admitting it! Davies admits it humbly and explores.
I like listening to Prof Davies, he is so consumed by what he learns and about what he knows that he really translates this into his lectures..It's wonderful.
Fundamental laws of physics are by definition absolute, universal, timeless and immutable. If they are not absolute, universal, timeless and immutable, then they are either no laws or not fundamental, but subordinate laws of more fundamental ones, that determine the why and how this subordinate laws evolve.
eye bee-sea Laws need not be discrete. There are entanglements. No physical substance can achieve the speed of light, because it would take infinite energy to move infinite mass. Weighed against Relativity, Newtonian Mechanics, I suggest, is merely a hypothetical construct (s), which works in limited cases. That no coordinate In space-time has privilege is absolute. Are Newton’s Laws, Laws?
Not necessarily... You *postulate* that such absolute immutable laws exist (and are free to do so of course!), but there is no logical ground to believe that this is the case. You overlook the third option: that there are no absolute, universal, timeless and immutable physical laws. That the most fundamental level that can be reached by mathematical/physical models of nature are not absolute nor timeless, etc. I'm a mathematician myself, and always very careful with ascribing too much power to mathematical modelling. Perhaps, the true fundamental laws are not mathematical/physical in nature. Or there are no fundamental laws (of any kind) at all...
Not all infinities have the same magnitude. There are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. Equally, does it follow that a specific infinity of universes necessarily contains all possibilities? An actualised infinite set that is a reduced set of a larger theoretical set?
I am very impressed that he can discuss on equally high level both with hard science people and professional philosophers. Philosophers can be very dangerous people.
To my thinking, to have a multiverse you'd first need a "metaverse" to control the creation of each universe. For example, do they exist in parallel, with each having a separate "big bang" or other beginning event? One other possibility would be that each "branches" off of a previous universe at a particular "decision point". For example, Hitler's biological parents are within proximity of one another. In one universe, they meet and things proceed as we know them today. In another, one of them is distracted and they never meet. Now take this down to the very smallest (quantum?) level where two particles interact in one way or another, spawning alternative universes. Sounds absurd, but if you can have *INFINITE* universes, why not? The only remaining question is whether the "metauniverse" operates in "real time" or not. That gets to the question of whether everything than *CAN* exist *DOES* exist. It might be conceivable that it doesn't exist *YET* but might in the "future", however that is designed, implying that not only space but time itself are "nested" or "recursive", etc.
Also, speaking from my own theistic worldview, this could very well be a *"simulation",* understanding that to have a simulation, you'd need a "master pattern" or what you might call "reality". For example, what if God's reality contains more dimensions than the three of space and one of time which we can observe? Consider the literary, metaphorical, two dimensional world of "Flatlands". How would a two dimensional creature perceive a three dimensional object intersecting his world? For example, a sphere passing through would appear as a dot, then a circle that expands to a maximum diameter, then contracts to a point before disappearing. Similarly, a 4+ dimensional object interacting with our world would probably be a "UFO" to us, seemingly defying the known laws of physics (at least in a 3 dimensional realm). (To give proper credit, I first heard these ideas from the late Chuck Missler.)
If you would like to stop speculating about having a better understanding of our universe, and you would like to actually have it, I can sell it to you, guaranteed, for its fair value. You can find my videos using the search keywords: matter theory marostica.
You need to go find when the universe was differentiated enough to allow for initial conditions to appear?? And whatever led to the appearance of those conditions determined the evolution of the universe to present!!
I would love to know how exactly a universe comes into being. If the answer is "it came from nothing" then so be it.... That would do my head in, but I could accept that.... Eventually
The language in which we do mathematics is a human invention, but not mathematics themselves, which are abstract representations of what occurs in nature. The realm of ideas is abstract, meaning existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. So are there things in the Universe that are not physical, yes all ideas are technically abstract by definition. You can't destroy abstract things.
18:30 I thought "absurd" meant contractory. For example "this statement is false" contradicts itself and is thus absurd. While something that is taken as true for no reason is an assumption. Every axiom of mathematics is something that is taken as true without reason. So all of mathematics is based on absurdities? 21:40 "Multiverse" never made since to me. Universe used to mean everything, why change that definition? Maybe everything always was, and it was always orderly, if physicists can correctly determine what that order is then the past and future states could be traced back as far as are ability to ascertain the current statue will allow. But that ability will always be limited. And there would be no reason for the laws physics or the universe. Then the universe and it's states would not be seperate. The consistency of the universe just is. And really even theists end up and some point saying the same sort of thing, god just is. It the end something just is or reasons stretches off into infinity in an infinite regress, like the existence itself. Turtles all the way into the past isn't satisfying but neither is a super turtle at the end, what's the super turtle standing on?
Here's my take... Quite realistic premises but observers can affect quantum states Liquid Crystal Space -- Bottom-Up Universe Thought Experiment.. Colloidal Crystal Multiverse Constraints: 3D, minimal base rules + parts. No singularities with the infinite possible Like charges repel, unlike attract. -ve flux balances close-packed +ve lattice cells 1 Cell volume of flux -6, Cell +6. Pulls 6 opposites to light speed in 1 cell length Escape velocity = light speed (C) tied to the constant time light takes to move between cells Tunneling: stretched, faster than light front, light speed or slower rear Tunneling cells form in phase extrons+holons that often annihilate to regular='empty' lattice Tunneling particles reform elsewhere and their original space 'heals' as regular empty lattice Particles: Inflows repel. 6 equatorial and 2x3 polar flows (-6 if poles flow in, +6 if out) Extron: extra cell compresses the lattice, pulls flux (that pulls cells) that repel as rays Holon: flux-rich missing cell hole stretches the lattice, pulls in cells that repel as rays Dipolons: extron + holon.. Diextron: +ve + -ve extron.. Diholon: +ve + -ve holon Tempons: Cellon: lattice chunk.. Fluxon: holes.. heal to extrons+holons and/or/then annihilate 3D polar flows are more concentrated than flat equatorial flows so effect particles more Moving extrons push cells that -ve flux space behind pulls in with an inertia-providing kick Particles are surrounded by pilot waves that can diffract, interfere and alter trajectory Strong gravity may force (some) particle outflows to repel back to its inflows in a few patterns Charge / Entanglement: -ve inflows, +ve outflows. Polar flow count. Lattice, holon, extron charge Close flows attract or repel, regional gravity fields affect velocity and direction Flows are a contiguous unit, changing spin or cutting it affects both ends at once Dipolon / Matter-Antimatter: gravity shrinks matter, lowering charge emission phase resolution Close out of phase extron+holon pairs form dipolons, in phase annihilate and radiate excess flux A feeding black hole's core extrons+holons are forced in phase and annihilate. A universe grows Black Hole Universes / Recursive Conformity: Big Bang = black holes colliding and merging Gravity compacts extrons+holons, blurs phases, charge flow stops at light speed. Annihilation Total energy and matter potential is conserved. No fine tuning, universes follow the same rules Level n +/- particle lattice fields or other (joined) particle fields (+ free particles) feasible Mass / Gravity / Dark Energy: lattice charge balance, charge inflow, entanglement, universe shell Mass is (the number of) out of place lattice cells. An object's extrons + holon charge flow Mass pulls flux pulls mass. Lattice vibes up to 1 cell radius and light speed effect matter Outflows bounce in all directions, inflows lead to the center. Outflows tend to join inflows Mass uses up flux so void cells repel more. Universes trap cells so gravity shrinks the lattice Universes grow, shells thin, excess flux radiates, lattice expands. Shell gravity cancels inside Photon / Light / Time: relatively quantum.. particle vibes ripple charge outflows Charge flow has mass, transverse peaks and troughs concentrate it. 2D adds effective area Photons make lattice pilot waves that diffract in a slit but are overridden by a detector's fields Moves between cells in a constant time (+ universe expansion) as denser lattice takes more energy Gravity shrinks and acceleration compresses the lattice so both absolutely slow light locally Units shrink too and acceleration slows kinetic processes so local vacuum light speed measures C Velocity stretches kinetic processes in time as they travel more to complete. Clocks run slower The Standard Model: the possibilities are numerous. Some SM particles may be tempons
Localism has essentially been entirely ruled out, see the work done re Bell's theorem. Thus no pilot waves. The rest of what you're saying doesn't make good sense to me.
laws of nature (my take): 1) could be time dependent (start of universe governed by different laws vs different laws at the present state) 2) space dependent (different laws around a black hole vs around rest of relatively homogeneous space) 3) laws within limits of human perception (and that has been deduced mathematically and some verified experimentally) 4) laws beyond human perception (that may help explain dark matter and dark energy)
Just because you can dream it up, does not make it possible. If something does not exist then it's existence was not possible, is not possible, or is not yet possible. I don't get the division.
Not possible in this universe, but if there is in another unrelated universe, why do you have the authority to say that in that other universe something impossible in this one is not possible. And if there is an infinite number of universes where everything can exist, then everything you can imagine, and even things you cant imagine, do exist. This is really going to get you, if our brains and thoughts are just a collection of interactions of what is allowed within this universe, why can we think of things that are impossible in this universe? Shouldn't even our thoughts be confined to only things which can exist?
The probability that two objects will attract due to gravitation is 100%. Now I described gravity the way quantum theorists describe other forces: a statement involving probabilities, which is useless to predict actual outcome of an experiment. And this counts as science.
Indeed, and also, you could even ask the question what the difference between "simulation" and "reality" is... Perhaps it are just two different perspectives on reality, neither of them being less real than the other. To see something as a simulation you first have to take a perspective, so, in a sense "simulation" is not in what is observed, but it is a viewpoint of the observer on what is observed.
The 'Observer Effect', is emphatically tied to Quantum Mechanics. The 'Double Slit Experiment', leaves no doubt to this fact. So...using Occams Razor...let us reason...the original Observer...is a Designer of this universe. In simple terms...that is God. The Almighty, Observer, Creator, Designer. It is rational, and it is the simplest explanation. To have design...there must be....must be.. a Designer. No way around it.
Something must be eternal. Why we ask about origin of the universe and things that exist in it? Because we know - the universe has a beginning. Previously scientists believed that the universe is eternal and they didn't ask the question "where the universe came from?" There's no sense to ask "what created eternal entity".
Would a universe exist if there was no-one to observe it? Does this mean also there is a unique obsevational value for this observation.If not and there is more than one kind of observation- does this not then mean in turn that there exists more than one universe.?
the universe did exist when there was no-one to observe it most certainly, and ironically, we have observed the state of the universe in which no observers feasibly could have existed yet using the principles of relativity
Laws of nature that can change do so either according to more fundamental laws or according to the will of the Lawgiver. Everything else would lead to utter and complete chaos, which we don't observe. The idea that the laws of nature change on their own without anything governing that change is absurd.
The laws are invented, not discovered. Therefore, they exist only in the mind. Before you choke, if they have objective existence in the cosmos, just where are they? Columbus got in a ship and discovered America. Who can get in a vessel and find, say, the second law of thermodynamics? Saying they exist only in the mind doesn't mean they don't exist. They are predictive descriptions of what we actually find.
Some physicists don’t have any problem in calling laws of nature god. No one can explain from where the laws came in to existence. We cannot explain many things like why the force between two charged particles follows inverse square law. We can give some reasoning. But reasoning again needs to be do explained. We are forced to assume that some things always existed or these things came from nothing.
Yeah , like 122 and rolling 31474.. in only so many ways. Difference of opinions can go on longer than infinity and could be a study in it’s own merit.
Great lecture Paul Davies. (Deep thinkers) Maybe, just imagine it, that laws evolve with the first of all time universe. Complexity emerges in laws as we see them now by consciousness. But before the big bang conditions shape this evolution step by step.
It's a mistake to separate the states of the universe from the universe. In the past such dualism has always been an impediment to understanding so why do it again?
The quantum field is fundamental to space time, gravity, inflation etc., due to fine tuning of the parameter space. The QF self-simulate conscious intelligent 'observer', collapsing the field into particles, strings etc. The whole universe( with no boundary) is a quantum computing function, self-organizing and self-error correcting, algorithm unknown, infinite dimensional, eliminating randomness/chance, is the source of all physical laws (SUSY), creating life with perfection and with probability one, fulfilling divine purpose. Even making us in His image. Life is also a QC function, enabling us to repair/regenerating 50-70 billion damaged cells daily, besides producing protein, hormones, enzymes etc., enabling us to survive and evolve, imparting the divine gift of consciousness, intelligence, meme etc. 'A priori' nature of mathematics is the only clue we have of the source of divine design. We are fortunate we can comprehend that which is incomprehensible. Man and god are entangled.
The ways by which the Universe operates already exist in Nature whether we discovered them or not. These ways are apparently very stable, but they do fluctuate.
There is no reason why the world should be unintelligible. Our ability to guess, recognize and expect things is better, having had milennias to hone itself on things we now consider easy. Inventing the wheel is one thing, but once it is realized, re-recognizing it is as easy as pie
@@MrSdjwatson im sorry english isnt my first language. recognize? I think I was arguing against something claimed that the world is inherently complex, which it has no reason for
Nonsense is still nonsense, no matter who's mouth it comes from. Most physicists seem to prescribe some type of creative agency to the laws of physics. The laws of physics are predictive and descriptive, but have never brought anything into existence. In addition it seems while asserting creative agency to physical laws the general community of physicists appear somewhat guarded and defensive over the biggest question of all, the origin of these laws. That's the uncomfortable question begging to be asked and so strange is it that a community dedicated on demanding such precise calculations also require a 'mother may i ' step from the very onset and labelled the subject as taboo. Every quote from otherwise intelligent sources has another incoherent line of nonsense that ultimately deludes them.
ray ertman - I think you misunderstand science. Science concerns itself with what is knowable through the scientific method, applied to our surroundings. We try to figure out how things work by objective means. There is no reason to be defensive about the inability of science to answer certain questions. The answer may simply lie outside the realm of science.
@@iain5615 both Paul D and Sean C adhere strongly to their naturalistic/materialistic bias and don't wish to discuss the obvious philosophical implications of the origin of the massless, timeless, immaterial, abstract laws of math/logic etc.
I find it incredible that a leading physicist would discuss the God mythology into his lectures or even writings - except to discard the theology nonsense l
I have never heard a better argument for Intelligent Design from and evolutionist!!!btw. multiverses or bouncing universes do not solve your problem of where did the laws come from, they just defer the problem....
God answered that in the Bible didn't he? I could be wrong, but I thought the quote "I am that I am." addressed that. It is not necessary that we can understand that sort of thing, although Origen, St Augustine, Paul of Tarsus etc certainly tried.
A simple restatement, I think, imsmc, is that God has no creator, but is eternal, and has and will always exist. I don't think Christian theology would have it any other way.
@@Darfaultner this Creator has actually revealed Himself in human history. we have historical evidence of the life, death, and Resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the Creator of this universe and backed His claims by the physical Resurrection. Read the works of former atheists, who now defend Jesus' Resurrection: Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, J Warner Wallace. Jesus certainly clearly identified the Creator of the universe as the Great I Am, Yahweh, i.e. the Eternal One, who has always been and by self definition is uncreated and uncaused. Jesus fully endorsed the Tanakh (Old Testament). Just open up the book of Isaiah 9 or 40 or 57 to read the description of this Eternal One. Read Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 full description of the ability of this Creator. And much more of course. So, we have good reason to trust the words of Jesus and His self revelation in the Scriptures. The science and logic certainly points to the so called self evident "necessary being" that Paul Davies discussed in the lecture. Jesus confirmed this idea by His life and teaching.
There are existences we know and existences we don’t know. There are existences that could be, but don’t exist. There are imaginings that cannot exist? Well, not physically, because the imaginings do exist, as imaginings.
All "laws of physics" are concepts on a page. The universe just does what it does and it could not be different. The universe is oblivious to whatever laws we think up.
The bottom line is, we tend to see a designer in the background, because we are designers. Nature is in fact, it's own designer. Like the shape of a river channel, it emerges from nothing, and appears to have been designed, but in fact is the result of forces acting upon one another, with no intent to produce a particular shape. All of nature is an emergent process.
And where do the forces come from? Where does the matter come from? Where does the precision engineering come from? If all nature is an emergent process then where does nature come from then? Where do processes come from? You think this all came out of nothing that the laws of the universe invented themselves?
@@timhallas4275 I am not arguing about atoms being energy and that is a red herring and you know it. But even if what you say is not relevant, tell me where did the 0.0000000001 of the atom come from then? Because if you think Nothing created Everything then you need to grow a brain cell. sunshine. Nothing can come out of Nothing. Ever. Ever ever ever. Nothing can come of nothing. There are no exceptions. Everything can only come from Some thing not No thing.
What is 'nature'? Emergent from what? what caused it to emerge? What caused this particular set of laws of nature to emerge which enable complexity to arise? The river bed is precisely not designed! It emerges again and again from brute laws of nature. Unfortunately 'life' does not arise again and again purely from laws of nature. That's why OOL research is so stuck, life simply does not emerge from laws of nature. We can 'readily recognise' life. It is easy to distinguish from non-life, lets say a river bed for example. Every object can be defined as a type of complexity (order) as a subset of all possible states in phase space. A rock has a certain type of complexity, a uniform crystal has a certain type of complexity, and life forms have a certain type of complexity. That is one of the reason they are so easily distinguishable from non-life, such as rocks, river beds, etc. The 'life type complexity' has never been shown to arise from laws of nature. Scientists believe it occured only once on this planet. It is a sort of 'big bang' of life.
@@r00kiepilot How can 'Scientists believe it occured only once on this planet. It is a sort of 'big bang' of life.' be in any way considered evidence. A scientists 'belief' is not science. A belief is not fact and your 'science' argument is entirely faith based even more so than any religions.
He basically doesn’t answer the question he posed. He doesn’t believe in God that created the universe with its laws and order. The Bible stated that Jesus created everything including the laws that govern science.
There are many books written that are interesting and present their philosophy of life but the Bible is the only one that tells you history before it happens. For example in Daniel chapter 2 a metal man is described that predicts various kingdoms that follow each other. Prophecies in Daniel and in revelation both demonstrate that the Bible is a unique book unlike any other book. ...Art
The whole multiverse thing was concocted to avoid having to explain the fine tuning. It's a cop-out. You're starting to see evolutionary biologists embrace multiverse thinking as well, because they're beginning to realize that the protein folding problem is too complex to have been solved by random chance, even given how old the universe is. Ooops... But - multiverse to the rescue! Just suddenly deciding there are 10^500 universe solves their whole problem.
What's wrong with the Idea of God as a "necessary being" is that if that was so, then God's existence would be reliant on logic and so logic would be fundamental, not God. That's backwards. In reality, it's not God's existence that is a logical necessity, instead it is the validity of logic that is God's will.
"fine tuning"? How is the universe fine tuned for life when 99.9% of the universe is hostile toward life? If you suddenly found yourself anywhere else, outside our earth, you would be dead in seconds or minutes? "Fine tune" is a religious expression used to argue "god did it"
This is true that if one finds himself outside of our Earth, he will be dead in the very short time. However, in order for someone be dead in the first place he needs to be born. If the physical constants of our universe are slightly changed, the galaxy could not be formed, the solar system could not exists, chemical reaction crucial for life existence on our Earth could not take place. Therefore, life could not be here, we will be not here and your statement “Fine tune is a religious expression used to argue "God did it" could not be formulated.
Your question is a paradox because you can also die by getting hit by a car. It's not about hostility, it's about the fine tuning in a way that we can live, grow old, have a conscious, a functioning brain and body to do things in a gravity that suits us, animals, nature and insects.
The programmer of this simulated universe needs to fix the error of homelessness and a need for legal tender because it's FUCKING UP PEOPLE'S HAPPINESS LEVELS
Davies' is attempting to replace God with multiverse, neither of which has any proof, unless one can find an explanation for Jesus resurrection or deny it.
There is no evidence that Jesus was the sun of god. We don't need to refute the ressurection , just like we don't need to refute the theory that fairies created the universe
Do not mistake religion for God. Disproving or proving a religion or individuals or events in a religion is neither here nor there. God existed long before religion was invented so take Jesus out of the equation. There is actually more evidence for an Intelligent Designer than for any other explanation. The multiverse was concocted to deal with the fine tuning argument and has zero evidence or any good reasons or pointers for it. The multiverse is a distracting and absorbing theory but ultimately the multiverse is just a holding place theory until atheists can cook up another theory that fits and is funded better.
In regards to Professor Davies' statement that the big bang was considered to be the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy, the scripture states there was a beginning of time: _"Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before "time" began," -- 2Tim 1:8 - 9_ The word "time" was translated from the Greek word "chronos" [χρόνος], Dan
Science is not sure there was a beginning. Your dogmatic scripture is not supported by any true reason or evidence. It's sheer conjecture and plagiarism conceived, composed, compiled, translated, interpreted, edited, and often deliberately altered and enhanced by mere fallible men throughout generations and accepted as fact without question. Faith is the antithesis of science.
IUseVegas, you wrote, "Science is not sure there was a beginning." "Science" is not sure of anything, Vegas. =============== IUseVegas, you wrote, "Your dogmatic scripture is not supported by any true reason or evidence. It's sheer conjecture and plagiarism conceived, composed, compiled, translated, interpreted, edited, and often deliberately altered and enhanced by mere fallible men throughout generations and accepted as fact without question. Faith is the antithesis of science." How does plagiarism fit into your scheme? I do agree that faith absent of the Word of God is the antithesis of science. For example, the historical, faith-based dogma of evolution is wholly untestable, and is therefore the antithesis of science. So is the virtually all the untestable dogma regarding the the origin of the universe, even red-shift, though the scripture does state the expansion of the universe -- the stretching out of the heavens -- actually happened: _"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." -- Isa __45:12__ KJV_ Though the cause of the observable red-shift is speculative and untestable, the testable scientific hypotheses found in the Word of God have been found to be completely reliability. For example, thousands of years ago is was written the earth "floats" in the heavens, rather than being suspended by or resting on something: _"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." -- Job 26:7 KJV_ I believe that has now been scientifically established to be a fact. We were also told the stars of the Pleiades were gravitationally attracted: _"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" -- Job __38:31__ KJV_ I understand now that has also been scientifically established. And we were also told that the stars were too numerous to count (in the days before the telescope when men believed they actually could count them): _"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me." -- Jer __33:22__ KJV_ Every time our instruments of observation improve, we find even more galaxies. And we were told the blood is the life of the flesh: _"For the life of the flesh is in the blood:" -- Lev __17:11__ KJV_ If "scientists" had believed the Bible, they would have never came up with the crazy scheme called "blood-letting". And we were told there were ocean currents: _"The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." -- Psalms 8:8 KJV_ An 18th bible-believing Christian named Matthew Maury sought out those "paths in the seas" -- those ocean currents -- and became known as the "Father of Cceanography". In a speech at a dedication of a university he founded, Maury stated: _“I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science._ _"I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches._ _What would you think of the historian who should refuse to consult the historical records of the Bible, because the Bible was not written for the purposes of history? The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other. The agents in the physical economy of our planet are ministers of Him who made both it and the Bible._ _"The records which He has chosen to make through the agency of these ministers of His upon the crust of the earth are as true as the records which by the hands of His prophets and servants, He has been pleased to make in the Book of Life._ _"They are both true; and when your men of science, with vain and hasty conceit, announce the discovery of disagreement between them, rely upon it, the fault is not with the witness of His records, but with the worm who essays to interpret evidence which he does not understand.”_ _[Matthew Fontaine Maury address at the laying of the corner-stone of the University of the South, on Swanee Mountain in East Tennessee. Cited in Corbin, Diane Fontaine Maury, 1888, A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury, USN & CSN, compiled by his daughter. Sampson & Low & Co]_ I particularily like this phrase: _"when your men of science, with vain and hasty conceit"._ LOL! Few are filled with more conceit than the scientist, so-called. Dan
I don't understand this stupid notion of fine tuning??? Why do people think that something had to be tuned at all??? There are planets completely unsuitable for life as we know it, and most probably there are those suitable for similar life to the one we know. The notion of tuning is just something created by the limitations of the human brain, which seems to operate in contexts of closed, finite sets, and has difficulty to grasp the idea of infinity. Why must there be a reason for anything??? Does any other being ask for a reason? No! Only the human-being think they are something special, chosen, or purposefully created. The question is why create such an unimaginably immense universe just to purposefully "fine tune" a single, unimportant planet for life as we know it??? That is an absurdity, if I have ever heard one! As for the whole universe as we can observe it, how is that in any way fine-tuned? It, just is what it is.
'Fine tuning' does not relate to the planet earth, but to the entire universe. If the fundamental constants of physics were even slightly different then chemistry would be impossible, the elements like carbon would not be generated, and maybe even planets and stars could not exist.
If my room tiling doesn’t match the floor size then reality tells me the room I am living in is screwed. Which would be easier to redo? The tiling or the room? In religion and science it takes decades or centuries to leave the Middle Ages.
Sigh. I thought that this Paul Davies talk might have been a science-themed talk. It appears to be a talk steeped in theology. Sigh. How many speculative attempts at reading the minds of those whose shoulders that Paul is standing on is he able to profess in 1h16m? A heck of lot.
Es en extremo irracional e incoherente suponer una teoria del Todo, pues por logica sabemos es imposible conocer un limite como origen del universo, en la finitez siempre existirá la pregunta "y que fue antes" Su origen o causa por lógica debe ser No Finita es decir, eterna. Y si tal causa debe ser Eterna entonces esta fuera del alcance de la Ciencia y de la razón humana. Eso sin considerar que una teoría del Todo, es incoherente pues la misma teoría seria parte del Todo que pretende describir. Lo Mayor es una necesidad Lógica, por eso sabemos que existe pues es necesario. Esto les pasa porque ya no son ateos racionales, son ATEOS SENSORIALES pues sus sentidos ponen limite a su razón, Solo buscan conocimiento en sus sentidos y de sus sentidos para abajo y su conocimiento llega hasta donde sus sentidos llegan, MÁGICA y SUPERSTICIOSAMENTE creen que sus sentidos son LO MAYOR. La razón es la fuente de conocimiento lo cual significa que estos Ateos Sensoriales corroborando la razón en los sentidos y limitándose a ellos, lo único que hacen es corroborar pero los sentidos en la razón y así, limitando esta al nivel de sus sentidos.
One of the things I heard (it was a rather long lecture - I'd have to go through it again to give a time stamp) was that "God" as an explanation stands on just as sure a footing as multiverses or simulations. Now my understanding is that Davies is an atheist. I am a theist. What I appreciate about Davies is his honesty about what is known or can be known and what is based on faith. So many who argue the atheists' standpoint fail to see or to see clearly the turtles under there worldview, as well as incorrectly seeing the theist view as groundless. As I said, it is a long lecture, but I will be going over it again, for there is much to be gleaned from it to support my perspective. I often find that the most frustrating thing in having a conversation with an atheist is the level of intellectual dishonesty and self-deception that exists in many atheists. My God has been called "God of the gaps", as though science could fill all the gaps, which Paul Davies has made clear it cannot. I have thrown out the phrase "science of the gaps" a few times but I don't want my discussions to be about who can come up with the best insults. I want discussions where real scientific, philosophical and logical arguments are put on the table and where real intellectual honesty takes place. I think Davies wanted to see if someone could apply Occam's razor to see which explanation was easier - God or the fashionable science version.
" ... religion, which believe [sic] they have it right, and have explanations for everything, based on nothing other than belief." This is a great example of those patently false statements (particularly due to its broad generalizations), demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of many atheists. Which religion tries to explain how mind works or how biology works or how weather works, how the Sun or solar system works, how the design of a bridge or building allow them to stay up, or music or art or sports, etc? Where science and _my_ faith (I can only speak for my own) diverge is primarily on the topic of _origins_ (of the universe, life, reason, morality, etc.). The origin of the universe and the origin of life are two examples of events which _cannot_ be observed, _cannot_ be duplicated with experiments - things which _cannot_ be known by science. _My_ faith tells me that there was _one_ person who _witnessed_ these events and that person has conveyed to humanity a few of the details of what took place. Some of those events are clearly contrary to laws of physics, but the person (whom I shall call Gᴏᴅ) who witnessed and did the creating also created these same laws of physics and it does not seem unreasonable that He (some pronoun is necessary) is able to act outside of those laws of physics (and outside of time). What I said in my initial comment was, "One of the things I heard was that "God" as an explanation stands on just as sure a footing as multiverses or simulations." I'd like to modify that a bit and say that Gᴏᴅ, as an explanation of existence and of life, stands on just as sure a footing as "a universe from nothing" (the phrase popularized by Lawrence Krauss) and evolution. Whether Paul Davies is an atheist or theist, his _intellectual honesty_ demands that he agree. (I really _must_ rewatch the video and give a time stamp.) _Personally,_ I feel that supernatural creation is the better explanation. Creation, as described in the Bible book of Genesis (my source of faith and belief) tells us _that_ Gᴏᴅ created the Heavens and the Earth, but not _how_ He did the creating. It tells us _that_ Gᴏᴅ created the Sun, Moon, and stars, but again, not the _how._ It tells us _that_ Gᴏᴅ created plants and fish, birds, animals, and Man, but again, not the _how._ At the end of the account, Gᴏᴅ blesses the man and instructs him to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." We have come a long ways toward filling the Earth. We have also come a long ways toward subduing the Earth, which is what science is (or should be) largely concerned with. It is, indeed, a valuable and good endeavor "to understand how things work," as you say. However, many _scientists_ work to advance their personal worldviews, rather than doing the actual work of science and many _scientists_ inject their worldviews into their interpretation of observations and experiments. One good example of good science mixed with just a bit of foolishness was our going to the Moon. We used science and developed new science very well to get men to the Moon. We learned an awful lot about how marvelous Gᴏᴅ's creation is and works. The reading of Genesis chapter 1 on Christmas eve by the astronauts of Apollo 8 (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6vvNxhlP1jA.html) still brings tears to my eyes. The bit of foolishness in the Apollo missions was the notion that experiments could discover clues to the _origin_ of the Moon. To this day, however, popular science has no really reasonable explanation for the existence of the Moon. To me, the only reasonable, though incomplete, explanation for the existence of the Moon is that it was created by a supernatural process. However, we can and have learned a great many things about how the Moon operates today. Tides, eclipses, gravity - all wonderful things to learn about and know about. Even measuring the depth of the dust on the Lunar surface was valuable. (It cannot be 4 billion years old.) If you are intellectually honest you must admit that your atheism requires just as much faith as my theism. Paul Davies makes this admission. (I've enjoyed a number of his books, though that was quite a few years ago.) Very few declared atheists demonstrate this level of intellectual honesty. My ontological explanations are not "based on nothing other than belief," as you say. My explanations are based on the word of the only witness to the events of creation. You say, "Science does not have to fill any gaps." Yet, this is exactly what many scientists are attempting to do. Many gaps can and are, indeed, _being_ filled but some gaps are being filled in very unscientific ways and are presented as though they were scientific truth. Try to be honest.
Some interesting quotes from the video: (0:20) "... the origin of the laws of physics, a subject that many people consider to lay entirely outside the scope of science." (1:14) "... two hidden assumptions ... (1:20) that all scientists must make when embarking on the scientific endeavor. The first of these is that the universe is ordered in a rational and intelligible way." (2:35) "... the assumption that when we dig deeper and deeper into the workings of nature we will find rational and intelligible order is an astonishing *leap of faith."* (7:05)"This dualism, this asymmetry between laws and states reflects the cultural milieu in which Newton and his contemporaries developed their science, and this was, of course, under the influence of Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophy, monotheism, with the notion of a fixed, law-like order in nature, which would not change, because it reflected the fact that, (7:36) although the world may depend for its existence utterly upon God, God would not depend on the world for God's existence. So that's, I believe, where the asymmetry comes from. And, even though most contempory physicists would present themselves as atheists, they, nevertheless, subscribe to that essentially theological worldview."
Why we think universe is fine tuned for life , its most hostile enviroment where fine tuned doesnt mean that gonna last and you must live long and prospare... earth is not even rare but undisputed champion of unique
As I understand it all, there are 'Laws of nature, or the universe - just as there are defined settings parameters in a stage play, or film. Because, this physical universe, is a 'Created' one! The 'Laws' were chosen to be what they are. They define what can be done within their parameters. Which is a great deal of actions and creations. As Shakespeare - with great insight - said ; "All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players;" The idea that - just as a play or film has to be organised - by those with the ability to co-operate to do so - so too, in spiritual, or non-physical terms, there are those who can design universes - with an array of differing parameters, or as science calls ours; 'Laws of nature'. It is not that GOD does all this creating, but that just as we humans can design and create marvels of technology, so too there are identities, in spiritual terms who can do that with universes and our particular universe is just one of them!
The faith of the materialist is astounding. Paul Davies did mention how absurd it is to say that the laws came into existence for no reason. The materialist believes something that is absurd just so he can ignore the obvious source of these laws. That's why apostle Paul say in Romans 1:20 that all men who suppress thw truth in unrighteousness HAVE NO EXCUSE before their Maker. God bless you richly.
If there is a creator, it must be laughing it's ass off. It created us to endlessly fight over these made up religions and kill each other forever. FUCK THE CREATOR IF THERE IS ONE
Ans: The laws of physics are man made representations of what the universe is and what it does. The mathematical descriptions embody what we think is physically true. The relationships we discover are PHYSICAL NOT mathematical. Davies is a technician. Not a scientist.
Yet another boastful RU-vid expert claiming the final say on what "real" science is. Isn't this more or less what Davies argued anyway: that the laws of nature don't underlie anything but are simply mathematical representations of physical reality?
This so called "necessary being" has actually revealed Himself in human history. The science and logic certainly points to the so called self evident "necessary being" that Paul Davies discussed in the lecture. Jesus confirmed this idea by His life and teaching. we have historical evidence of the life, death, and Resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the Creator of this universe and backed His claims by the physical Resurrection. Read the works of former atheists, who now defend Jesus' Resurrection: Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, J Warner Wallace and many more. Jesus certainly clearly identified the Creator of the universe as the Great I Am, Yahweh, i.e. the Eternal One, who has always been and by self definition is uncreated and uncaused. Jesus fully endorsed the Tanakh (Old Testament). Just open up the book of Isaiah 9 or 40 or 57 to read the description of this Eternal One. Read Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 full description of the ability of this Creator. And much more of course. So, we have good reason to trust the words of Jesus and His self revelation in the Scriptures.
Whether Maxx Planck knew it or not, he eloquently defined the necessity and creative agency of an eternal creator. "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter". "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1 v 1-3
There is no "origin of the laws" because a good model of the Universe is cyclic. Right or wrong I am enjoying Roger Penrose attempt with his CCC approach. "God" explanation begs the question about the origin of God...equally if one claims the timelessness of God and his properties one can assert that in a cyclic model of the Universe the laws are mere expressions of the Universe rational. It is what it is! Since there is nothing to nothingness there is no outside of the Universe or Multiverse whatever you prefer. As for the expansion of the Universe into nothingness, well, let me just say nothingness has no properties at all including not allowing motion into it. There is no actual expansion if not within the perceived spacetime expansion. Past present and future are all equally real. There is nothing outside of it, again, be it your "choice" the Universe or the Multiverse Meta Time mechanics. The fractal nature of Reality should be a good enough clue to pursue a cyclic approach! On a final note, Max Tegmark is on the money as infinity refers to a fractal loop of a finite sequence of information that again, repeats itself in a fractal...an infinite sequence of new information would render Reality infinitely chaotic.
Replace the turtles with multiverse and you have the same ridiculous explanation for what upholds the universe. Only difference is that instead of one turtle standing on another, the universe is contained in a multiverse which has many universes and is itself contained in another multiverse. Scientists have no proof or even evidence for multiverse just as the ignoramus who suggested the turtle tower.
Nice topic overall but... why have all this supernatural mumbojumbo in it? Nonsense suggesting a higher consciousness like this... utter silliness based on confused past primitive imagination and make-believe.
Why so hostile to the idea of mind preceding matter? It's not like science has any answers about the existence of the universe. Scientists just need a bit of humility. Of course, I get why they're defensive. They set to explaining by science what was once explained by God - with a certain amount of glee, I might add - only to discover, at the end of the process, that the science points right back to God! That's a heavy slice of humble pie, I do get it. But at this point, they'd be better just forcing it down. Better that than making public fools of themselves. Bouncing universes, universes from nothing, simulated universes... come off it, guys. Why not just admit God wasn't such a stupid idea?
All these christians who still suffer from their childhood indoctrination are really annoying. There is ZERO EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THE THOUSAND GODS. Wake up fools
