arndt@lymph.DEC (04/23/85)
Listed below (sorry for the length) are two, in my opinion really unclear
book reviews by people who, I think, don't understand modern science.
I'd like to see them post this to net.physics for a more
extended debate on Davies book SUPERFORCE.
*****************************
[By Michael Bishop]
Subject: Re: Superforce by Davies(?)? (better-wr
Posted: Sat Apr 13 13:31:00 1985
I have read it. I think the guy makes a lot of flowery statements
throughout the book. He makes numerous comparisons of modern physics to
mysticism, existentialism, and non-objective reality. He also makes
many arguments in the book for the existence of some "Cosmic Creator"
because the universe obviously displays so much order that it couldn't
possibly be the result of a random event (e.g., the old watchmaker's
analogy). The author never considers that by supposing the existence of
a creator to explain the universe, he then leaves himself open to the
question of who created the creator; a creator which obviously can't be
the result of a random event, if you stay with his analogy.
**** 'NON-OBJECTIVE REALITY'????? What is that?
What is OBJECTIVE reality? We don't speak any more of objective
or non-objective reality in modern science. It appears that ALL 'reality'
is subjective and from our point of view. By the way, that happened in
philosophy around 1700. A.D. I realize that it is still bandied about
that 'science' is somehow 'hard' and deals with 'facts' while the rest
is just toothpaste. As the second poster notes (and interestingly asks
'what goes') Davies is not alone in understanding this.
As for your understanding of the idea of a Divine
Creator - it lacks a full blown Christian description. What you describe
is the problem of the Greek gods, for example, but not the Christian
definition of what is meant when the word 'God' is used. The standard
Christian definition of God is the Ground of Being - beyond, in back of
which it is not possible to be! No one starts from a position that says
once there was nothing! Everything started from something. Either the
material world was always here in some form or 'something' was always here.
What we see today did not (it's unthinkable nonsense you see) come out
of nothing. The question is, what best explains what's here today. The
Christian concept of God, as explained in the Bible, is one of an eternally
existent Being with the power to creat the 'material' world and sustain it.
It also 'explains' things like personality, and consciousness, and man's
moral motions, and the design/order (upon which 'science' is built you see)
in the cosmos, man's culture (art, love, beauty,etc.) - things hardly
touched by the alternative explanations. In fact science itself came from
a distinctly 'Christian' world view. It did not arise in China, Greece or
among the Arabs. It came from the 'dark ages' under a Christian view of
the world. (I'll post an article of some interest on this, if you like.)
IF ONE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCE
PERHAPS ESPECIALLY FOR OUR PURPOSES, IS BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS/HYPOTHESES,
THAT DERIVE THEIR POWER FROM THEIR ABILITY TO 'MODEL' REALITY, BUT INSTEAD
THINKS CERTAIN THINGS ARE 'KNOWN' BY 'PROOF' OBTAINED BY SOME CERTAIN
PROCESS OF METHOD A LA 19TH C SCIENCE - ONE IS DOOMED TO LIVE IN THE 19TH C.
And so not understand a man like Davies, not to mention the rest of the
modern scientists. This is not to say Davies is correct in everything
he says. As you point out. There are some very good book reviews
of this book and the others he has written - by scientists, pro and con.
**********************
[by Lucius Chiaraviglio reply to Bishop]
That's why I was asking about this book before I got it. I strongly
suspected that it might be like this. (I wonder why so many other people gave
it favorable reviews though? Maybe I should get it just for the purpose of
reviewing it. But then that probably wouldn't stop some other poor jerk like
me from wasting his money because of other favorable reviews. But then how
am I to know it is actually a waste? This is bad.)
I once read a book on -- would you believe it -- black holes -- that was
very much like this. Might have even by the same guy, although I can't
remember. If I ever remember when I'm stopping by the Georgia Tech Library
I'll check it out just to give it the review it deserves to warn people away
from it. Had all sorts of goofy things like Lucifer was red because his image
was trapped at the event horizon of the black hole where God had thrown him
(wouldn't stay red for a perceptible time anyway -- radiation would get
redshifted probably to lower than 4.3 blackbody radiation so fast you wouldn't
even get to see the last stages of his falling in, not to mention all the other
things that are -- I believe the word is "inane" -- about this concept). More
goofy things like it were that it would be "unbearable" (or maybe it was
"unthinkable") to see a naked singularity (I could see that that might fry you
or something but the impression I got from the book was that the author meant
something was philosophically or morally wrong with it -- would you believe
that? Maybe these pulp science writers are in with the Moral Majority or
something? :-)).
**** Hardly needs comment. So why bother you ask? It's
just that Lucius would seem to be overstating his case - and a not very
good one at that. I would ask him go check the book out and give it another
chance. Also GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS by Davies. By the way Davies does NOT
believe in God as a good answer. Only as a less good possible answer. Do
you see the difference?
[Lucius con't]
By the way, speaking of people making comparisons between physics and
"non-objective reality" and other mystical things -- that seems to be becoming
a fashion even among some respected scientists. I can't figure out what the
deal is. And articles I have seen in Scientific American on advanced physics
topics, such as the 11-dimensional space model, much of the more recent stuff
on the quark theory, and other similar things, seem to be as uninformative as
occult writings (and I can't understand the ones in the more technical
journals such as Science at all). This could be just because my brain is too
primitive on the evolutionary scale to comprehend such high concepts, but I
can't get rid of the suspicion that a lot of the people making these theories
and writing these articles don't know what they're talking about. Of course,
I'm sure the high priesthood would be most displeased that a mere normal, who
cannot comprehend their appreciation of the higher plane of existence of
Gordelpus (read Olaf Stapledon's (sp) Last and First Men), dares to question
their encyclicals.
--
-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
**** Lucius has a good point. If scientists write for the
popular press they should be readable for the populace. The 'deal is' Lucius,
that what I stated in reply to Michael (IN CAPITAL LETTERS) is the deal.
Trash your Time-Life books!
Regards,
Ken Arndt