What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱噩丕卅夭丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱賰亘乇賶
賷毓賵丿 亘賵賱 丿賷賮賷夭 廿賱賶 毓賱賲 丕賱賰賵賳 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賴賷 毓賵丿丞 賲匕賴賱丞 丕卮鬲賯賳丕 廿賱賷賴丕 賰孬賷乇賸丕. 賵賷鬲賳丕賵賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷毓 芦丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱賲賴賲丞禄貙 賵賷胤乇丨 兀丨丿孬 丕賱丕賰鬲卮丕賮丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賲賰賳鬲 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賲賳 爻乇丿 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賰賵賳 亘鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賱賲 賷爻亘賯 賱賴賲 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賷賴丕. 賵賲毓 賴匕丕 賮廿賳 丿賷賮賷夭 賷賵囟丨 爻亘亘 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱丨丕賱賷 亘賷賳 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱匕賷 夭丕丿 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 兀賷 賵賯鬲 賲囟賶. 賵賷噩賷亘 毓賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱丌鬲賷丞: 賱賲丕匕丕 鬲毓丿 噩賲賷毓 丕賱馗乇賵賮 賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟責 賰賷賮 丨丕賵賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 匕賱賰責 賰賷賮 兀孬乇 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賮賷 卮賰賱 丕賱賲賳丕馗乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞責 賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賳毓乇賮賴 丨賯 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 亘卮兀賳 丕賱賲賰丕賳 丕賱匕賷 賳丨鬲賱賴 賮賷 丕賱賰賵賳責 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨賱 亘賵賱 丿賷賮賷夭 兀賱睾丕夭 丕賱毓賱賲貙 賵賷氐賱 廿賱賶 丿賯丕卅賯 賳馗乇鬲賳丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賰賵賳.
354 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 1988
27 people are currently reading
715 people want to read
About the author
Paul C.W. Davies
75听books560听followersPaul Charles William Davies AM is a British-born physicist, writer and broadcaster, currently a professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. He has held previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University of London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University. His research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has proposed that a one-way trip to Mars could be a viable option.
In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics.
In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
April 3, 2022
The first third was a rehash of knowledge i had, but well presented on history of scientific discoveries related to the atom and she universe. Made me appreciase more Isaac Isamov's fify year-old books on the subjeot. It was educational in that i learned they had bounced beams off Venus and Mercury, when properly aligned, to prove Eisinstein's bending of space theory, and that such a triangle's corners (lmE > V > M > E) would add up to more than 180掳. I was interested in the chapters around "Goldilocks" universe but the niscussion was too philosophical for my tastes. I did get something out of "designer universe" debate but got lost later on with other discussions such as mentioning teological arguments. I looked up "teological" > "relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise"
"teleological narratives of progress" > i still don't know what that means.
I only wanted to give it three stars for what i got out of the book but am bumping that up to four for making me aware of all the perspectives presently considered on untiverse origins and possible purpose. I think the author misses the boat by not giting an imperfect Creator perspective.
"teleological narratives of progress" > i still don't know what that means.
I only wanted to give it three stars for what i got out of the book but am bumping that up to four for making me aware of all the perspectives presently considered on untiverse origins and possible purpose. I think the author misses the boat by not giting an imperfect Creator perspective.
September 8, 2018
Great for those who like to explore the boundary between science and religion. Some of the concepts are mind-bending/ mind-altering. The reader should not worry about absorbing all of the science- just keep going and don鈥檛 get bogged down as it is a worthwhile and enjoyable read.
June 27, 2017
Nice introduction to some of the physics behind cosmology. I thought his explanations behind how a multiverse could exist were more reasonable than what I've heard so far. Unfortunately, Davies spends a lot of the second half of the book engaged in wild speculation, though he acknowledges it as such. Also, he is really reluctant to resort to a first-cause even preferring self-sustaining time-loop universe to this. It seems like this bias and the felt need to cover every possible scenario gave this book less focus on the solutions which are more reasonable in favor of a broad treatment of everything. The afterward does contain a nice list of cosmology options. Very easy to read. This was my first Davies book and I would read more.
December 17, 2014
Interessante, ben scritto.
Ho difficolt脿 a comprendere l'argomento.
Le tesi dell'autore mi perplimono alquanto, le sue argomentazioni pure.
Ho difficolt脿 a comprendere l'argomento.
Le tesi dell'autore mi perplimono alquanto, le sue argomentazioni pure.
June 1, 2008
Author and physicist Paul Davies takes on a subject likely to be met with hostility by many readers, and most especially by physicists and religious believers. His question is: why does the universe exist, and why is it hospitable to life, especially sentient life? These are questions on the boundary of science, and it may be that there is not, even in principle, scientific answers to these questions. A scientific theory must have 2 characteristics: explanatory power, and falsifiability. It seems likely that there is no observation or experiment that could be performed that could test any theory of why the universe exists. Almost by definition, the answer to that question would involve something that 'came before' or 'lies outside' the observable universe. I put quotes around those phrases because many physicists would argue that time and space themselves emerged as part of the big bang, so any reference to 'before' or 'outside' would be meaningless.
And of course many religious believers are likely to take offense at the very idea that science might provide answers to these questions. The history of science and of religious belief over the past few centuries has been one of science steadily chipping away, and sometimes gouging large holes out of, the realm of religious speculation and belief. In the United States there are an amazing number of people who are unable to accept the basic facts of biology, specifically evolution by variation and natural selection. There's just no arguing with those people - they have abandoned reason. But more 'reasonable' believers continue to take comfort in the idea that questions of the ultimate origins of the universe are outside the realm of science and are therefore, by a strange sort of logic that I do not understand, in the realm of theology. Unfortunately for this idea, the same objections and absurdities that plague any attempt at a scientific explanation of the 'why' of the universe apply with at least equal force to the theological explanations.
Davies proposes many theories, some of which involve a kind of causal loop between mind and cosmos. Others are somewhat more orthodox (if that word even has meaning here), such as quantum multiverse, infinite quantum multiverse, platonic necessity, and so on. At the end, though, Davies admits that on reviewing those theories they all strike him as ridiculous.
If all of the theories are ridiculous, we are back where we started, except that the mysteries seem, if anything, deeper and more perplexing than before.
Davies makes some interesting points about mathematical Platonism, and its cousin, the idea that physical laws have a kind of platonic reality. Most mathematicians are Platonists, in the sense that they believe that mathematical truth is 'out there' waiting to be discovered; that theorems are are discovered, not invented. The alternative to this view would be that theorems are invented. This alternative would seem to imply that the theorems of mathematics could in principle be invented differently; but it is impossible to conceive how this could be so. There is an inherent non-contingency in mathematics. Even the Godel incompleteness theorem does not disturb this: Godel only proved that axiomatic systems cannot be both complete and consistent; i.e. there are true mathematical theorems that cannot be proved within any particular consistent axiomatic system. Note that the 'truth' of the theorem (i.e. its existence in some platonic realm) is something that exists outside of the possibility of proof (where the proof is indeed something invented by human ingenuity).
Davies claims, plausibly, that most physicists are also Platonists with regard to physical laws, at least at some level. Even physicists who believe that the current values of physical constants 'precipitated out' of the big bang, believe that there are underlying laws, perhaps as yet undiscovered, that exist somehow outside of the physical universe, and that guide the evolution of the universe, and more significantly, that drove the creation of the universe. When you put it like that it all seems mind bogglingly mysterious, and fundamentally implausible.
You won't learn much physics from this book, and you won't come away with any answers to the questions Davies raises. But you will have a better understanding of just how implausible it is that we and the universe exist at all.
And of course many religious believers are likely to take offense at the very idea that science might provide answers to these questions. The history of science and of religious belief over the past few centuries has been one of science steadily chipping away, and sometimes gouging large holes out of, the realm of religious speculation and belief. In the United States there are an amazing number of people who are unable to accept the basic facts of biology, specifically evolution by variation and natural selection. There's just no arguing with those people - they have abandoned reason. But more 'reasonable' believers continue to take comfort in the idea that questions of the ultimate origins of the universe are outside the realm of science and are therefore, by a strange sort of logic that I do not understand, in the realm of theology. Unfortunately for this idea, the same objections and absurdities that plague any attempt at a scientific explanation of the 'why' of the universe apply with at least equal force to the theological explanations.
Davies proposes many theories, some of which involve a kind of causal loop between mind and cosmos. Others are somewhat more orthodox (if that word even has meaning here), such as quantum multiverse, infinite quantum multiverse, platonic necessity, and so on. At the end, though, Davies admits that on reviewing those theories they all strike him as ridiculous.
If all of the theories are ridiculous, we are back where we started, except that the mysteries seem, if anything, deeper and more perplexing than before.
Davies makes some interesting points about mathematical Platonism, and its cousin, the idea that physical laws have a kind of platonic reality. Most mathematicians are Platonists, in the sense that they believe that mathematical truth is 'out there' waiting to be discovered; that theorems are are discovered, not invented. The alternative to this view would be that theorems are invented. This alternative would seem to imply that the theorems of mathematics could in principle be invented differently; but it is impossible to conceive how this could be so. There is an inherent non-contingency in mathematics. Even the Godel incompleteness theorem does not disturb this: Godel only proved that axiomatic systems cannot be both complete and consistent; i.e. there are true mathematical theorems that cannot be proved within any particular consistent axiomatic system. Note that the 'truth' of the theorem (i.e. its existence in some platonic realm) is something that exists outside of the possibility of proof (where the proof is indeed something invented by human ingenuity).
Davies claims, plausibly, that most physicists are also Platonists with regard to physical laws, at least at some level. Even physicists who believe that the current values of physical constants 'precipitated out' of the big bang, believe that there are underlying laws, perhaps as yet undiscovered, that exist somehow outside of the physical universe, and that guide the evolution of the universe, and more significantly, that drove the creation of the universe. When you put it like that it all seems mind bogglingly mysterious, and fundamentally implausible.
You won't learn much physics from this book, and you won't come away with any answers to the questions Davies raises. But you will have a better understanding of just how implausible it is that we and the universe exist at all.
December 7, 2011
The first part of the book is good: it covers, for the uninitiated, quantum theories and the people who developed those theories. The second half of the book is speculation: the author attempts to explain the origin of the universe and how life seems to be a fundamental part of the universe (like quarks and photons) with ideas that are non-verifiable (and that could make for some interesting fiction), concluding with a some kind of god-like force.
March 23, 2018
賮賷 賳馗乇 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賳丕爻 ( 賵 丕馗賳 賳馗乇 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賷囟丕 )
賰丕賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 .. 賱賲丕匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賲賳丕爻亘 賱賱丨賷丕丞 ..
賱賲丕匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賲賳馗賲 ! .. 賱賲丕匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賷亘丿賵 賰賲丕 賱賵 賰丕賳 賲賮氐賱丕 毓賱賶 賲賯丕爻賳丕 ! ..
賵賱賰賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 賱賲 鬲孬乇 丕賳鬲亘丕賴賷
..
亘賱 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賷 賴賵 :
賱賲丕匕丕 噩丕亍鬲 賲毓乇賮鬲賳丕 丕賱賷賵賲 鬲丐賷丿 賵 鬲卮賷乇 丕賱賶 丕賱卮卅 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賱丕夭賲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賲賳匕 賲賵賱丿賴丕 .. 丕賱丿賷賳 ! ..
賲丕 賴賷 丕賱丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 賱氐丿賮丞 賰賴匕賴 ..
賱丕 丕馗賳賴丕 氐丿賮丞 .
賰丕賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 .. 賱賲丕匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賲賳丕爻亘 賱賱丨賷丕丞 ..
賱賲丕匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賲賳馗賲 ! .. 賱賲丕匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賷亘丿賵 賰賲丕 賱賵 賰丕賳 賲賮氐賱丕 毓賱賶 賲賯丕爻賳丕 ! ..
賵賱賰賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 賱賲 鬲孬乇 丕賳鬲亘丕賴賷
..
亘賱 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賷 賴賵 :
賱賲丕匕丕 噩丕亍鬲 賲毓乇賮鬲賳丕 丕賱賷賵賲 鬲丐賷丿 賵 鬲卮賷乇 丕賱賶 丕賱卮卅 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賱丕夭賲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賲賳匕 賲賵賱丿賴丕 .. 丕賱丿賷賳 ! ..
賲丕 賴賷 丕賱丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 賱氐丿賮丞 賰賴匕賴 ..
賱丕 丕馗賳賴丕 氐丿賮丞 .
May 23, 2015
丕賮囟賱 賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 丨賷丕丿賷丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵 賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕馗賴丕乇賴 賱廿賷噩丕亘賷丕鬲 賵 爻賱亘賷丕鬲 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丕賵賱 鬲賮爻賷乇 賳卮兀丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賲毓 卮乇丨賴丕 亘卮賰賱 賲亘爻胤 賳賵毓丕 賲丕貙
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾賳賷 亘丕賱卮乇丨 賵 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賱匕賱賰 丕噩夭賲 丕賳 賱賷 毓賵丿丞 孬丕賳賷丞 賱賴.
丕賳氐丨 亘賴 賱噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 毓賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賵 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丕賵賱 卮乇丨 賳卮兀鬲賴.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾賳賷 亘丕賱卮乇丨 賵 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賱匕賱賰 丕噩夭賲 丕賳 賱賷 毓賵丿丞 孬丕賳賷丞 賱賴.
丕賳氐丨 亘賴 賱噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 毓賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賵 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丕賵賱 卮乇丨 賳卮兀鬲賴.
December 18, 2017
Great writer. Not the best philosopher. Presupposes that methodological naturalism. Does not explore enough about the existence of information in the universe and its implications. However, I learned a lot about science.
July 31, 2017
賵賱丕 夭丕賱 丕賱爻丐丕賱 廿賱賶 丕賱丌賳 貙 賲賳匕 兀賳 亘丿兀 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 亘胤乇丨 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 貙 賰賷賮 賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 貙 賵賲賳 賵噩丿賴 貙 賵賲丕 丕賱賲睾夭賶 賲賳 賵噩賵丿賴 賵賵噩賵丿賳丕 責
乇睾賲 丕賱兀噩賵亘丞 丕賱賲鬲賵丕噩丿丞 賵丕賱賲鬲夭丕賷丿丞 噩賷賱 亘毓丿 噩賷賱 貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賱丕 夭丕賱鬲 睾賷乇 賲乇囟賷丞 賵賲卮亘毓丞 賱賮囟賵賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 ..
賮賰賱 噩賵丕亘 賷賮鬲丨 亘丕亘 丌禺乇 賱賱爻丐丕賱 貙 丨爻賳賸丕 廿賳賴 丕賱廿賱賴 丕賱毓馗賷賲 氐丕賳毓 賵賲賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賵丕賱禺賱賷賯丞 貙 丨爻賳賸丕 賵賲賳 丕賱匕賷 丕賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱廿賱賴 責 兀賷 賲賳 兀賷賳 丕鬲賶 貙 賵賲丕 賰丕賳 賷賮毓賱 賯亘賱 丕賱禺賱賯 責!
丨爻賳賸丕 廿賳賴 丕賱丕賳賮噩丕乇 丕賱毓馗賷賲 .. 賵賲丕匕丕 賰丕賳 賯亘賱 丕賱丕賳賮噩丕乇 責 賰賷賮 丨丿孬 責 賴賱 賴賵 賮毓賱賸丕 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 貙 賵賱賲丕匕丕 賱賲 賷丨丿孬 賮賷 賵賯鬲 丌禺乇 責
賮賰賲丕 賯賱鬲 賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱丕噩賵亘丞 賰孬賷乇丞 賴賳丕賱賰 丕爻卅賱丞 兀賰亘乇 .
賵丕毓賱賲 噩賷丿賸丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賲賳丕 賯丿 丕卮亘毓 賮囟賵賱丞 亘亘毓囟 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱廿噩丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賲囟丨賰丞 賵丕賱爻胤丨賷丞 貙 馗賳賸丕 賲賳賴賲 賯丿 丕賲鬲賱賰賵丕 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵亘賴丕 亘丿兀賵丕 賷卮乇毓賵賳 .
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳胤賱賯 毓賱賷丞 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱賰亘乇賶 貙 賱丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 兀賷 爻丐丕賱 賯丿 胤乇丨鬲賴 賲爻亘賯賸丕 丨賵賱 丕賱賰賵賳 賵丕賱賵噩賵丿 賵賱賲 鬲噩丿丞 賴賳丕 貙 賵亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱賳 丕賯賵賱 賱賰 兀賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱兀噩賵亘丞 賴賷 賲賯賳毓丞 賵賲乇囟賷丞 貙 賵賷噩亘 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賱丿賷賰 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賱賲丕賲 亘丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵丕賱賰賵賳賷丕鬲 賱賮賴賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿賸丕
乇睾賲 丕賱兀噩賵亘丞 丕賱賲鬲賵丕噩丿丞 賵丕賱賲鬲夭丕賷丿丞 噩賷賱 亘毓丿 噩賷賱 貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賱丕 夭丕賱鬲 睾賷乇 賲乇囟賷丞 賵賲卮亘毓丞 賱賮囟賵賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 ..
賮賰賱 噩賵丕亘 賷賮鬲丨 亘丕亘 丌禺乇 賱賱爻丐丕賱 貙 丨爻賳賸丕 廿賳賴 丕賱廿賱賴 丕賱毓馗賷賲 氐丕賳毓 賵賲賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賵丕賱禺賱賷賯丞 貙 丨爻賳賸丕 賵賲賳 丕賱匕賷 丕賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱廿賱賴 責 兀賷 賲賳 兀賷賳 丕鬲賶 貙 賵賲丕 賰丕賳 賷賮毓賱 賯亘賱 丕賱禺賱賯 責!
丨爻賳賸丕 廿賳賴 丕賱丕賳賮噩丕乇 丕賱毓馗賷賲 .. 賵賲丕匕丕 賰丕賳 賯亘賱 丕賱丕賳賮噩丕乇 責 賰賷賮 丨丿孬 責 賴賱 賴賵 賮毓賱賸丕 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 貙 賵賱賲丕匕丕 賱賲 賷丨丿孬 賮賷 賵賯鬲 丌禺乇 責
賮賰賲丕 賯賱鬲 賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱丕噩賵亘丞 賰孬賷乇丞 賴賳丕賱賰 丕爻卅賱丞 兀賰亘乇 .
賵丕毓賱賲 噩賷丿賸丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賲賳丕 賯丿 丕卮亘毓 賮囟賵賱丞 亘亘毓囟 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱廿噩丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賲囟丨賰丞 賵丕賱爻胤丨賷丞 貙 馗賳賸丕 賲賳賴賲 賯丿 丕賲鬲賱賰賵丕 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵亘賴丕 亘丿兀賵丕 賷卮乇毓賵賳 .
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳胤賱賯 毓賱賷丞 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱賰亘乇賶 貙 賱丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 兀賷 爻丐丕賱 賯丿 胤乇丨鬲賴 賲爻亘賯賸丕 丨賵賱 丕賱賰賵賳 賵丕賱賵噩賵丿 賵賱賲 鬲噩丿丞 賴賳丕 貙 賵亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱賳 丕賯賵賱 賱賰 兀賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱兀噩賵亘丞 賴賷 賲賯賳毓丞 賵賲乇囟賷丞 貙 賵賷噩亘 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賱丿賷賰 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賱賲丕賲 亘丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵丕賱賰賵賳賷丕鬲 賱賮賴賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿賸丕
January 15, 2018
"艩ance, 啪e v谩m padne panna tis铆ckr谩t za sebou, je t茅m臎艡 nekone膷n臎 mal谩 (okolo jedn茅 ku 10^301). Pokud nicm茅n臎 h谩z铆me 'vedle sebe' dostate膷n臎 mnoha mincemi, n臎kde k tomu dojde. Abychom si ud臎lali n臎jakou p艡edstavu o 膷铆slech, je啪 zde vystupuj铆, p艡edstavme si ka啪d媒 atom v pozorovateln茅m vesm铆ru jako minci, kterou jednou za sekundu hod铆me. Pravd臎podobnost, 啪e se za dobu trv谩n铆 vesm铆ru mezi na拧imi 10^80 atomy vyskytne posloupnost 1 000 panen, je st谩le men拧铆 ne啪 jedna ku 10^200. Nejdel拧铆 s茅rie panen, kterou m暖啪eme o膷ek谩vat, i kdybychom h谩zeli bilionkr谩t za sekundu, je okolo 360."
Tyhle knihy jsou v啪dycky tot谩ln臎 "blow my mind".
Tyhle knihy jsou v啪dycky tot谩ln臎 "blow my mind".
July 8, 2020
Sono fra quelli che prima di lasciare questo mondo vuole sapere quello che le ultime scoperte della scienza ci dicono su di esso. Questo libro raggiunge lo scopo anche se per comprenderlo completamente bisogna avere una preparazione scientifica universitaria. Ma anche se non riusciamo a capire la meccanica quantistica dobbiamo sapere quello che menti geniali ci dicono e prove sperimentali ci dimostrano. Davies ce lo spiega. Non accetta n茅 il mistero n茅 un Dio creatore e ci descrive le ipotesi scientifiche che potrebbero rispondere ai grandi interrogativi. Purtroppo sono solo ipotesi e me ne andr貌 senza avere una risposta.
August 5, 2017
丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷囟毓賰 丕賲丕賲 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲胤乇賵丨丞 賵 丕賱賲乇卮丨丞 賱賱丕噩丕亘丞 毓賳 爻丐丕賱 (賱賲丕匕丕 賷賵噩丿 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賵 丕賱丨賷丕丞責) .. 賲毓 丕賳 賲賵賯賮賷 賰丕賳 (賱丕 丕丨丿 賷毓賱賲!)
November 16, 2018
Understandable with nice summaries at the end of each chapter
December 19, 2019
賱丕 兀賮賴賲 卮賷卅丕
March 7, 2018
賰鬲丕亘 賷賮賵賯 丕賱賵氐賮, 兀賳氐丨 亘賴 亘卮丿丞 賱賲 賷丨亘 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
May 11, 2025
I am glad I checked out this book when researching the anthropic principle as the book gives a very general view of cosmology with a huge payoff towards the end of several proposed explanations of the conditions of the universe for life and defends his own. In the afterword Davies even lists the 8 explanations by letters A to H.
A) Absurd universe (easy to hold, cop out, success of science is miraculous)
B) Unique universe (string M theory, grand unified explanation, no chance or undefined parameters, ultimately is unexplained) B1 this universe is necessary B2 could be others but it is this one.
C) Multiverse (Max Tegmark, require super turtle or every explanation, simulated universes predominate)
D) Intelligent design (god, gods, demiurges-no necessary likeness to natural world, itself is unexplained scientifically at least)
E) Life principle (the anthropic principle, strong and weak. But life itself depends on background conditions and parameters and may not be the end point like intelligence)
F) Self-explaining universe (John Wheeler鈥檚 participatory universe, it from bit-information creates things even nonlocally from the future)
G) Fake universe (The Matrix or majority of multiverse is simulations all the way down so we cannot reliably know reality, self-defeating which I don鈥檛 agree with, but only meaningful if we can know we are in a simulation as a consolation)
H) None of the above (some other explanation or combination of the previous?)
Davies was inspired by John Wheeler who either did not publish very much on his own participatory universe or it is not easily available. I agree with Davies that E and F would be the best scenarios but B would be desirable too since we would have a unified scientific explanation of everything even if not a metaphysical one since such a theory would enable asking and answering more questions than our current fragmentary theories. Davies describes superstring and m-theory as the leading candidates for a grand unified theory GUT which was some of the most interesting content but still leaves open questions about the free parameters or background conditions of the universe.
Davies鈥� self-explaining universe comes closest to pantheism or panpsychism or one of their varieties (panentheism, panprotopsychism), that the universe is its own reason for existing, as conscious intelligent life is identical or part of the purpose of being. Davies criticizes traditional theistic accounts of assuming a specific number or nature of gods which are themselves unexplained 鈥榮uperturtles鈥� similar to those of the naturalists which everything else rests on but is itself unexplained. Usually the designer is assumed to be of a separate transcendental nature to its creation which creates an ontological or at least epistemological gap that usually requires dualism. Otherwise one can accept Tegmark鈥檚 hyper realism in which every mathematically possible reality exists which like the multiverse is itself unexplained except as statistical inevitability, but most of these structures would not be physical or conscious and so causally inert.
Ultimately all explanations appeal to a trilemma of fluke (unexplained dogma), self-selection (infinite regress), and self-causation (circularity). The self-explaining or self-subsuming universe is a circular explanation but circularity is not paradoxical if internally consistent. Conditions for such a universe would be that the laws of the universe are synthetic, they change over time, and are finite rather than infinite. This kind of universe could develop in manner to produce intelligent life without miraculous assumptions and be computable which means universally understandable by intelligent beings, otherwise self-understanding would be impossible within the universe.
Appealing to computation however would bring in the multiverse and simulated-fake universes explanations. Per Nick Bostrom鈥檚 trilemma if superintelligence is possible it is more likely it has already been achieved and we are an ancestral simulation actually bolstered by anthropic and participatory principles: a retroactive creation akin to theism although maybe bearing a direct relation to its creator, or if unintentional all the way back to the absurd universe, or if truly deterministic the unique-unexplained universe. The possibilities are just about endless for a none of the above.
A) Absurd universe (easy to hold, cop out, success of science is miraculous)
B) Unique universe (string M theory, grand unified explanation, no chance or undefined parameters, ultimately is unexplained) B1 this universe is necessary B2 could be others but it is this one.
C) Multiverse (Max Tegmark, require super turtle or every explanation, simulated universes predominate)
D) Intelligent design (god, gods, demiurges-no necessary likeness to natural world, itself is unexplained scientifically at least)
E) Life principle (the anthropic principle, strong and weak. But life itself depends on background conditions and parameters and may not be the end point like intelligence)
F) Self-explaining universe (John Wheeler鈥檚 participatory universe, it from bit-information creates things even nonlocally from the future)
G) Fake universe (The Matrix or majority of multiverse is simulations all the way down so we cannot reliably know reality, self-defeating which I don鈥檛 agree with, but only meaningful if we can know we are in a simulation as a consolation)
H) None of the above (some other explanation or combination of the previous?)
Davies was inspired by John Wheeler who either did not publish very much on his own participatory universe or it is not easily available. I agree with Davies that E and F would be the best scenarios but B would be desirable too since we would have a unified scientific explanation of everything even if not a metaphysical one since such a theory would enable asking and answering more questions than our current fragmentary theories. Davies describes superstring and m-theory as the leading candidates for a grand unified theory GUT which was some of the most interesting content but still leaves open questions about the free parameters or background conditions of the universe.
Davies鈥� self-explaining universe comes closest to pantheism or panpsychism or one of their varieties (panentheism, panprotopsychism), that the universe is its own reason for existing, as conscious intelligent life is identical or part of the purpose of being. Davies criticizes traditional theistic accounts of assuming a specific number or nature of gods which are themselves unexplained 鈥榮uperturtles鈥� similar to those of the naturalists which everything else rests on but is itself unexplained. Usually the designer is assumed to be of a separate transcendental nature to its creation which creates an ontological or at least epistemological gap that usually requires dualism. Otherwise one can accept Tegmark鈥檚 hyper realism in which every mathematically possible reality exists which like the multiverse is itself unexplained except as statistical inevitability, but most of these structures would not be physical or conscious and so causally inert.
Ultimately all explanations appeal to a trilemma of fluke (unexplained dogma), self-selection (infinite regress), and self-causation (circularity). The self-explaining or self-subsuming universe is a circular explanation but circularity is not paradoxical if internally consistent. Conditions for such a universe would be that the laws of the universe are synthetic, they change over time, and are finite rather than infinite. This kind of universe could develop in manner to produce intelligent life without miraculous assumptions and be computable which means universally understandable by intelligent beings, otherwise self-understanding would be impossible within the universe.
Appealing to computation however would bring in the multiverse and simulated-fake universes explanations. Per Nick Bostrom鈥檚 trilemma if superintelligence is possible it is more likely it has already been achieved and we are an ancestral simulation actually bolstered by anthropic and participatory principles: a retroactive creation akin to theism although maybe bearing a direct relation to its creator, or if unintentional all the way back to the absurd universe, or if truly deterministic the unique-unexplained universe. The possibilities are just about endless for a none of the above.
February 12, 2016
丕賱噩丕卅夭丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱賰亘乇賷
賱睾夭 賲賱丕亍賲丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賱賱丨賷丕丞
亘賵賱 丿賷賮賷夭
......................
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賵 鬲賮爻賷乇 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賮賷賴 . 賮賲賳匕 丕賱丕賮 丕賱爻賳賷賳 賮賰乇 丕賱亘卮乇 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丨賷胤 亘賴賲 賲丨丕賵賱賷賳 賲毓乇賮丞 丕噩丕亘丞 丕爻卅賱丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱毓馗賷賲丞 : 賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨賳 賴賳丕 責 賰賷賮 亘丿兀 丕賱賰賵賳 責 賵 賰賷賮 爻賷賳鬲賴賷 責 賵 賰賷賮 鬲賰賵賾賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 責 賵 賱賲丕匕丕 賴賵 毓賱賷 丕賱賳丨賵 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 毓賱賷賴責 賵 毓賱賷 賲丿丕乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷 亘丨孬 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷 丕噩丕亘丕鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 貙 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵 丕賱毓賱賵賲 . 賱賰賳賴賲 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賷乇賵賳 丕賳賴丕 禺丕乇噩 賳胤丕賯 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱亘卮乇賷. 賱賰賳 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 氐丕乇鬲 噩夭亍 賲賳 賲亘丕丨孬 丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵 丕氐亘丨 丕賱毓賱賲 毓賱賷 賵卮賰 鬲賯丿賷賲 丕噩丕亘丕鬲 賱賴丕 .
賷乇賷 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賲氐賲賲 鬲氐賲賷賲丕 賲賯氐賵丿丕 賲賳 丕噩賱 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 丕賱毓丕賯賱丞 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賷乇賮囟 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱鬲氐賲賷賲 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿 . 亘賷賳賲丕 賷乇賷 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲 丕賱匕賷 鬲乇氐丿賴 丕丿賵丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲 賱賷爻 丕賱丕 鬲噩爻賷丿 爻胤丨賷 賱丨賯賷賯丞 禺賮賷丞 丕毓賲賯 .
賷丨鬲丕乇 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賮賷 丿賯丞 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷丿賵乇 亘賲賵噩亘賴丕 丕賱賰賵賳 亘賰賱 丕噩夭丕卅賴 貙 賮丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕卅賷丞 鬲卮亘賴 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱賲丿賳賷 丕賱匕賷 賷賳馗賲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷 .
丕賳 丨賯賷賯丞 丕賳氐賷丕毓 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賱賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丞 賯丕丿鬲 噩丕賱賷賱賷賵 丕賱賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱毓亘丕乇丞 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丕賱 賮賷賴丕 : " 丕賳 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱毓馗賷賲丞 賷賲賰賳 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賮賯胤 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賲賳 賷毓乇賮賵賳 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰鬲亘 亘賴丕 貙 賵 賴匕賴 丕賱賱睾丞 賴賷 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 ."
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賯丕卅賲丞 賲丨鬲賵丕賴 賷鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 350 氐賮丨丞 丕賱丕 丕賳 丕賱賳爻禺丞 丕賱賲鬲賵丕賮乇丞 賮賷賴丕 賮賯胤 70 氐賮丨丞 賮丕馗賳 丕賳 丕賱賲鬲賵丕賮乇 賴賵 丕賱賲禺鬲氐乇.
賱睾夭 賲賱丕亍賲丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賱賱丨賷丕丞
亘賵賱 丿賷賮賷夭
......................
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賵 鬲賮爻賷乇 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賮賷賴 . 賮賲賳匕 丕賱丕賮 丕賱爻賳賷賳 賮賰乇 丕賱亘卮乇 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丨賷胤 亘賴賲 賲丨丕賵賱賷賳 賲毓乇賮丞 丕噩丕亘丞 丕爻卅賱丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱毓馗賷賲丞 : 賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨賳 賴賳丕 責 賰賷賮 亘丿兀 丕賱賰賵賳 責 賵 賰賷賮 爻賷賳鬲賴賷 責 賵 賰賷賮 鬲賰賵賾賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 責 賵 賱賲丕匕丕 賴賵 毓賱賷 丕賱賳丨賵 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 毓賱賷賴責 賵 毓賱賷 賲丿丕乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷 亘丨孬 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷 丕噩丕亘丕鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 貙 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵 丕賱毓賱賵賲 . 賱賰賳賴賲 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賷乇賵賳 丕賳賴丕 禺丕乇噩 賳胤丕賯 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱亘卮乇賷. 賱賰賳 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 氐丕乇鬲 噩夭亍 賲賳 賲亘丕丨孬 丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵 丕氐亘丨 丕賱毓賱賲 毓賱賷 賵卮賰 鬲賯丿賷賲 丕噩丕亘丕鬲 賱賴丕 .
賷乇賷 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賲氐賲賲 鬲氐賲賷賲丕 賲賯氐賵丿丕 賲賳 丕噩賱 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 丕賱毓丕賯賱丞 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賷乇賮囟 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱鬲氐賲賷賲 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿 . 亘賷賳賲丕 賷乇賷 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲 丕賱匕賷 鬲乇氐丿賴 丕丿賵丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲 賱賷爻 丕賱丕 鬲噩爻賷丿 爻胤丨賷 賱丨賯賷賯丞 禺賮賷丞 丕毓賲賯 .
賷丨鬲丕乇 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賮賷 丿賯丞 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷丿賵乇 亘賲賵噩亘賴丕 丕賱賰賵賳 亘賰賱 丕噩夭丕卅賴 貙 賮丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕卅賷丞 鬲卮亘賴 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱賲丿賳賷 丕賱匕賷 賷賳馗賲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷 .
丕賳 丨賯賷賯丞 丕賳氐賷丕毓 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賱賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丞 賯丕丿鬲 噩丕賱賷賱賷賵 丕賱賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱毓亘丕乇丞 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丕賱 賮賷賴丕 : " 丕賳 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱毓馗賷賲丞 賷賲賰賳 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賮賯胤 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賲賳 賷毓乇賮賵賳 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰鬲亘 亘賴丕 貙 賵 賴匕賴 丕賱賱睾丞 賴賷 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 ."
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賯丕卅賲丞 賲丨鬲賵丕賴 賷鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 350 氐賮丨丞 丕賱丕 丕賳 丕賱賳爻禺丞 丕賱賲鬲賵丕賮乇丞 賮賷賴丕 賮賯胤 70 氐賮丨丞 賮丕馗賳 丕賳 丕賱賲鬲賵丕賮乇 賴賵 丕賱賲禺鬲氐乇.
August 28, 2007
This is a very solid review of the different ideas that have been put forward as to how the universe became so well suited for life. Davies's goal is a model in which life is central to the existence of the universe, not just something extra that happened to appear.
For me the best part was learning about all of the multiple-universe theories that have popped up, and he gives them a fair shot. There's some study of creationism, and some string theory.
In the end he proposes something bold: That the existence of life, and especially of "observers" (basically scientists) is woven into the fabric of creation from the beginning, and even that observers now might be affecting the past.
Unfortunately he doesn't have much to back this assertion up, he's more just throwing it out there, but that's how some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs have come.
For me the best part was learning about all of the multiple-universe theories that have popped up, and he gives them a fair shot. There's some study of creationism, and some string theory.
In the end he proposes something bold: That the existence of life, and especially of "observers" (basically scientists) is woven into the fabric of creation from the beginning, and even that observers now might be affecting the past.
Unfortunately he doesn't have much to back this assertion up, he's more just throwing it out there, but that's how some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs have come.
June 4, 2014
亘賵賱 丿賷賮賷夭 賰丕賳 胤乇丨賴 賲丨丕賷丿貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇 爻賷囟毓 賱賰 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賳賴丕卅賷丞 賱賱賰賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 賷毓鬲賳賯賴丕 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賵丕賱賲鬲丿賷賳賷賳 賵丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞貙 孬賲 賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賲胤丕賮 賷丨丿丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 賱賱睾夭 賲賱丕卅賲丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賱賱丨賷丕丞貙 賵賯丿 賰丕賳 賯丕亘 賯賵爻賷賳 兀賵 兀丿賳賶 賲賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 "丕賱鬲氐賲賷賲 丕賱匕賰賷" 廿賱丕 兀賳賴 賷乇賶 兀賳 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱睾丕卅賷丞 賱賷爻鬲 賲賳賴噩丕 毓賱賲賷丕 氐丕乇賲丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓丕胤賷 賲毓 丕賱賲卮賰賱丕鬲 賱兀賳賴丕 鬲賮鬲乇囟 賵噩賵丿 睾丕賷丞 賲爻亘賯丞 賷爻賷乇 廿賱賷賴丕 丕賱賰賵賳 賵賴賵 賲丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱毓賱賲賷 -賱兀賳賴 賷亘鬲乇 丕賱毓賱丞 亘賲毓賱賵賱賴丕 "丕賱賲丕丿賷"- 賵賳馗乇賷丕鬲賴 賰丕賱丿丕乇賵賷賳賷丞 賲孬賱丕 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳賰乇 丕賱睾丕卅賷丞 賵鬲毓鬲賳賯 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 "丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷" 賰毓賲賱賷丞 毓卮賵丕卅賷丞 亘賱丕 賴丿賮.
亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 丌乇丕亍 丕賱賰丕鬲亘貙 賱賰賳賰 爻鬲賳丿賴卮 兀賷囟丕 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賲鬲賲乇爻 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 丕賱囟毓賮 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賱賱毓賱賲丕亍 賮賴賲 賷爻兀賱賵賳 兀爻卅賱丞 毓賮丕 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱夭賲賳 亘賱 賵睾賷乇 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賮賷 丕賱睾丕賱亘 賵廿噩丕亘丕鬲賴丕 兀睾乇賯鬲 兀賱賵賮 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱氐丨賮貙 賵爻鬲賳丿賴卮 賲賳 賰賷賮 兀賳賴賲 賯丿 鬲乇賰賵丕 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 丕賱毓賯賱賷 丕賱乇氐賷賳 賵乇賰賳賵丕 廿賱賶 禺賷丕賱丕鬲 毓賱賲賷丞 賰丕賱鬲賷 賮賷 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 賵丕賱兀賮賱丕賲 賱賷爻 賱賴丕 兀爻丕爻 賮賷 丕賱賵噩賵丿.
亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 丌乇丕亍 丕賱賰丕鬲亘貙 賱賰賳賰 爻鬲賳丿賴卮 兀賷囟丕 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賲鬲賲乇爻 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 丕賱囟毓賮 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賱賱毓賱賲丕亍 賮賴賲 賷爻兀賱賵賳 兀爻卅賱丞 毓賮丕 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱夭賲賳 亘賱 賵睾賷乇 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賮賷 丕賱睾丕賱亘 賵廿噩丕亘丕鬲賴丕 兀睾乇賯鬲 兀賱賵賮 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱氐丨賮貙 賵爻鬲賳丿賴卮 賲賳 賰賷賮 兀賳賴賲 賯丿 鬲乇賰賵丕 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 丕賱毓賯賱賷 丕賱乇氐賷賳 賵乇賰賳賵丕 廿賱賶 禺賷丕賱丕鬲 毓賱賲賷丞 賰丕賱鬲賷 賮賷 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 賵丕賱兀賮賱丕賲 賱賷爻 賱賴丕 兀爻丕爻 賮賷 丕賱賵噩賵丿.
Read
June 18, 2014賰鬲丕亘 賲賮賷丿 賵賲爻賱賷 丨賯丕 丕氐亘丨 賲賳 丕賱丕賳 賮氐丕毓丿丕 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賮囟賱丞 賱丿賷 賱丕賳賴 賷胤乇丨 丕賱丕乇丕亍 亘賲賵囟賵毓賷丞 賵丨賷丕丿賷丞 丨賵賱 毓賱丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賵賳卮兀丞 丕賱賰賵賳 (丕賱丕賳賮噩丕乇 丕賱毓馗賷賲) 賵賲氐賷乇賴 賲爻鬲賯亘賱丕 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賷囟丕 毓賳 賳馗乇賷丞 賰賱 卮卅 賵毓賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賱丕賰賵丕賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丿丿丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丕賵賱 鬲賮爻賷乇 賰賷賮 亘丿兀 丕賱賰賵賳 賵賰賷賮 丕氐亘丨 賲賳丕爻亘 賱賱丨賷丕丞 賰賲丕 賴賵 毓賱賷賴 丕賱丕賳 .賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 賰賱 賲丕 賷賯丿賲賴 賲賳 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賱賰賳賴 賷胤乇丨 鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 丕賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賷胤乇丨 丕噩賵亘丞 丨賵賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 丕賱卮丕卅賰丞 賵賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱賳賴丕卅賷丞 賳賱丕丨馗 丕賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷賯賵賲 亘胤乇丨 丕乇丕卅賴 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱賲賮爻乇 賱匕丕鬲賴 丕賱匕賷 亘乇丕卅賷賴 賱丕 賷氐胤丿賲 亘賲毓囟賱丞 亘乇噩 丕賱爻賱丕丨賮 丕賱賱丕賳賴丕卅賷丞 賵亘匕賱賰 賷鬲賱丕賮賶 賲卮賰賱丞 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱丕賵賱賶 賱賳卮兀丞 丕賱賰賵賳 ...賮賰乇丞 匕賰賷丞 賵賱賰賳賴丕 賱賷爻鬲 毓賱賲賷丞 賱丕賳賴丕 鬲丨賵賷 毓賱賶 賳賰賴丞 賲賳 丕賱睾丕卅賷丞 丕匕丕 氐丨 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 丨賷孬 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賶 丕賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賲賯丿乇 賱賴 丕賳 賷兀鬲賷 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵丕賱賲乇丕賯亘賷賳 .賵亘賲丕 丕賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賷賮爻乇 匕丕鬲賴 亘匕丕鬲賴 丕匕丕 賲賳 丕賱囟乇賵乇賷 丕賳 賷胤賵乇 賰丕卅賳丕鬲 賯丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲賮爻賷乇賴 !!
August 10, 2008
This book starts out as a typical sort of physics review; it's engaging enough, but nothing too special. Stick with it though, because the strange philosophical ideas really kick in after about the 100th page. Davies lists various possibilities for where our universe began and how it might fit into a larger scheme, each one more fantastical to common understanding and thought than the last. These ideas aren't really, strictly, scientific, although reason is an important part of the thinking in this book. At least for me, I have little place within my life to place these ideas, other than as cool mind games. Great book for people who like to think on a grand scale.
December 3, 2010
This asks several of the big questions such as why the universe is hospitable to life.
Of course that is a bit of a misnomer, a more accurate way to put it is that, although the universe is almost entirely hostile to life, the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow life to develop in those places where conditions are just right.
On the heels of this, they just discovered terrestrial organisms that use arsenic in their DNA. Perhaps it is surprising that the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow the type of life we know to develop, but that there are many unknown ways that life can exist of which we are not aware.
Of course that is a bit of a misnomer, a more accurate way to put it is that, although the universe is almost entirely hostile to life, the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow life to develop in those places where conditions are just right.
On the heels of this, they just discovered terrestrial organisms that use arsenic in their DNA. Perhaps it is surprising that the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow the type of life we know to develop, but that there are many unknown ways that life can exist of which we are not aware.
December 6, 2007
Very very interesting stuff. The first half of the book is sometimes hard going as it involves discussions on string theory, super symmetry and other such difficult to digest science. Luckily it is not essential you understand it 100% before getting to the good stuff in the second half of the book which is basically a discussion of the latest arguments for and against the various forms of anthropic principle, and why the universe is built in such a way that life can exist. Some of the ideas are freakin mind boggling to say the least. Well worth a read.
April 5, 2016
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨丕賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 兀賳 賷毓丕賱噩 賲爻兀賱丞 亘丿亍 丕賱賰賵賳 賵賲丕賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴 丕賱毓賱賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲噩丕賱
賵賯丿 丨丕賵賱 丕賱丕噩丕亘丞 賮賷賴 毓賱賶 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賮賰乇 賮賷賴丕 丕賱亘卮乇 賱兀賱丕賮 丕賱爻賳賷賳 賵丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘丕賱賵噩賵丿:
賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨賳 賴賳丕責 賰賷賮 亘丿兀 丕賱賰賵賳責 賰賷賮 爻賷賳鬲賴賷 責 賰賷賮 鬲賰賵賾賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 責 賵賱賲丕匕丕 賴賵 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丨賵 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 毓賱賷賴 責
丕賷 丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷毓丕賱噩 兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱氐毓亘丞 亘丿賵賳 丕賱兀禺匕 亘胤乇賯 丕賱丕爻鬲賰卮丕賮 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賲孬賱 丕賱鬲氐賵賮 兀賵 丕賱鬲賳賵賷乇 丕賱乇賵丨賷 兀賵 丕賱丕賱賴丕賲 丕賱賳丕鬲噩 毓賳 丕賱禺亘乇丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞..
賵匕賰乇 賮賷賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓丿賾丞 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賰鬲卮丕賮丕鬲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賵丕賱鬲賷 丕乇鬲亘胤鬲 賲毓 鬲胤賵乇 毓賱賵賲 丕賱賮賱賰 賵毓賱賵賲 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 丕賱賰賲賷丞 賵乇亘胤賴丕 賲毓 毓賱賲 丕賱賴賳丿爻丞 丕賱賱丕丕賯賱賷丿賷丞
賵賯丿 丨丕賵賱 丕賱丕噩丕亘丞 賮賷賴 毓賱賶 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賮賰乇 賮賷賴丕 丕賱亘卮乇 賱兀賱丕賮 丕賱爻賳賷賳 賵丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘丕賱賵噩賵丿:
賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨賳 賴賳丕責 賰賷賮 亘丿兀 丕賱賰賵賳責 賰賷賮 爻賷賳鬲賴賷 責 賰賷賮 鬲賰賵賾賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 責 賵賱賲丕匕丕 賴賵 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丨賵 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 毓賱賷賴 責
丕賷 丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷毓丕賱噩 兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱氐毓亘丞 亘丿賵賳 丕賱兀禺匕 亘胤乇賯 丕賱丕爻鬲賰卮丕賮 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賲孬賱 丕賱鬲氐賵賮 兀賵 丕賱鬲賳賵賷乇 丕賱乇賵丨賷 兀賵 丕賱丕賱賴丕賲 丕賱賳丕鬲噩 毓賳 丕賱禺亘乇丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞..
賵匕賰乇 賮賷賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓丿賾丞 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賰鬲卮丕賮丕鬲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賵丕賱鬲賷 丕乇鬲亘胤鬲 賲毓 鬲胤賵乇 毓賱賵賲 丕賱賮賱賰 賵毓賱賵賲 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 丕賱賰賲賷丞 賵乇亘胤賴丕 賲毓 毓賱賲 丕賱賴賳丿爻丞 丕賱賱丕丕賯賱賷丿賷丞
July 23, 2024
A really good book by physicist Paul Davies. Davies explores why our universe is just right for life and the evidence seems compelling. As a Christian, the fine tuning of the laws of nature and the free parameters look to me like strong evidence for God. While Davies seems to remain agnostic in this book and devotes lots of pages to alternative explanations within physics, astronomy, and cosmology, I think both religious and non-religious people will enjoy the book and have to ponder why things are just right.
July 8, 2007
If you are like me and read books about quantum mechanics for fun, this is a good book to read. While the book is supposed to be non-technical, you may need to pop back to a reference book once in a while. And do make certain to look at the end notes as you come up upon them, they can at times clarify items.
Read
August 10, 2011If you want to read a few hundred pages about the future of the universe, this is it. Readable, though you need some background in physics to smoothly follow some of the concepts. It tackles the big questions of everything, while at the same time saying that we will never be around to witness it. Stimulating food for deep thought...
July 29, 2016
A very good book to read. although I am not a specialist I was able to understand almost everything in it.
However, it's shocking to see such disconcertion in scientists society.. tons of questions without answers. It looks like science is perfect in daily life and helpless when facing the big questions about existence -at least hitherto-.
However, it's shocking to see such disconcertion in scientists society.. tons of questions without answers. It looks like science is perfect in daily life and helpless when facing the big questions about existence -at least hitherto-.
February 6, 2008
The first three quarters of the book is largely dedicated to a review of theoretical cosmology as it stands today. If for nothing else I can recommend it on this basis. He gets to the meat of his theory in the last couple of chapters, which seemed a bit of a short treatment.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.