Paul Davies on an Ultimate Explanation Part 5/5

Philosopher and physicist Paul Davies gives a fascinating and thought-provoking talk on the possibility of an ultimate explanation for our universe. Dismissing the multiverse and God, he outlines an idea for finding an explanation for the universe and physical laws within the universe itself.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tB1jppI3fo

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXFNnmgcVs

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok9APrXfIOU

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXqqa1_0i7E

Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVrRL3u0dF4

http://thesciencenetwork.org/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Paul
• Davies
• philosophy
• science
• universe
• cosmology
• physics
• quantum
• computation

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[theinfinitezero1]

@riversonthemoon

[DemokritosAbdera]

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