Excellent, Insightful Piece on Modern Physics and Human Existence
Salon.com has a well-thought-out piece today on cosmology and the existence of humanity that I found quite fascinating. Steve Paulson interviews British cosmologist Paul Davies, now of Arizona State University, about Davies' new book, The Cosmic Jackpot.
If you put all the physicists who think and talk about the issue of why this particular universe has carbon-based life forms. There are, he points out, anywhere from six to 12 fundamental design parameters in the universe that have to be present with specific values within very narrow tolerances, any one of which being out of range would result in life not being viable. (By "life," of course, he means life as we know and understand it.)
There's a lot of depth to the interview. If I were to comment on it, my post would be longer than the interview, so for now I'll just point you at it as a great source of a summary of the current range of views of cosmologists on a crucial question.
There May Be Some of That
Bill,
It's certainly possible that Davies has some personal beliefs that he's not particularly open about, but I'd wager the same is true about most of his scientism opponents. Doesn't make it right, but I don't hold that against folks who are treading on the razor's edge between science and spirituality.
Dan
I just think Davis is being
I just think Davis is being disengenuous about his personal beliefs and is trying to use science to advance them, no matter his superficial denials.
Science Advances Through Such Men
Bill,
Certainly no offense taken (and nice to see you here!). Anyone who advances an idea that extends very far beyond the current status quo of scientific teachings and belief is subject to the same basic criticism, yet it is precisely through such thinkers who are willing to take the heat on the bleeding edge that science advances its frontiers.
I think, in fact, that Davies stops well short of the scientific truth we'll be taking for granted in 10-30 years. I see a tremendous conversion of ancient wisdom and modern science taking place and I think Davies is near but not on the leading edge of that wave of new thought. It's historically been all but impossible for science to break a paradigm without a generation of scientists dying off. Scientism, like any system that believes it has sole possession of The Truth, gets very calcified in its thinking.
Scientists who today dismiss consciousness as a superstition will find their work increasingly marginalized as the leading edge of scientific thought moves more and more in the direction of understanding the holistic nature of knowledge.
No offense but Davies is not
No offense but Davies is not someone I really think we ought to take seriously, as I wrote about him four years ago.