[From Bjorn Simonsen (2007.11.25,09:40 EUST)]
from Rick Marken (2007.11.24.1200)]
It would be interesting to hear what people think of this piece:
I think Paul Davies, the author, juggle with the words "knowledge about the
world" and "faith on the world/God". He writes certainly that "knowledge
about the world" is based on testable hypotheses in a way that "faith on the
world/God is not based on testable hypotheses.
I am not enthusiastic over the words "knowledge" and "faith". People too
often repel _each other_ saying: "Here we can't believe, here we must know".
I think it would be better if two people, wishing to perceive the world in a
certain way, expressed that my perceptions are testable and the tests I have
carried out support my theory. If you disagree with my theory, show me a
test that disproves my theory.
What PCT has thought me is that perceptions are silent events in the brain.
All the words we use to explain the silent events in the brain are our own
words copied from textbooks or eloquent people or imagined as Newton did it
when he put words on the apple falling from a tree (the last 6 words are
written to jazz up what I will say).
Scientists change their words about events in the brain, representing
objects and situations in the extern world, if tests tell them that the
words are wrong.
Religion is based on faith and very often religious people say that negative
tests don't disapprove their faith.
I don't think there is a conflict between Science and Religion. Scientists
and religious people control their perceptions on different levels.
Scientists control their perceptions on the principle level and religious
people control their perceptions on the System Concepts level. But very
often religious people control their perceptions on the principle level.
When they pour coffee in a cup, they hold they hold the spout just over the
cup. Then also they behave as scientists.
Paul Davies expresses: "The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the
laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion � all are
expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come
from? And why do they have the form that they do?"
These questions show that he thinks his words about the world out there come
from the world out there. And my question would be if he can do an
experiment which bring new words to my brain without teaching me the words.
If he could do that, I had to change my theories.
Of course these laws are words Newton imagined and words we are thought from
His last question, "And why do they have the form that they do?", is
interesting. He should have studied PCT and MOL. Of course Newton gave them
the words because of background thoughts, a level up.
Paul Davies also expresses: "Over the years I have often asked my physicist
colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from
�that�s not a scientific question� to �nobody knows.� The favorite reply is,
�There is no reason they are what they are � they just are.� ".
Here I think he has failed and not asked scientists knowing PCT.
When Paul Davies expresses: "A second reason that the laws of physics have
now been brought within the scope of scientific inquiry is the realization
that what we long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly
fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place
to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God�s-eye view might reveal a vast
patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws.
In this �multiverse,� life will arise only in those patches with
bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a
Goldilocks universe � one that is just right for life. We have selected it
by our very existence.", he becomes religious. He is presenting thoughts
that are not testable.
I am glad Paul Davies is not an aircraft engineer.