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

RE: [anthroposophy] universe incarnations??

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Hindes
    ... From: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maurice McCarthy Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 6:06 AM To:
    Message 1 of 42 , Nov 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Maurice McCarthy
      Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 6:06 AM
      To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] universe incarnations??

      <snip> Modern theory is the extrapolation of measurements way beyond their
      validity. <snip>
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      A few physicists are starting to think along these lines. Consider:

      http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html
      GREGORY BENFORD
      Physicist, UC Irvine; Author, Deep Time

      Why is there scientific law at all?

      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?

      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.

      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.

      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?
    • Maurice McCarthy
      Hi Sunny, Welcome to the list and I hope this is a good place for you. As you ll see there is not much traffic lately. Warmest Regards Maurice
      Message 42 of 42 , Dec 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Sunny,

        Welcome to the list and I hope this is a good place for you. As you'll see there is not much traffic lately.

        Warmest Regards
        Maurice



        On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:14:37AM -0000 or thereabouts, sunmoonchild wrote:
        > Hello all,
        >
        > I am brand new here, and relatively new to Rudolph Steiner. ...

        > I'll be looking forward to learning more about why I was drawn here.
        > And looking forward to finding out why all I've heard of
        > Anthroposophy so far just seems to resonate for me.
        >
        > Sunny
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.