Observer, A Question Re Your Cosmology

[IM2]

That 10% thing has been long debunked, but even so, some of you use far less.

Kinda like the states rights argument. And yes I would say that YOU do use far less than 10 percent of your mind.

[Observer]

When arguing with you, 1 or 2% is more than sufficient.

[IM2]

When arguing with you, 1 or 2% is more than sufficient.

Thats all you use all the time. Its probably all you have.

[SpaceCadet]

There is now much more to this topic within the scientific community than simply whether there was a "Big Bang" or not.  Science is now beginning to tackle the big questions that just a few years ago, most thought were beyond the realm of science.  Questions like, not how the universe began, but why, and why it is the way it is.

There are multiple natural constants that seem to have arbitrary values, and if they had only slightly different values, the universe would not be hospitable to life.  Why do these constants have the values that they do?  One answer is that if it had been otherwise, we would not be here to worry about it.  But that doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer.

There are multiple ways to possibly address this question, but the most intriguing comes as an outgrowth of quantum mechanics, the idea of backward causation, that future events can actually affect past events.  There are some aspects of quantum mechanics that seem to indicate that such a thing is possible.

It is highly speculative, but there seems some reason, among some scientists, to suspect that the existence of life and mind in the cosmos is a fundamental part of the universe, rather than simply being some accidental biological "scum" coating one or more planets.  Further, the existence of life and mind, and with life and mind filling the cosmos in the far future, may have a backward causation effect that is forcing the universe to evolve as it has, and still is.  In effect, the universe is self-creating!

It's wild, and I can't completely explain it here, but Paul Davies has done an excellent job - as always - of explaining it in his recent book "The Cosmic Jackpot".

[Velleity]

There is now much more to this topic within the scientific community than simply whether there was a "Big Bang" or not.  Science is now beginning to tackle the big questions that just a few years ago, most thought were beyond the realm of science.  Questions like, not how the universe began, but why, and why it is the way it is.

There are multiple natural constants that seem to have arbitrary values, and if they had only slightly different values, the universe would not be hospitable to life.  Why do these constants have the values that they do?  One answer is that if it had been otherwise, we would not be here to worry about it.  But that doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer.

There are multiple ways to possibly address this question, but the most intriguing comes as an outgrowth of quantum mechanics, the idea of backward causation, that future events can actually affect past events.  There are some aspects of quantum mechanics that seem to indicate that such a thing is possible.

It is highly speculative, but there seems some reason, among some scientists, to suspect that the existence of life and mind in the cosmos is a fundamental part of the universe, rather than simply being some accidental biological "scum" coating one or more planets.  Further, the existence of life and mind, and with life and mind filling the cosmos in the far future, may have a backward causation effect that is forcing the universe to evolve as it has, and still is.  In effect, the universe is self-creating!

It's wild, and I can't completely explain it here, but Paul Davies has done an excellent job - as always - of explaining it in his recent book "The Cosmic Jackpot".

Thanks for this. I'm a little out of date with my "In Search of the Big Bang," although I think that was a pretty good lay person's resource. I also enjoyed "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat."

I am going to seek out Davies' book.

[Michael]

That 10% thing has been long debunked, but even so, some of you use far less.

I think that certain people WANT it to be debunked.  But it has NOT been.

So keep saying the same falsehoods and maybe they will become truth in some peoples minds.  At least those who NEED it to be.

[Observer]

I think that certain people WANT it to be debunked.  But it has NOT been.

Not true.

So keep saying the same falsehoods and maybe they will become truth in some peoples minds. 

You have been trying that for years with your whole Indian routine. Have you got anybody convinced, yet?

[SpaceCadet]

Thanks for this. I'm a little out of date with my "In Search of the Big Bang," although I think that was a pretty good lay person's resource. I also enjoyed "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat."

I am going to seek out Davies' book.

Those were both excellent books, in their time.  I think I still have a copy of each. 

I've read several of Paul Davies' books in the last several years, now, and they are all excellent. 

I remember reading something about him a while back that said he was a devout Christian also, perhaps even an evangelical.  But in his scientific work, he seems to avoid injecting that into his work.  Specifically, in this book, he discounts a purely supernatural explanation for the universe, at least when it comes to the pursuit of scientific explanations.