September 29, 2010
cosmology is the new alchemy
Why is cosmology so popular? Books by writers such as Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking on fine-tuning or the multiverse routinely become bestsellers. They’re good writers, of course. And there’s the aesthetic appeal of cosmology too, offering a ceaseless stream of heavenly images at which to wonder and gaze. But I suspect there’s more to it than that. After all, many other branches of physics are progressing as fast, and arguably have a bigger impact upon our daily lives. But when did you last pick up a paperback on solid state physics, one of the largest contemporary research fields? Or who would choose a book about optics over one about the Big Bang? Chaos theory gets a look in, as does quantum theory — though that’s very close to cosmology, as the history of universe turns on the physics of the very small. So here’s a possibility. Cosmology is so popular, not just because of the science, but because it allows us to ask the big questions — where we come from, who we are, where we’re going. It’s metaphysics by other means. If the Scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages liked to speculate about the number of angels on the heads of pins, we today like to speculate about the number of dimensions wrapped up in string theory. The activities are similar insofar as they feed the delight we find in awe-inspiring wonder.more from Mark Vernon at Big Questions Online here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 06:04 AM | Permalink




















Comments
more on thinking big on another scale:
http://mmabbasi.com/2010/04/27/the-secrets-of-intelligence-lie-within-a-single-cell/
Posted by: greenrhythm | Sep 29, 2010 12:22:18 PM
The current theory seems to be that everything is an accident and that any accident that can happen will happen. Ours just happens to be a beautiful one. It's either that or the . . . dread . . . INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! Anything but that!
Posted by: Luke Lea | Sep 30, 2010 7:38:05 PM
On a (slightly) more serious note, physicists don't even try to explain consciousness. Yet we know it exists and interacts with the physical world. So out of the primeval nothingness or world potential (or whatever it is) out of which everything springs sprang sprung why not posit a primeval consciousness that tells it which way to spring?
That way you start off with two unknowns instead of one, granted, but at least the results are less wasteful. No infinity of universes thrown in the trash. Economy!
Besides, can there be an object without a subject, or a subject without an object? Symmetry!
Posted by: Luke Lea | Sep 30, 2010 7:50:04 PM
Post a comment