Clues to Prehistoric Global Warming Locked in Subterranian Caves
Earth's Oxygen Engine: Is the Invisible Ocean Virus Ecosystem Threatened?

Weekend 'Galaxy' Insight --"Enigma of the Universe"

 

 

PIA18433

 


"There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along-it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment."

Roger Penrose is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He was awarded the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the Universe.

 

Maxresdefault

Comments


"There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Or, to quote Martin Rees, British cosmologist and astrophysicist as well as Astronomer Royal of the Royal Observatory.
"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it."
The very act of observation caused the Universe to come into being?
If that's the case then all the rules that govern this realm must also be dependant on an observer!
Could that be why the laws of physics keep getting more and more complicated?
Were things really simpler in a simpler time, and WE are making them more complicated?

Just because a scientist can have philosophical beliefs in no way makes them scientific. They are still philosophy.

Im not very religious but that missing something might be god???

Douglas Adams expressed the same thought in the Hitchhikers Guide series. Whose thought predates whose?

This is my last post,Penrose suddenly realised that everything he thought about the universe was completely wrong.he vilified certain individuals for going against the the norm and has recently apologised (sort of),he now knows every thing he ever taught was a crock of you know what. The reason this is my last post is because Imade the correct assumption of what a black hole is,and it was deleted..so goodbye to you all,and best wishes for reading my posts.

The universe created itself by its own creation. This mobius logic rends the mind, but I feel it offers a realistic concept of how the universe came to be. The entire system is self aware in the background, due to its overwhelmingly systematic intricacy. As parts of the universe, we are peaks in the awareness background. Just as I feel 'gods' are just larger peaks in the background awareness. There is no purpose to the universe other than that which it has decided to impose upon itself. And the universe DOES change based on the observer. At one point the world WAS flat. No amount of arguing can change that condition. Only when the observer decided that a round world fit the scheme better, did the world become round. Electrons once traveled in defined valance rings. Now their position is a quantum cloud. Only the observer can truly know, and yet they will always remain ignorant. Even if the universe had some over arching purpose, the design would be far beyond our (the observer's) current ability to conceive. It is pointless to strive to understand the meaning of the universe and at the same time, it is the only knowledge that will set the observer free.

the universe is alive from its largest parts through its smallest parts and never started but was always here. when scientists finally realize that looking for the beginning of a thing that has always existed is a total waste of time and brainpower. but, they then may be able to discover the true physics of reality.
the idea that some human must observe a thing to make it real is insane. the thought of a flat world becoming a spherical world through observation just shows how simple and shallow human thought really is.

Television works because it wants to work, the observers have no part in the phenomena.
Does that work for you?

The universe has always been here. We created time.

Let's face some cold hard reality here. Shrodinger had the nature of the universe summed up along with his cat in the box. Only shallow and arrogant human thought would let the perceptions of a finite biological body rule the universe. What you do not observe cannot be proven and its existence is therefore a mere illusion. One should not let one's pride or self importance overshadow the truly incomprehensible. I for one do not need a purpose or for my universe to have a purpose. One should take the plunge into the unknown, allowing ignorance to be washed aside by perception. I would say, if you doubt the enigmatic nature of reality, merely ponder at length that which we call color. Such a basic thing, yet in no way can we prove that any of us see the same thing. We merely agree that grass is green wether its bronze or vermillion or aqua or whatever, as a general consensus. And the tree fallen without an observer exist in a quantum state and having made, not made , and made/not made a noise. ONLY when observed does the tree settle into making a sound, because the observer hears it. So of course reality is subjective. No mysticism. No science. No god or doctor can tell you otherwise. The television without an observer has no settled state. And you can't prove otherwise.

Nothing new here. This has been said by the philosophers since thousands of years especially the Indian philosophers.

My own understanding is that we will never come to know why the Universe exists. We may find out how it works but that too has a long way to go.

Universe doesn't bother whether the observer exists to witness it's glory it simply continues in it's own ways.

If the Universe exists because there was some observer then any answers why this observer existed and where was it existing?

As a follow-up to my first comment, the act of observing something makes it real to us, and therefore the existence of the entire Universe depends on our perception of reality.
But, on the other hand, I don't think the entire Universe really gives a crap if we are watching it or not!

To Allan's point, and later mine, please see the recently posted article on this very site:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/05/the-bizarre-nature-of-reality-as-laid-out-by-quantum-theory-has-survived-another-test-with-scientists-performing-a-famous-ex.html#more
I would say that all of the conjecture and disagreement comes from a basic split between Newton and Einstein, gravity vs. quantum mechanics.Quantum mechanics is a hard pill to swallow. It takes a break in the analytical mind to be able to accept the counter intuitive nature of quatum mechanics. It just doesn't seem right, but it is.

This plate of snarled spaghetti is typical of those who confuse and mix philosophical entities and idealistic tendencies albeit religious "ideas" with physics. You can't mix elephants with apples and get cabernet...nor can you legitimately mix "ideas" with philosophy and intuition and get physics. An idea is not a theory nor even a postulate...an idea is just that, a thought. I do give credit for intuition, and it spurs the mind to pursue a thought and that often leads to discoveries, be them calculated or by accident.

This plate of snarled spaghetti is typical of those who confuse and mix philosophical entities and idealistic tendencies albeit religious "ideas" with physics. You can't mix elephants with apples and get cabernet...nor can you legitimately mix "ideas" with philosophy and intuition and get physics. An idea is not a theory nor even a postulate...an idea is just that, a thought. I do give credit for intuition, and it spurs the mind to pursue a thought and that often leads to discoveries, be them calculated or by accident.

This plate of snarled spaghetti is typical of those who confuse and mix philosophical entities and idealistic tendencies albeit religious "ideas" with physics. You can't mix elephants with apples and get cabernet...nor can you legitimately mix "ideas" with philosophy and intuition and get physics. An idea is not a theory nor even a postulate...an idea is just that, a thought. I do give credit for intuition, and it spurs the mind to pursue a thought and that often leads to discoveries, be them calculated or by accident.

This plate of snarled spaghetti is typical of those who confuse and mix philosophical entities and idealistic tendencies albeit religious "ideas" with physics. You can't mix elephants with apples and get cabernet...nor can you legitimately mix "ideas" with philosophy and intuition and get physics. An idea is not a theory nor even a postulate...an idea is just that, a thought. I do give credit for intuition, and it spurs the mind to pursue a thought and that often leads to discoveries, be them calculated or by accident.

This plate of snarled spaghetti is typical of those who confuse and mix philosophical entities and idealistic tendencies albeit religious "ideas" with physics. You can't mix elephants with apples and get cabernet...nor can you legitimately mix "ideas" with philosophy and intuition and get physics. An idea is not a theory nor even a postulate...an idea is just that, a thought. I do give credit for intuition, and it spurs the mind to pursue a thought and that often leads to discoveries, be them calculated or by accident.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)