- Mar 4, 2005Why do "intelligent" scientists ("brilliant minds", "best brains on

the planet", etc) keep deluding themselves with the idea that a universal

Theory of Everything is possible without including consciousness in it?

Isn't consciousness a genuine ingredient of the universal Reality that they

are calling "Everything"? Yet they close their mental eyes to it and just

consider the physical aspect of Reality, which they think they perceive in

consciousness, as if the physical world was a self-sufficient closed system

that exists in isolation and absolute separation from consciousness. How

mad.

Regan

_____

----- Original Message -----

From: Light Eye

To: Global_Rumblings@... ; SpeakIt@... ;

SkyOpen@yahoogroups.com ; ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com ;

changingplanetgroup@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:01 AM

Subject: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42

Dear Friends,

This is a 2 page article so click the link if you can't proceed tot he next

page.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66751,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Love and Light.

David

Penrose: The Answer's Not 42

By Mark Anderson | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next »

02:00 AM Mar. 02, 2005 PT

In 1998, Stephen Hawking laid 50-50 odds that the holy grail of physics, the

elusive "theory of everything," was less than 20 years away.

Around the same time, Hawking's renowned peer, collaborator and

sometime-disputant, Roger Penrose of Oxford University, set out to write a

book detailing just how distant the odds actually are of unifying all the

laws of physics.

"We are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of everything,"

Penrose told Nature earlier this year.

Indeed, Penrose's newly published 1,099-page treatise -- The Road to

Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe -- expends little ink

ruminating over what is not known. Rather, The Road to Reality is as

rigorous and exhaustive a map to the "theory of nearly everything" as a

reader could hope to find today.

Penrose makes a unique tour guide, overhauling components of big-bang

cosmology and quantum mechanics as some tinkerers might take out and

reinstall their car's transmission. And Penrose's tendency to pepper the

discussion with mathematical equations and terminology (he spends nearly 400

pages on calculus, number theory and advanced geometry before decamping into

the physical universe) will undoubtedly limit the book's readership to those

not easily intimidated by section titles such as "frequency splitting on the

Riemann sphere" or "Hamiltonian dynamics and symplectic geometry."

Yet, according to professor Seth Lloyd of MIT, those willing to invest the

energy to work through this mathematical Finnegans Wake will be rewarded for

their efforts.

The Road to Reality, Lloyd says, "shows (Penrose's) brilliant and unique

grasp of mathematics as it applies to the physical world. That is evidenced

in the first part. The second part of the book shows his courageousness in

going on to propose fundamental physical effects even in the absence of an

explicit theory, which he thinks intuitively to be true. So he's very bold

as well as original and insightful."

Those fundamental physical effects that Penrose proposes in Road, some of

which were first covered in his 1989 best-selling book, The Emperor's New

Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics, are as

controversial as they are bold.

For instance, despite the stampede of physicists today seeking to unify all

physical theories under the aegis of string theory, Penrose thinks his

colleagues are on a wild goose chase.

In 2002, Penrose spoke at Stephen Hawking's 60th birthday celebration.

Penrose argued that the underlying assumption of string theory -- that

space-time consists of anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions -- is simply

wrongheaded and unmotivated by either intuition or evidence. (Penrose

devotes much of the last four chapters of his book to this same argument and

to an alternative model he sets up in string theory's absence, using a

mathematical formalism Penrose invented called "twistors.")

One colleague, Penrose said, responded during the conference's lunch break

with the observation, "You're completely right, of course ... but totally

misguided."

Story continued on Page 2 » - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>