Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11095Re: [anthroposophy] universe incarnations??

Expand Messages
  • Maurice McCarthy
    Nov 12, 2005
      On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 09:18:36AM -0500 or thereabouts, Daniel Hindes wrote:

      > A few physicists are starting to think along these lines. Consider:
      > http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html
      > Physicist, UC Irvine; Author, Deep Time
      > Why is there scientific law at all?

      Thanks for this it is an interesting article.

      > We physicists explain the origin and structure of matter and energy, but not
      > the laws that do this. Does the idea of causation apply to where the laws
      > themselves came from? Even Alan Guth's "free lunch" gives us the universe
      > after the laws start acting. We have narrowed down the range of field
      > theories that can yield the big bang universe we live in, but why do the
      > laws that govern it seem to be constant in time, and always at work?

      If consciousness and reality always correspond then there is the hidden assumption in this that human consciousness has never fundamentally altered. But if it has then it also follows that it is false that the physical laws are constant in time. But notice how science has moved away from understanding reality to trying to grasp possible worlds. It is turning in on itself - as it must in the age of the consciousness soul.

      > One can imagine a universe in which laws are not truly lawful. Talk of
      > miracles does just this, when God is supposed to make things work. Physics
      > aims to find The Laws and hopes that these will be uniquely constrained, as
      > when Einstein wondered if God had any choice when He made the universe. One
      > fashionable escape hatch from this asserts that there are infinitely many
      > universes, each sealed off from the others, which can obey any sort of law
      > one can imagine, with parameters or assumptions changed. This "multiverse"
      > view represents the failure of our grand agenda, of course, and seems to me
      > contrary to Occam's Razor-solving our lack of understanding by multiplying
      > unseen entities into infinity.

      It is also unprovable and irrefutable and therefore unscientific. It reveals how much they've lost a grip on what knowledge is. And that is the fault of the philosophers.

      > Perhaps it is a similar philosophical failure of imagination to think, as I
      > do, that when we see order, there is usually an ordering principle. But what
      > can constrain the nature of physical law? Evolution gave us our ornately
      > structured biosphere, and perhaps a similar principle operates in selecting
      > universes. Perhaps our universe arises, then, from selection for
      > intelligences that can make fresh universes, perhaps in high energy physics
      > experiments. Or near black holes (as Lee Smiolin supposed), where space-time
      > gets contorted into plastic forms that can make new space-times. Then an
      > Ur-universe that had intelligence could make others, and this reproduction
      > with perhaps slight variation ion "genetics" drives the evolution of
      > physical law.

      Hmmm. An Ur-universe with intelligence is a spiritual one, is it not?

      > Selection arises because only firm laws can yield constant, benign
      > conditions to form new life. Ed Harrison had similar ideas. Once life forms
      > realize this, they could intentionally make more smart universes with the
      > right, fixed laws, to produce ever more grand structures. There might be
      > observable consequences of this prior evolution, If so, then we are an
      > inevitable consequence of the universe, mirroring intelligences that have
      > come before, in some earlier universe that deliberately chose to create more
      > sustainable order. The fitness of our cosmic environment is then no
      > accident. If we find evidence of fine-tuning in the Dyson and Rees sense,
      > then, is this evidence for such views?

      To prove or refute any of this you would have to generate new forms of perception. This is identical to becoming a clairvoyant. They just would not like the name.

    • Show all 42 messages in this topic