Paul Davies on an Ultimate Explanation Part 5/5

[petemh]

Was Churchland proposing an eliminative cosmology?

[lourak]

If the second, astute questioner perceived the full import of his proposition, that there may be an infinite number of theories - he might be quite embarrassed - for he may then be more inclined to a theistic interpretation. This, of course, must be avoided at all costs - what do they call it - being a "methodological atheist???

[lourak]

Davies is a bright guy, but the first questioner has, in short order, bankrupted his project. Turtles of a different sort goes no distance in solving ultimate cosmological

issues. Davies admits as much, but ......I guess hubris has no bounds....

[seanotube85]

Does he think that it's possible to explain everything in the universe without taking an infinitesimal microscope to all matter in the universe? To fully explain something don't you have to have infinite knowledge of it? Or is he suggesting that infinite knowledge is not possible? I admire him for wanting to explain everything, but I don't think that's possible. And if you could do that, I what would you do AFTER you did that?

[rmeddy1]

We may be trapped by the Middle World as Dawkins puts it.

[OrderoftheWhiteHand]

The gentleman with the beard is Paul Churchland, a well known philosopher of mind.

[celshader]

This last part of the discussion reminds me of 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' where they build a computer to calculate the ultimate explaination and it returns an answer of 42.

It was an answer but not one that humans could understand or relate to.

[riversonthemoon]

I loved that series. The answer was 42, but the question was unknown. Come to think of it, it could be a metaphor for reality. Nature is an oracle that can answer all our questions, but we first have to figure out how to ask them.

[theinfinitezero1]

@riversonthemoon

[theinfinitezero1]

@riversonthemoon thanks for putting me on to this. I like to consider as many views as possible. He makes some great points but his starting point, the only law is that there is no law, is as baseless as the book of genesis. I think we have established that there are a set of laws, a rythym to the dance of life, call it what you will, so I don't see how he can start there. thanks again.

[DemokritosAbdera]

@celshader I always carry a towel, just in case :D

[penndraegon]

Davies begins with a desire that the universe be explainable without appealing to super-turtles. But that cannot serve as part of the argument for his model. It is not made more plausible by the fact that others' seem overly convenient and open ended. He comes across as a bit of a control freak. He desires so badly for the nature of the universe to be intrinsically explainable, that he leaves the impression that he thinks that that by itself is grounds for rejecting extrinsic explanations.

[riversonthemoon]

"But that cannot serve as part of the argument for his model. It is not made more plausible"

True. But I think that looking for an answer within the universe is a worthwhile avenue of investigation. Currently there is no way to test extrinsic explanations, and therefore no way to differentiate between them. This may also be true of his loop, and we may find it to be vulnerable to a Russel's paradox type of objection. But having one more possibility on the menu is, I think, a good thing.

[heartthehorse]

perhaps when we better understand the nature of consciousness we will creep closer to understanding. It is a little unfair to call him a control freak, and there is no shame in having desire to seek answers. It may not happen in his life time but many contributions from many fileds over many years and the picture becomes clearer. i dont think there is a unifying answer on the near horizon if at all but we can gain an ever deeper understanding simply through exploring possibilities...

[Kylopod]

I just wrote a blog post on his book "The Goldilocks Enigma." I'm not permitted to write URLs here, but you can get to my blog from my Youtube page.

Needless to say, Davies is a far more engaging writer than he is a lecturer.

[seanmPWH]

From life long fan of Paul Davies. I always appreciate his willingness to question the status quo. However as Bible believing Christian I never agree with his conclusions. I believe the man in the audience was correct, Davies loop is just another super turtle. These ideas of human participation in creation go back to the garden of Eden where the temptation was that humans could become God. Physics shows us a universe that must be subject to renormalization, thus an infinite source behind it all.

[jas03000]

If you believe in the Bible, how can you believe in science or the scientific method? Let me ask you this. How can a perfect being (God)create a fallible being(Satan)? If the God of the Bible is perfect how could he create anything less than perfection. Satan was not perfect b/c he made the mistake that he could try to be as powerful as his creator. God knew what Satan would do this. How can Satan be blamed for being Satan?

[seanmPWH]

I believe, the bible has proven it's extra-dimensional source of information via prophecy and fulfillment. As such I conclude that it has the ultimate correct vantage point on creation. Therefor I find suspect human interpretation of reality .

As for the Satan conundrum, although I can not answer your question, it does not nullify actual history of Jesus raising from the dead.

I believe there is the possibility of God creating beings that are isolated from initial conditions via layers.

[presidentOrangutan]

Still, how do you answer what was before God? Also, why should God (lets assume their is one) give a damn about humans? The universe is bigger than mine or your imagination. Why create such a big envelop for us humans? if you're getting what I mean.....

[seanmPWH]

Yes, I get your point, you might be surprised to know that you're paraphrasing Psalm 8:4 from the bible.

I have two speculations:

1) if mankind was made, originally, to be immortal then galactic settlement would be useful.

2) I suspect that a holistic model of the universe will reveal that each part is necessary.

For more see my videos "scientific foreknowledge in the bible" and "God M-Theory Genesis Matrix"

[ChesterFanningChorno]

There is a relatively simple answer: God created Satan with free choice. "Satan" means adversary- he became Satan through free choice to rebel against God. See Ez 14 and Isa 28 for more details.

[drlukeyboy]

Even if consciousness is only selecting between possibilities, that is still a massive retrograde causation spanning the life of the universe - something which if it wasn't dressed in the language of physics would be immediately dismissed as ridiculous. There has to be a levitating superturtle. The question is - what is it?

[riversonthemoon]

Perhaps he is suggesting something akin to a multiverse, but more in a Feynman sum-over-histories way of looking at it. All possibilities may exist in some platonic mathematical sense, but the only ones that are 'real' or relevant to consciousness are the ones where consciousness can exist. No retro-cause involved. The rest, having no observers, don't exist in the same sense, being just part of the 'probability wave' for universal laws.

Unprovable. But somehow stimulating to think about!

[Itslvle]

I don´t think that his presentation skills were as bad as you made them out to be, but the content can be pretty boring to some since it´s all so speculative. Still, to find the answers you have to start somewhere.

Thanks for posting.

[riversonthemoon]

No, I think his presentation is good! He expounds his ideas in a logical and clear fashion and the ideas he explores are enough to keep me interested. He does, however, talk in a monotone and is somewhat lacking in charisma. That's all I meant.

[zarathustrads]

I enjoyed it all. For me it's not about a person's charisma. To me it's about the ideas. If I cared about someone's charisma, voice, or appearance I would go see a movie.

Regardless, this is a personal opinion. I really appreciate the post, because I never would have seen this otherwise.

[riversonthemoon]

'For me it's not about a person's charisma...it's about the ideas'

I agree completely.

[deepminEd]

was there any charismatic idea presented then

(worth sitting through this whole exercise) ?

nope

but it isn't so much the fault of Davis

as the fault of physics itself

and not of physics as a science

but physics as a philosophy!

[deepminEd]

and btw

i fear the day davis (or anybodyelse) should find (t)his *ultimate explanation*

that must surely be *the end of it all* ;)

subtle is the lord

and pretty much...

t r a n s c e n d e n t

[ooglebydoogleby]

a sort of cantian i think because i exist in a universe that makes this posible and in the act of thinking it i refine the construction.

[ooglebydoogleby]

very dificult to grasp the newances but also very dependent on what we mean by pupose and how we view purpose as either a function of a mechanistic universe or something imposed from within. the supreme being doesn't stand up beyond the observation that a supreme being would skip to the product the process being unecesary otherwise supremacy is doubtfull. why would god have to wait for the washing machine to complete its cycle. funny watching people falling asleep though. nice

[riversonthemoon]

He did come perilously close to suggesting an intelligence behind it all when he used the word 'ingenuity'. Though from the outset, he said he was looking for a natural explanation. His proposal, as I understand it, is that humans, far from being a unnecessary part at the top of the chain of being, bring about the possibility of their existence through being a mathematical possibility. Human consciousness, in a sense, makes concrete the laws which allow it to exist.

[riversonthemoon]

It's a very interesting idea, though highly speculative. It's sounds like a bit of eastern mysticism. Of course the 'ultimate answer', I think could never be found. Not in the sense he's posing the question. He admits this. Because no matter what explanation we find, someone can always ask the question 'Why is it like THIS, and not like THAT?'