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

4093Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42

Expand Messages
  • Regan Power
    Mar 4, 2005
      Why 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


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Light Eye
      To: Global_Rumblings@... ; SpeakIt@... ;
      SkyOpen@yahoogroups.com ; ufodiscussion@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


      Love and Light.


      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

      Story continued on Page 2 »
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic