Category: Jackpot

Universe de Jackpot

Universe de Jackpot

As I agree with Davies remarkable Jxckpot, despite our disagreements, his Univers wins five Unverse in my Uniiverse critical opinion. Lastly, Davies Jackpkt briefly a self-engineered, self-aware universe perhaps brought Jackpkt through quantum backward-causation, such as Bingo en español loops Universe de Jackpot wormholes, but concludes a missing ingredient would be self-awareness. He illustrates this on that page and the preceding one with humorous pictures in which the Earth is "explained by a deeper reality" of resting on an elephant, the elephant explained by resting on a turtle, which rests on another turtle, and, to "avoid infinite regress", last is "a levitating super-turtle, which is self-explaining and self-supporting". Davies comes to the rescue by implying that there may be "indirect evidence" that can refute these theories.

Universe de Jackpot -

If you throw a ball in the air at a certain speed and angle, Newton's laws let you work out how far it will travel before it hits the ground. The equations tell you that to achieve maximum range you should throw the ball at 45° to the horizontal.

If the ground on which you are standing slopes upward, however, the angle needs to be greater; by how much depends on the amount of slope. I was deeply engrossed in calculating the maximum range up an inclined plane when Lindsay looked up and asked what I was doing.

I explained. She seemed puzzled and skeptical. At the time I dismissed her question as silly — after all, this was what we had been taught to do! But over the years I came to see that her impulsive response precisely captures one of the deepest mysteries of science: Why is nature shadowed by a mathematical reality?

Why does theoretical physics work? As scientists have probed deeper and deeper into the workings of nature, all sorts of laws have come to light that are not at all obvious from a casual inspection of the world, for example, laws that regulate the internal components of atoms or the structure of stars.

The multiplicity of laws raises another challenging question: How long would a complete list of laws be? Would it include ten? two hundred? Might the list even be infinitely long? Not all the laws are independent of one another. It wasn't long after Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Boyle began discovering laws of physics that scientists found links between them.

For example, Newton's laws of gravitation and motion explain Kepler's three laws of planetary motion and so are in some sense deeper and more powerful.

Newton's laws of motion also explain Boyle's law of gases when they are applied in a statistical way to a large collection of chaotically moving molecules. In the four centuries that have passed since the first laws of physics were discovered, more and more have come to light, but more and more links have been spotted too.

The laws of electricity, for example, were found to be connected to the laws of magnetism, which in turn explained the laws of light. These interconnections led to a certain amount of confusion about which laws were "primary" and which could be derived from others.

Physicists began talking about "fundamental" laws and "secondary" laws, with the implication that the latter were formulated for convenience only. Sometimes physicists call these "effective laws" to distinguish them from the "true" underlying fundamental laws, within which, at least in principle, the effective, or secondary, laws can all be subsumed.

In this respect, the laws of physics differ markedly from the laws of civil society, which are an untidy hodgepodge of statutes expanding without limit.

To take an extreme case, the tax laws in most countries run to millions of words of text. By comparison, the Great Rule Book of Nature at least as it is currently understood would fit comfortably onto a single page.

This streamlining and repackaging process — finding links between laws and reducing them to ever more fundamental laws — continues apace, and it's tempting to believe that, at rock bottom, there is just a handful of truly fundamental laws, possibly even a single superlaw, from which all the other laws derive.

Given that the laws of physics underpin the entire scientific enterprise, it is curious that very few scientists bother to ask what these laws actually mean. Speak to physicists, and most of them will talk as if the laws are real things — not physical objects, of course, but abstract relationships between physical entities.

Importantly, though, they are relationships that really exist "out there" in the world and not just in our heads. For brevity I have been a bit cavalier with my terminology. If you confront a physicist and say, "Show me the laws of physics," you will be referred to a collection of textbooks — on mechanics, gravitation, electromagnetism, nuclear physics, and so on.

But a pertinent question is whether the laws you find in the books are actually the laws of physics or just somebody's best stab at them.

Few physicists would claim that a law found in a book in print today is the last word on the subject; all the textbook laws are probably just some sort of approximation of the real ones.

Most physicists nevertheless believe that as science advances, the textbook laws will converge on the Real Thing. There is a subtlety buried in all this that will turn out to be of paramount importance when I come to discuss the origin of the laws.

The idea of laws began as a way of formalizing patterns in nature that connect physical events. Physicists became so familiar with the laws that somewhere along the way the laws themselves — as opposed to the events they describe — became promoted to reality.

The laws took on a life of their own. It is hard for nonscientists to grasp the significance of this step. One analogy might be made with the world of finance. Money in the pocket means coins and notes — real physical things that get exchanged for real physical goods or services.

But money in the abstract has also taken on a life of its own. Investors can grow or shrink, in my case money without ever buying or selling physical stuff. For example, there are rules for manipulating different currencies that are at best tenuously connected to the actual purchasing function in your local corner shop.

In fact, there is far more "money" in circulation, much of it swirling around cyberspace via the Internet, than can ever be accumulated as coins and notes.

In a similar vein, the laws of physics are said to inhabit an abstract realm and touch the physical world only when they "act. This "prescriptive" view of physical laws as having power over nature is not without its detractors namely, philosophers who prefer a "descriptive" view. So we have this image of really existing laws of physics ensconced in a transcendent aerie, lording it over lowly matter.

One reason for this way of thinking about the laws concerns the role of mathematics. Numbers began as a way of labeling and tallying physical things such as beads or sheep. As the subject of mathematics developed, and extended from simple arithmetic into geometry, algebra, calculus, and so forth, so these mathematical objects and relationships came to assume an independent existence.

In this Platonic heaven there would be found, for example, perfect circles — as opposed to the circles we encounter in the real world, which will always be flawed approximations to the ideal. Many modern mathematicians are Platonists at least on weekends. They believe that mathematical objects have real existence yet are not situated in the physical universe.

Theoretical physicists, who are steeped in the Platonic tradition, also find it natural to locate the mathematical laws of physics in a Platonic realm. I have depicted this arrangement diagrammatically in Figure 2. In the final chapter I shall take a critical look at the nature of physical laws and ask whether the Platonic view has become an unwelcome fixation in the drive to understand the mathematical underpinnings of the universe.

Goodbye God? Religion was the first systematic attempt to explain the universe comprehensively. It presented the world as a product of mind or minds, of supernatural agents who could order or disorder nature at will.

In Hinduism, Brahma is creator and Shiva destroyer. In Judaism, Yahweh is both creator and destroyer. For the traditional Aboriginal people of the Kimberley in Australia, two creator beings acted in synergy. Wallanganda, a male space being, sprinkled water on Wunngud, a female snake coiled in jelly, to make Yorro Yorro — the world as we see it.

The major world religions devoted centuries of scholarship in attempts to make these theistic explanations cogent and consistent. Even today, millions of people base their worldview on a religious interpretation of nature. Science was the second great attempt to explain the world.

This time, explanations were cast in terms of impersonal forces and natural, physical processes rather than the activities of purposive supernatural agents. When scientific explanations conflicted with religious explanations, religion invariably lost the battle.

Mostly, theologians retreated to concentrate on social and ethical matters such as spiritual enlightenment, content to leave interpreting the physical universe to the scientists. There are still people who believe that rain is made by rain gods rather than by atmospheric processes, but I wouldn't rate their chances in a debate with a meteorologist.

When it comes to actual physical phenomena, science wins hands down against gods and miracles. That is not to say that science has explained everything. There remain some pretty big gaps: for example, scientists don't know how life began, and they are almost totally baffled by consciousness.

Even some familiar phenomena, such as turbulent fluids, are not completely understood. But this doesn't mean that one needs to appeal to magic or miracles to plug the gaps; what is needed are advances in scientific understanding. This is a topic I shall address in detail in Chapter When it comes to metaphysical questions such as "Why are there laws of nature?

These sorts of questions are not much affected by specific scientific discoveries: many of the really big questions have remained unchanged since the birth of civilization and still vex us today. The various faith traditions have had hundreds of years to ponder them carefully.

Religious scholars such as Anselm and Thomas Aquinas were not pious simpletons, but the intellectual heavyweights of their age. Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile delusion.

And not only God, but any vestige of God-talk, such as "meaning" or "purpose" or "design" in nature. These scientists see religion as so fraudulent and sinister that nothing less than total theological cleansing will do. They concede no middle ground and regard science and religion as two implacably opposed worldviews.

Victory is assumed to be the inevitable outcome of science's intellectual ascendancy and powerful methodology. But will God go quietly? Even within the world of organized religion, the concept of God means many different things to different people.

At the level of popular, Sunday-school Christianity, God is portrayed simplistically as a sort of Cosmic Magician, conjuring the world into being from nothing and from time to time working miracles to fix problems.

Such a being is obviously in flagrant contradiction to the scientific view of the world. The God of scholarly theology, by contrast, is cast in the role of a wise Cosmic Architect whose existence is manifested through the rational order of the cosmos, an order that is in fact revealed by science.

That sort of God is largely immune to scientific attack. Is the Universe Pointless? Even atheistic scientists will wax lyrical about the scale, the majesty, the harmony, the elegance, the sheer ingenuity of the universe of which they form so small and fragile a part.

As the great cosmic drama unfolds before us, it begins to look as though there is a "script" — a scheme of things — that its evolution is following. We are then bound to ask, Who or what wrote the script? Or did the script somehow, miraculously, write itself? Is the great cosmic text laid down once and for all, or is the universe, or the invisible author, making it up as it goes along?

Is this the only drama being staged, or is our universe just one of many shows in town? The fact that the universe conforms to an orderly scheme, and is not an arbitrary muddle of events, prompts one to wonder — God or no God — whether there is some sort of meaning or purpose behind it all.

Many scientists are quick to pour scorn even on this weaker suggestion, however. Richard Feynman, arguably the finest theoretical physicist of the mid- twentieth century, thought that "the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behavior has a kind of meaninglessness about it.

To be sure, concepts like meaning and purpose are categories devised by humans, and we must take care when attempting to project them onto the physical universe. But all attempts to describe the universe scientifically draw on human concepts: science proceeds precisely by taking concepts that humans have thought up, often from everyday experience, and applying them to nature.

Doing science means figuring out what is going on in the world — what the universe is "up to," what it is "about. So we might justifiably invert Weinberg's dictum and say that the more the universe seems pointless, the more it also seems incomprehensible.

Of course, scientists might be deluded in their belief that they are finding systematic and coherent truth in the workings of nature. It could be we who weave a tapestry of dazzling intellectual elegance from what is nothing more than a banality.

Ultimately there may be no reason at all for why things are the way they are. But that would make the universe a fiendishly clever bit of trickery. Can a truly absurd universe so convincingly mimic a meaningful one? This is the biggest of the big questions of existence that we will confront as we embark on our investigation of life, the universe, and everything.

To appreciate this book you have to be comfortable with that idea. Many physicists think they are real and that they inhabit a transcendent Platonic realm. Most, but by no means all, scientists are atheists or agnostics. Copyright © by Orion Productions. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Company.

About the author Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations. Brief content visible, double tap to read full content. Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Read more Read less. Customer reviews. How customer reviews and ratings work Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings, help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon. Images in this review. Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews. Top reviews from United Kingdom. There are 0 reviews and 2 ratings from United Kingdom. Top reviews from other countries.

Verified Purchase. this book is. Not to long, easy read. Each chapter has a brief summary of its content at the end, so if you forgot something while continuing reading, just get back to them.

Though published in , nothing essentially has changed in cosmology since this time. Perfect choice for any person entering the field of cosmology, or for those who want to refresh the previously gained knowledge without re-reading the old books. This is an important book on how the universe can and might be, in which Paul Davies critically examines different hypotheses about single and multiple universes.

His book illuminates the most critical issues of physics and philosophy and of some biology underlying our understanding of Science and Religion. He has called himself an agnostic, and he does not argue for religious beliefs.

This newest book by Davies is somewhat more technical than his other books but is still well within the general readership level. Davies updates and expands upon all previous overviews I know of in the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence, enriching previous accounts especially in his discussion of multiple universes.

Throughout the book, Davies flags the free parameters, or "constants of nature", some 20 of them counting force coupling constants and the masses of elementary particles, which, in the standard models of nuclear physics, astrophysics and cosmology, must be exquisitely fine-tuned to yield a single universe capable of supporting life.

As an alternative to this fine-tuning, physicists have proposed multiple universes, or a multiverse, wherein infinite universes, a few of them with properties supporting life, could counterbalance the infinitesimal probability of the degree of fine-tuning necessary in a single universe if it occurred only by chance.

The difference between these views has obvious and profound metaphysical and religious implications. It is a mathematical construct wherein physical theories might be "accommodated" - it can in principle provide a way to make predictions for those theories - but so far it cannot predict anything real, anything that has been or could be measured.

And right now the odds are about even and rapidly getting longer that it ever will. Davies spells out some of these wild possibilities - wild because there would be infinite possibilities, including infinite variations of the laws of physics among different universes - and he describes some that might be more likely from probability arguments.

I cannot do justice to that exciting ride without quoting his whole discussion. But, mind you, Davies does not do this in any lighthearted way; he is deadly serious in scientifically examining these possibilities.

One of the inevitable possibilities is that some universes are but computer simulations by some superculture out there in another universe. And the show-stopper in that scenario is that our own universe, including our very selves, is most probably a simulation imagine an incredibly advanced virtual reality emulation of everything, even our consciousness.

In the multiverse picture, the universe we perceive, and any God we worship, are fakes! Every philosopher's wildest dreams can and will come true with infinite possibilities in infinite universes.

This multiverse thing is annoying, isn't it? Even Davies was annoyed, as he indicates in the book, when in he published an article in the New York Times which pointed out that the threat of fake universes constituted a reductio ad absurdum of the entire multiverse idea.

In a recent note 1 Davies concluded that there were three alternatives, and he explains this more thoroughly in the book. Namely, the argument leading from the laws of physics we know - to multiple universes with fake physics - to anthropic selection - to the elimination of God is a contradictory loop; and the multiverse advocates are thus "hoist by their own petard!

However, Davies admits p. Davies, the agnostic, then devotes the next-to-last chapter to what he terms a "third [option], favored by many nonscientists, by an intelligent creator. I would strongly suggest that the book "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins 2 be substituted for Davies' attempts here.

But then Davies moves quickly on to his more comfortable ground of physics. While concluding that belief in a God who makes the laws of physics, who is responsible for the universe and for continually holding it into existence without tinkering with its day-to-day operation, is popular with many scientists as well as theologians, Davies is uncomfortable with this as its being, in his view, an hoc explanation that leads us "no further forward" no further forward to a purely scientific explanation.

He then goes on to ask many questions couched within physics, that, for me, are not the dilemmas an agnostic or atheist faces, e. The agnostic constraints Davies imposes on himself in this chapter seem to go beyond an evenhandedness in treating belief and non-belief in God.

Perhaps the alternative and stronger definition of an agnostic applies to Davies a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality, as is God, is unknown and probably unknowable. In summarizing this chapter, Davies writes: "Unless everything that can exist does exist, something still unexplained must separate what exists and what doesn't" and "We are not finished yet!

Davies then addresses whether life should, in the first place, be considered a fundamental or accidental phenomenon.

After some very elegant discussion, he concludes from both scientific and philosophical considerations that life, and mind in particular, is a unique, extremely important and fundamental phenomenon of nature. Further, he considers that the connection between 1 life and mind and 2 the cosmos must be deeper than that from just "the crude lottery of multiverse cosmology combined with the Weak Anthropic Principle.

Davies' bottom line is that neither of The Two Explanations, the universe fine-tuned for life which Davies calls a "fluke" or the multiverse picture, can scientifically answer the ultimate question of existence because they both require a scientifically unexplained starting point.

Moreover, it is thought that gene mutations within the Hox system can lead to large or abrupt changes in evolution, a direct contradiction of the slow and gradual changes predicted by Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory must assume that this co-opting ability is completely explained by conditions of necessity, and this is only a leap of faith.

This ability is every bit as mysterious as biogenesis, and it is continually occurring within evolution. Advocates of the accidental universe are required to attempt refutation of their theories if their theories are to remain within science. As they are advocates they do this reluctantly.

For intelligent design to remain within science these folks need only attempt eager refutation of the same hypothesis the accidental world , and no mention of a white-haired designer need be made. This tension returns value to science. Davies page accuses intelligent design of equivocation, implying that the "intelligent design movement's propaganda is a failure to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the mechanism of evolution.

But intelligent design only provides Darwin's antithesis, and this eager involvement is necessary if Darwin's theory is going to stay within science. Davies is more sympathetic with intelligent design as it relates to fine-tuning and a cosmology that is found bio-friendly.

He page writes that "here the design arguments is largely immune to Darwinian attack. To describe life's feeling from conditions of mere necessity would seem to require a leap of faith, if not a miracle. The so-called explanations of life built from conditions of necessity work just as good if life had no feelings at all.

In the last half of Chapter 9, Davies looks at various conceptions of God, and questions "what is it that determines what exists? I could have told him that myself, in different words. It is Aristotle's principle of excluded middle that is an unfounded leap of faith.

And it is for this very reason that conditions of necessity are found insufficient to explain the feelings that life offers. But the feelings are sense-certain and not demanding a reason based on conditions of necessity.

The feelings source the middle term that had been excluded from reason. What co-opts the past implies a necessary backward causation, a subtle form of teleology that Davies finds favor with in Chapter And in his concluding remarks Davies finds favor in a self-explaining universe, or a universe that holds a life principle.

These are very agreeable choices again, in my view. And my point all along has been that Darwinism is incomplete without Davies' life principle. Feeling is found escaping conditions of necessity by way of a life principle that points to Aristotle's forgotten middle-term.

And what is feeling at its deepest level but love? It has been the love of God that drove our evolution. But this is not a white-haired creator God that is held separate from his creation. This God affirms the Trinity, as only a Trinitarian logic can deal with a middle-term that cannot be excluded.

As I agree with Davies remarkable conclusions, despite our disagreements, his book wins five stars in my most critical opinion. Remember, our felt tension returns value to science. Disclosure: My agenda is declared in my profile.

etched deeply into the cosmos. Paul Davies is a physicist and cosmologist whose web site cosmos. edu also describes his interest in the field of astrobiology: "a new field of research that seeks to understand the origin and evolution of life, and to search for life beyond Earth.

In Cosmic Jackpot, Davies expands on the "fine-tuning" argument for an intelligent origin of the universe by explaining the many phenomena of which we are aware that point to something more in the nature of "mind" than entirely blind, random processes.

If such ideas were proposed by a theologian with only a scant grasp of physics, they might easily be dismissed; Davies' credentials, however, require that his proposals be seriously considered. Davies is not apparently religious or theistic; he says of the subject only that: "I do believe that life and mind are etched deeply into the fabric of the cosmos, perhaps through a shadowy, half-glimpsed life principle, and if I am to be honest I have to concede that this starting point is something I feel more in my heart than in my head.

So maybe that is a religious conviction of sorts. This conclusion carries a momentous implication. If the universe was bounded by a past singularity, then the big bang was not just the origin of space, but the origin of time too.

To repeat: time itself began with the big bang. Design-by-laws is incomparably more intelligent than design-by-miracles So the "intelligent design" beloved of the Intelligent Design movement strikes me as not very intelligent at all, in contrast to a designer of the laws of nature that by themselves have such astonishing creative ability without the need for intervention and miracles.

evolutionary principle of replication with variation and selection is undeniably fundamental second key is autonomy third distinctive property of living systems is how they handle information. Now we are dealing with thoughts, purposes, feelings, beliefs - the inner, subjective world of the observer, who experiences reality through the senses..

These mental entities are clearly not merely "other sorts of things" - they are in a class apart. They do not even exist on the same level of description as material objects and bear no obvious relationship to them whatsoever. He writes in a very accessible style and his objectivity is refreshing in a topic where ideas are so often presented with deep prejudice towards one extreme or the other.

An excellent book. One person found this helpful. Having read his scientific arguments in the rest of the book, I was somewhat surprised although he says his inclinations "will be clear" by the author's concluding section p. Elsewhere p. Interestingly, he also writes p.

The many and diverse components function together in a coherent and amazingly orchestrated manner", and that the living cell contains "exquisite examples of nanotechnology", and so forth.

To add to these conflicting observations, the author downgrades the Intelligent Design movement, an American defense of the idea that organisms have an intelligent designer. Perhaps he does so because he is British, since other Brits have that attitude, but what seems truly unfortunate is that the Intelligent Design group is the only one he denigrates with name-calling.

He speaks of their being "political" p. Not to be misunderstood, I love Americans and Brits equally I am of middle-European Jewish birth , but I consider the Intelligent Design group just as honorable and intelligent as others, though I hold, like other cases, its arguments deficient.

Presently, my concentration is on the author discussed, and I find numerous weaknesses in his argumentation. He puts special emphasis on the concept of explanation. To him every fact must be explained; otherwise it must be "taken on faith" p.

He illustrates this on that page and the preceding one with humorous pictures in which the Earth is "explained by a deeper reality" of resting on an elephant, the elephant explained by resting on a turtle, which rests on another turtle, and, to "avoid infinite regress", last is "a levitating super-turtle, which is self-explaining and self-supporting".

The trouble is that the author is unclear about what he means by "explanation", by a "reason", and why some is always necessary. There exist various "reasons". A most common one is giving a cause for an event.

Another one is giving a proof for a logical or mathematical proposition. All these have the purpose of satisfying some desire for resulting knowledge. But much of knowledge is gained directly, without explanation, by for instance any immediate perception of something.

Laws pertaining to things are likewise often learned from experience, without need of further explanation, unless an underlying broader law might be helpful. The point is that once certain facts are learned, they become objects of knowledge, whether or not one learns more about them.

If accordingly the existence of God, considered as a "super-turtle", is the question, it is beside the point whether or not "God exists reasonlessly" p. Returning to the first-mentioned last section p. He evidently means that, with the universe "a package of marvels", he takes "life [and] mind seriously" as resulting by some "purpose", saying, "It seems to me that there is a genuine scheme of things--the universe is 'about' something".

However, in Darwinian fashion he says, "I do not believe Homo sapiens to be more than an accidental by-product of haphazard natural processes". Halving: 31D. Watchlist Portfolio. Add to watchlist. This is a preview page.

For more details on listing tiers, refer to Listings Review Criteria Section B - 3. Do you own this project?

Update Token Info. Self-reported circulating supply. Total supply. BNB Smart Chain BEP20 : 0x95Aa Official links. Self-Reported Tags. DeFi Smart Contracts DApp Show all. Jackpot Universe community.

Paul Davies is an internationally acclaimed physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist Univesre Arizona State University, where he runs Jafkpot pioneering Beyond Center Jacpot Fundamental Concepts Universe de Jackpot Video Poker a tu alcance. He also chairs the Search for Extraterrestrial Ganancias Fáciles Post-Detection Universe de Jackpot, so that if SETI succeeds in finding intelligent life, he will be among the first to know. The asteroid OG was officially renamed Pauldavies in his honor. In addition to his many scientific awards, Davies is the recipient of the Templeton Prize--the world's largest annual prize--for his work on science and religion. He is the author of more than twenty books, including The Mind of God, About Time, How to Build a Time Machine, and The Goldilocks Enigma. Universe de Jackpot

Author: Tezragore

2 thoughts on “Universe de Jackpot

Leave a comment

Yours email will be published. Important fields a marked *

Design by