 |
|
Title: Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life
ISBN: 0618592261
Author:
Paul Davies
Publicate Date: 2007-04-11
Publish: 2007-04-11
List Price: $26.00
Average Customer Rating: 4.0
Format: Hardcover
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $11.99
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $5.00
Amazon Merchant Price: $17.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: Entertaining Read -- No Firm Conclusion
Most of "Cosmic Jackpot" is a lively and entertaining high-level review of current theories of the origin of the universe and the remarkable fine tuning of some of the forces and constants of physics that are "just right" to support life. I didn't learn much new, but it was a good read. Considering the purpose of the book, I felt a tad disappointed that Davies didn't include a table summarizing all the "cosmic coincidences" that make the universe suitable for life. The last short section attempts to address "Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life." Alas, Davies falls short and doesn't provide a concrete resounding scientific reason. Instead, he proffers a handful of bizarre alternatives -- including intelligent design by a God or gods -- and identifies his favorite. Perhaps, that's the best anyone can do, but I had hoped for more.
|
2: This is a real mind bender........
Let's see, we have: weak anthropic principals (WAP), strong anthropic principals (SAP) completely ridiculous anthropic principals (CRAP) expanding universes, contracting universes, static universes, multiple universes, imaginary universes, infinite universes, string theory, superstring theory, m theory, intelligent design, accidental design, no particular design, computer generated design, ad nauseam. I do enjoy a book like this from time to time, as I get to brush up on some of the latest scientific theories ( I am, er, at least was, a chemist and therefore not a complete stranger to scientific thought or practice) however, I truly don't feel that I gain much after having read them. Paul Davies does a beautiful job making very complex ideas manageable to a wide range of readers, but I end up with many more questions than I started with. Modern science may have some plausible theories on the what's, how's and when's but the question of why is just as untenable as ever. For a strictly intellectual romp, it is well worth the time.
|
3: Jackpot Indeed...! Lucky me...
Paul Davies continues to be (amongst other things)a physics icon for the layman (self-educated) physicist such as I...A great read for all who are still entertaining the big questions of life...such as GOD...etc...Funny when I was growing up I always dreamed of being a rock star...Now I want to be a physicist...when I grow up that is...thanks Paul for sharing all you can about the real worlds outside of my windows...and the ones inside as well and the creative manner in which you do it. Jack
|
4: Fascinating, and likely to annoy many people
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.
Still, ...
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.
Still, ...
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.
|
5: A Boring Big Tease - That ultimately leaves you disappointed
Books of this kind usually spend the first 1/2 of the book on some background physics, preparing you for the new theory you're going to get at the end. The Elegant Universe, which deals with String Theory, does a great job of this, for example. This annoying tease of a book appears to do that, but then when you finally get to the meat of the matter 'yonk!' there is no real theory there!! It is so frustrating!
The author spends a lot of time going over so many possible theories, making sure to remind us how he personally played a part in creating some of them or at least the seeds of them years before anyone else, also ANNOYING. At some points I could barely take all the slightly different versions he felt the need to explain, but I hung in there thinking that he must have an over arching plan in mind that will eventually be helpful in explaining his amazing insight into the creation of the cosmos. So, there you are being a good patient reader, hanging in there and at the very end your left staring at the last page, stunned, your mouth open, with disgust and awe at the lack of anything being in this book, that's even close to what it sells itself as.
A BAD TASTE LEFT IN YOUR MOUTH :-(... I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you.
|
|
|
|
|
