/////////////////////SENECA-STOICISM
The Practical Side of Natural Philosophy
The project of the Natural Questions is to “take measure of God” (1.17), to “walk through the universe” (mundum circuire; 3.1), to celebrate the works of the gods (3.5), and to free us from fear induced by natural events (6.4). The study of clouds or thunderstorms is interesting because we want to understand how clouds or thunderstorms arise—but more than that, it must be salutary (2.59.2), and it helps us achieve human excellence (3.10-18) (Inwood, 2005 [8]; on the relationship of ethics and physics, cf. I. Hadot, 1969, 111-117). How could a human being not investigate nature, knowing that ‘all this’—the world—pertains to him (ad se pertinere; Natural Questions 1.13)? Seneca's cosmopolitanism is integral to the way he leads his readers into the study of nature. Only when we view our local lives from the perspective of the stars do we come to see the insignificance of riches, borders, and so on (NQ 1.9-13). In an influential phrase, Pierre Hadot calls this perspective the ‘view from above’ (1995)—a view that liberates us insofar as we come to see many seemingly important issues as mere trifles. We need the study of nature in order to reach the kind of distance from our everyday concerns that eventually frees us from unreasonable concern for them. And we investigate nature as something that we are a part of. In agreement with early Stoic thought about the universe as a large living being with parts, Seneca thinks that we are rightly motivated to study nature—nature is the large entity of which we are parts. Natural philosophy thus is necessary for fully engaging with one's life. We might note that Seneca contrasts the study of nature with the study of history; for him, it is the seemingly more theoretical field of physics that has greater practical value. It is better to praise the gods than to praise the conquests of Philipp or Alexander (NQ 3.5). Further, the study of nature is particularly valuable because it is the study of what should happen (quid faciendum sit), as opposed to the study of what in fact did happen (quid factum) (NQ 3.7).
5.2 The Natural Law
The Stoics are considered ancestors of the natural law tradition. The standard epithet of the law, in early Stoicism, is ‘common’ (koinos), not ‘natural’. Seneca, however, characterizes laws or the law as natural and talks of the lex naturae (“law of nature”). Early Stoic thought about the law is partly rooted in the theory of appropriate action, and partly in a physical account of how reason—Zeus—pervades the world.
It is this physical notion of the law that is most prominent in Seneca. In his discussion of earthquakes and human fear, Seneca points out that we err by assuming that in some places, there is no danger of earthquakes; all places are subject to the same law (lex) (6.1.12). In another context, Seneca points out that the natural laws (iura) govern events under the earth as much as above (3.16.4). The world is constituted so that everything that is going to happen, including the conflagration of the world when it comes to an end, is from the very beginning part of it. Natural events like earthquakes, and in fact all events, help nature go through with the natural statutes (naturae constituta) (3.29.4). Since nature (or Zeus) decided in the beginning what was going to happen, everything is easy for nature (3.30.1). The study of nature aims at accepting facts of nature, first and foremost the fact that human beings are mortal. Seneca refers to the necessity of death as a natural law (NQ 6.32.12: mors naturae lex est). Death is a “done deal” already at conception (On Peace of Mind 11.6; cf. NQ 2.59.6). It is the task of science to understand why death need not be feared, that the philosophical life is particularly indispensable because it prepares us for death, and that the kinds of death that we are prone to fear particularly, such as death through an earthquake, are really not much different from more usual kinds of death. To be free according to the law of nature is to be prepared to die any minute (3.16). That we are all equals in death reflects the justice of nature (6.1.8).
A theme that is equally present in Seneca's natural philosophy and in his therapeutic practice is time. Book 3 of the Natural Questions is entitled On the waters of the earth and begins with reflections on the enormous time which the task of natural philosophy may consume; on time that has been wasted with worldly concerns; and the claim that it can be regained if we make diligent use of the present. The fact that human life is finite is thus present from the very first lines of the book. Seneca then turns to the way in which the world's life-cycle is as finite as that of a human being. Just as a human foetus already contains the seed of its death, the beginnings of the world contain its end (3.28.2-3). It is precisely for this reason that things are easy for nature. Its death does not, as it were, come as a surprise—nature is well-prepared. Nature does what it initially determined; nothing in nature's doings is ad hoc (3.30.1). Seneca points to examples: Look at the way the waves roll onto the beaches; the oceans are trained in how to flood the earth (3.30.2). The world's preparedness for its death seems to be the perfect analogue of how, for Seneca, we ought to spend our lives. In Letter 12.6-8, Seneca says that everything, light and darkness, is contained in a single day. To use the present well is to be aware of this completeness. More days, and months, and years, will (or at least may) make up our lives. But we should not think of them as stretching out into the future; rather, they are concentric circles surrounding the day which, right now, is present. And since even this very day stretches out, from its beginning to its end, we can appreciate it as containing everything—there can be more such days, but they will be more of the same. Thus, every such day, if it is lived well, we can be fully prepared to die.
5.3 God
The study of nature—of the heavens—eventually leads to knowledge of God (or at least, to the beginnings of such an understanding; NQ 1.13). Seneca characterizes God in a number of ways: (i) God is everything one sees and everything one does not see. Nothing greater than his magnitude is conceivable (magnitudo […] qua nihil maius cogitari potest); he alone is everything—he keeps together his work from the inside and the outside (NQ 1.13). (ii) God is completely soul (animus) and reason (ratio) (1.14), or, as Seneca puts it in Letter 65.12, “reason in action” (ratio faciens). (iii) Like earlier Stoics, Seneca emphasizes that God (‘Jupiter’) can be referred to by many names: fate, the cause of causes (causa causarum), providence, nature, universe (NQ 2.45.2). (iv) Seneca agrees with the orthodox Stoic view that God is corporeal. God is a part of the world (pars mundi; NQ 7.30.4). At the same time, he emphasizes that it is in thought that we have to see God—he flees human eyes. The study of God is thus not the study of a visible entity (7.30.3-5). (v) God, or nature, is beneficial (5.18.13-15).
In his discussions of thunder and lighting, Seneca explains that, while every natural event is a sign, we should not think of God busying himself with sending us, as it were, a sign at every particular occasion. Rather, we should explain natural events by seeking out their natural causes, and at the same time understand that the order of things as a whole is established by God. Since there is this order, divination is possible (NQ 2.32.1-4). Fate is the necessity of all events and actions, which no power can disrupt (2.36). Prayer cannot change fate; but since the gods have left some things unresolved, prayer can be effective (2.37.2).
Like other ancient philosophers, Seneca discusses virtue as the ideal of “becoming like God.” This is, however, not an otherworldly ideal—rather, it is the ideal of perfecting our rationality, as agents living in this world (Russell 2004). We are a part of God; to perfect our reason is to achieve the perfect rationality of divinity. In agreement with earlier Stoics, Seneca thinks that the virtuous man is an equal to the gods (Letter 92.30-31; 87.19). Seneca's natural philosophy and his theology are thus closely related to his ethics and philosophical psychology. Ultimately, he is concerned with how we can perfect our soul, and he pursues this question in a variety of ways—by discussing virtue, the soul, nature, and theology.
/////////////////CATTLE TB-KILLING BADGERS-GO VEG UK
///////////////////a novel's essence can be given in a quote at all: "when people hate offialdom, they either become craven or facetious".
////////////////////HUMAN LIMBS HAD FISHY ORIGINS
The development of fingers and toes in embryos of land animals is closely linked to a gene called Hoxd13. This gene orchestrates a series of developmental steps involving the sequential release of certain proteins that affects the outer part of the limb and the digits but not the arm bones. It was once thought that digit development was unique to tetrapods, creatures that have, or once had, fingers and toes.
The new findings suggest this is not the case. Johanson and her colleagues found that the genes involved in creating the Australian lungfish's fins made proteins in a nearly identical pattern as in tetrapods, by acting on the small fin bones but not the rest of the limb.
////////////////////KRISHNAMURTI=UNLEARNING=TABULA RASA=BLANK SLATE
////////////////////In order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is likely to hurt. 'Posthumous Pieces' by Wei Wu Wei
//////////////////Adult weight gain raises breast cancer risk: study
///////////////////Whole grain cereals cut heart failure risk: study
/////////////////////All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed. - Sean O'Casey
Only the shallow know themselves. - Oscar Wilde
/////////////////////////The "3x" rule of thumb says a person needs to ask you three times to do something before you do it. Otherwise, it is a request they are not serious about.
////////////////////Yoga of Self Control
The Supreme Lord Said:
"The Yogi who is established in his Self and who is even minded all the time and at all the places develops the equal vision where by he sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self."[Chapter 6 Verse 29]
"He who sees Me everywhere and all Me, I am not lost to him, nor he is lost to Me."[Chapter 6 Verse 30]
"Whoever worships Me thus as the Being abiding in all, established in the vision of Oneness, live in Me all the time irrespective of how he behaves and conducts himself."[Chapter 6 Verse 31]
"He who in comparison to himself sees all as equal, whether in happiness or in sorrow, that yogi, O Arjuna, should be regarded as supremely perfect in My opinion."[Chapter 6 Verse 32]
//////////////////
Will the Universe End in a Big Rip? Illustration Credit & Copyright: Lynette Cook
Explanation: How will our universe end? Recent speculation now includes a pervasive growing field of mysterious repulsive phantom energy that rips virtually everything apart. Although the universe started with a Big Bang, analysis of cosmological measurements allows a possibility that it will end with a Big Rip. As soon as few billion years from now, the controversial scenario holds, dark energy will grow to such a magnitude that our own Galaxy will no longer be able to hold itself together. After that, stars, planets, and then even atoms might not be able to withstand the expansive internal force. Previously, speculation on the ultimate fate of the universe centered on either a re-collapsing Big Crunch or a Big Freeze. Although the universe's fate is still a puzzle, piecing it together will likely follow from an increased understanding of the nature of dark matter and dark energy.
////////////////////How to "Eyeball" Portion Sizes
From Jennifer R. Scott,Your Guide to Weight Loss.FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by our Medical Review Board
Who wants to weigh foods to practice portion control? Not me! But not everyone has the ability to "eyeball" portions accurately. What if you're underestimating? Unexplained weight gain could result. So how do you keep those "guesstimated" portions in check? Just think of these every day household items.
A standard serving of...
cereal (1 c.) = a baseball
salad dressing (2 Tbsp.) = a shot glass
nuts (1 oz.) = a cupped palm
cheese (1 oz.) = a ping-pong ball
hamburger (3 oz.) = a mayo jar lid
peanut butter (1 tsp.) = one die
beef (3 oz.) = a bar of soap
rice (1/2 c.) = an ice cream scoop
potato = a computer mouse
dinner roll = a yo-yo
butter (1 tsp.) = a Scrabble tile
fruit (1 c.) = a tennis ball
cooked pasta (1/2 c.) = a golf ball
fish (3 oz.) = a checkbook
poultry (3 oz.) = a deck of playing cards
////////////////////A warm smile is the universal language of kindness.-- William Arthur Ward
/////////////////Weight Faltering in Infancy and IQ Levels at 8 Years in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Emond, A.M., et al. - Our goal was to investigate the association between failure to thrive (defined as weight faltering in the first 9 months of life) and IQ levels 8 years later...Conclusion: Failure to thrive in infancy was associated with persisting deficits in IQ at 8 years; the critical period for growth faltering was birth to 8 weeks. The relationship between infant growth from birth to 8 weeks and later intellectual development was approximately linear over the whole range of weight velocities [more...]
///////////////////The effect of recurrent tonsillitis and adenotonsillectomy on growth in childhood Aydogan, M., et al. - Conclusion: We have demonstrated postoperative weight gain and significant increase in IGFBP-3 concentrations and IGFBP-3 SDS, accompanying significant decrease in the number of tonsillitis episodes after adenotonsillectomy [more...]
//////////////////////Prevention of Recurrent Fetal Growth Restriction Berghella, V., et al - Fetal growth restriction is associated with multiple short- and long-term consequences for the infant. A woman with a prior gestation complicated by fetal growth restriction has nearly a 20% risk of recurrence. Strategies to predict and prevent the recurrence are critical in obstetric management. Effective interventions for prevention of recurrent fetal growth restriction include the following: a reproductive plan because spacing of pregnancies impacts their outcome, optimization of maternal medical conditions, smoking cessation, accurate dating by first-trimester sonography and monitoring of fetal growth with serial sonograms, and low-dose aspirin (80–160 mg) started before 20 weeks [more...]
//////////////////Improved Behavior and Sleep After Adenotonsillectomy in Children With Sleep-Disordered Breathing Wei, J.L., et al. - To determine changes in behavior and sleep in children before and after adenotonsillectomy for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) using the validated Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ) and Conners' Parent Rating Scale–Revised Short Form (CPRS-RS)...Conclusion: Children diagnosed as having SDB experience improvement in both sleep and behavior after adenotonsillectomy. The PSQ and CPRS-RS may be useful adjuncts for screening and following children who undergo adenotonsillectomy for SDB [more...]
///////////////////Skin prick test can identify eczematous infants at risk of asthma and allergic rhinitis Lowe, A.J., et al. - To determine whether infants who have atopic eczema (with sensitization) are at a greater risk of developing asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) than those with non-atopic eczema (without concurrent sensitization)...Conclusion: In children with eczema within the first 2 years of life, SPT can provide valuable information on the risk of childhood asthma and AR [more...]
/////////////////////Chapter IV: The Yoga of the Division of WisdomIV.27. SARVAANEENDRIYA KARMAANI PRAANAKARMAANI CHAAPARE;AATMASAMYAMAYOGAAGNAU JUHWATI JNAANADEEPITE.(Krishna speaking to Arjuna)'Others again sacrifice all the functions of the sensesand those of the breath (vital energy or Prana) in the fireof the Yoga of self-restraint kindled by knowledge.'IV.28. DRAVYAYAJNAAS TAPOYAJNAA YOGAYAJNAASTATHAAPARE;SWAADHYAAYAJNAANA YAJNAASHCHA YATAYAH SAMSHITAVRATAAH.'Some again offer wealth, austerity and Yoga as sacrifice,while the ascetics of self-restraint and rigid vows offerstudy of scriptures and knowledge as sacrifice.'
COFTAS
/////////////////////Karma of the Brain: Why Good Things Happen to Good People
Yes, helping others makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but new research suggests that doing good deeds can actually help people live longer, healthier lives. Siri Agrell explains why positive action may be better than popping pills.
By Siri AgrellSource: The Globe and Mail
What if your doctor told you to take two steps toward being a better person and call him in the morning?
Patients at a California health maintenance organization are being prescribed generous behaviour as part of a program called Rx: Volunteer, one of various new research projects described by Stephen Post in his book Why Good Things Happen To Good People, out next week. Dr. Post chronicles the link between doing good and living a longer, healthier life.
"The science shows that we're hardwired to be giving," he says. "We're talking here about a one-a-day vitamin for the soul."
A growing number of researchers are supporting his claim with studies that show how the human body benefits from everything from gratitude to generosity.
Dr. Post, the president of Case Western Reserve University's Institute for Research on Unlimited Love, believes in the scientific equivalent to The Secret, the self-help phenomenon that preaches positivity as a means to personal reward.
No, being a good person won't necessarily get you a new car or help you lose 10 pounds, Dr. Post says, but there is a karma of the brain, where the body physically rewards acts of kindness and forgiveness.
"The remarkable bottom line of the science of love is that giving protects overall health twice as much as Aspirin protects against heart disease," he says.
For example, psychologist Robert Emmons studied organ-transplant recipients and found that the more gratitude they felt, the faster they recovered.
A 2001 study of trauma survivors by psychologist Russell Kolts found that gratitude was associated with lower symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
And a Wellesley College study that has tracked 200 people since the 1920s, interviewing them for five hours every decade, found that people who were charitable in high school had better physical and mental health in late adulthood.
"The connection for mental health is particularly strong, but the physical health results are also highly significant," psychologist Paul Wink notes.
Helping other people can aid in personal relaxation and stress as well.
Researchers at the University of Michigan found that people who offered social support to others in a financial crisis saw a marked reduction in their own anxiety about money.
The movement toward studying human goodness has even spawned its own diagnostic manual, Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification.
It was written to contrast the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which doctors use to classify human behaviour by pathology.
Dr. Post, whose institute offers funding to many of these studies, believes that people who want to prolong their lives should work on their attitude, the same way they would change their diet or exercise routines.
And he thinks the culture is ready for a shift toward the positive.
He was encouraged by the behaviour of some young people in the aftermath of last month's mass shooting at Virginia Tech, who reached out to one another online and promised to be kinder to strangers.
"The truth is ours we have a duty to be true to ourselves. Smile at people you usually never even looked at talk to people u hated," Quebec student Pierre-Olivier Laforce wrote in a Facebook post quoted in The New York Times.
And also last month Ryan Fitzgerald, an unemployed 20-year-old from Boston, received more than 5,000 calls after posting his phone number on YouTube for strangers who needed to talk.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he was inspired by Juan Mann, an Australian whose efforts to hug strangers landed him as a guest on Oprah Winfrey's couch.
And the impulse to take a higher road is not just infecting idealistic young people.
Toronto consultant Peggie Pelosi decided she needed to rethink her priorities while working as a vice-president at a health sciences company. After establishing a charitable partnership for her employees, she watched their productivity soar. She now helps companies form philanthropic partnerships and has written a book, Corporate Karma: How Business Can Move Forward By Giving Back.
"I think there's a lack of opportunity for people to find and express compassion," she says of her baby-boomer generation. "We've gotten to the point in our lives where we would like to have some meaning."
RELATED ARTICLE: The Power of Giving
/////////////////////////Is Life Finely-Tuned or a Cosmic Accident?
People are not the result of a cosmic accident, but of laws of the universe that grant our lives meaning and purpose, says physicist Paul Davies.
By Steve PaulsonSource: Salon
Forget science fiction. If you want to hear some really crazy ideas about the universe, just listen to our leading theoretical physicists.
Wish you could travel back in time? You can, according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Could there be an infinite number of parallel worlds? Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg considers this a real possibility. Even the big bang, which for decades has been the standard explanation for how the universe started, is getting a second look.
Now, many cosmologists speculate that we live in a "multiverse," with big bangs exploding all over the cosmos, each creating its own bubble universe with its own laws of physics. And lucky for us, our bubble turned out to be life-friendly.
But if you really want to start an argument, ask a room full of physicists this question: Are the laws of physics fine-tuned to support life?
Many scientists hate this idea -- what's often called "the anthropic principle." They suspect it's a trick to argue for a designer God. But more and more physicists point to various laws of nature that have to be calibrated just right for stars and planets to form and for life to appear.
For instance, if gravity were just slightly stronger, the universe would have collapsed long before life evolved. But if gravity were a tiny bit weaker, no galaxies or stars could have formed. If the strong nuclear force had been slightly different, red giant stars would never produce the fusion needed to form heavier atoms like carbon, and the universe would be a vast, lifeless desert.
Are these just happy coincidences? The late cosmologist Fred Hoyle called the universe "a put-up job." Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has suggested that the universe, in some sense, "knew we were coming."
British-born cosmologist Paul Davies calls this cosmic fine-tuning the "Goldilocks Enigma." Like the porridge for the three bears, he says the universe is "just right" for life. Davies is an eminent physicist who's received numerous awards, including the Templeton Prize and the Faraday Prize from the Royal Society in London. His 1992 book "The Mind of God" has become a classic of popular science writing. But his new book, "The Cosmic Jackpot," will challenge even the most open-minded readers. Without ever invoking God, Davies argues for a grand cosmic plan. The universe, he believes, is filled with meaning and purpose.
What Davies proposes is truly mind-bending. Drawing on the bizarre principles of quantum mechanics, he suggests that human beings -- through the sheer act of observation -- may have helped shape the laws of physics billions of years ago. What's more, he says the universe seems to work like a giant computer. Indeed, it's possible that's exactly what it is, and we -- like Neo in "The Matrix" -- might just be living in a simulated virtual world.
Davies recently moved from Australia to set up a research institute at Arizona State University. I spoke with him about some of the controversies now raging in physics, and why he's so determined to find meaning in the cosmos.
Q: A lot of scientists get annoyed by talk about the universe being strangely fine-tuned for life. They see this as a sneaky way to bring religion into scientific explanations for how the universe began. Clearly, you have a different perspective. Why are you so interested in the idea that the universe is just right for life?
All my career, I've been fascinated by the fact that the universe looks not just beautiful but in some sense deeply ingenious. It looks like it's been put together in a way that makes it work exceptionally well. I suppose the most striking example is that the laws of physics and the various parameters that go into those laws seem to be just right for life. If they were even slightly different, it's quite likely there would be no life, no observers, and no people like you and me having this conversation.
How many laws of physics have to be just right for life to be possible?
It's a little hard to write down the definitive list, and part of the reason is that we don't yet know what are the truly fundamental set of physical laws. Changing some of those laws by even a tiny amount would wreck the chances for life. Others seem to have a bit more flexibility. Overall, the total number of these coincidences, or special factors, is probably somewhere between a half a dozen and a dozen. I think most scientists would now agree that you couldn't change things very much and still have life.
So for all of these to happen -- for instance, for carbon to be formed, for gravity to have the precise strength that it does -- you're suggesting that it's more than coincidence that they are just right.
That's right. To just shrug this aside and say, well, if it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here, would we? -- that's no answer to the question. It's just choosing to sweep it under the carpet. And in the case of the carbon resonance, if the strong force that binds the particles together in the nucleus were a little bit stronger or a little bit weaker, that resonance would be at the wrong energy and there would hardly be any carbon in the universe. So the fact that the underlying laws of physics seem to be just right to make abundant carbon, the essential life-giving element, cries out for an explanation.
But most scientists seem to believe it's just a lucky fluke that we're here. They say there's no inherent reason that all of these physical laws happen to have just the right properties so that carbon could form, the Earth could develop, and human beings could evolve.
You're absolutely right. Most scientists would say it's a lucky fluke. And if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here, so we won't bother to ask what's going on. Now, that point of view might have been tenable 20 years ago when the laws of physics were simply regarded as just there -- as God-given or existing for no reason -- and the form they had just happens to be the form they had. But with the search for the final unification of physics, there's been more of a thrust towards saying, we won't just accept the laws of physics as given. We'll ask, how did those laws come to be? Are they the ultimate set of laws? Or are they just effective at low energies or in our region of the universe?
In the past, these "why" questions -- why the laws of physics are the way they are, why the universe began, why we are here -- were questions that theologians and philosophers asked. They seemed to be beyond science. But you're saying this is an arena where science can now operate.
Yes, there was a separation of powers -- "non-overlapping magisteria," to use Stephen Jay Gould's expression. In the past, the underlying laws of the universe were regarded as simply off-limits as far as scientists were concerned. The job of the scientist was to discover what the laws were and work out their consequences, but not to ask questions like, why those laws rather than some others? But I think we've moved on since then. Are we to suppose that these laws were magically imprinted on the universe at the moment of the big bang for no particular reason and that the form they have has no explanation?
There are different versions of the anthropic principle. Can you briefly lay those out for us?
Nobody can really object to the "weak anthropic principle." It just says that the laws and conditions of the universe must be consistent with life; otherwise, we wouldn't be here. But if we combine it with the multiverse hypothesis, then we're in business. The multiverse hypothesis says that what we've been calling the universe is nothing of the kind. It's just a bubble, a little local region in a much vaster and more elaborate system called the multiverse. And the multiverse consists of lots of universes. There are different ways you can arrange this. One way is to have them scattered throughout space, and each universe would be a gigantic bubble, much bigger than the size of what we can see at the moment, but there would be many, many bubbles. And each of these bubbles would come with its own set of laws.
So the billions of galaxies in our universe still make up just one universe. But in this theory, there would be many such universes.
That's right. Everything as far as our most powerful instruments can penetrate would belong to just one universe -- this universe. I call this a "Hubble bubble." So we're talking about a distance out to nearly 14 billion light years. Everything we see within that one region of space seems to have a common set of physical laws. According to one version of the multiverse hypothesis, if you traveled enough in any direction, you'd reach the edge of that bubble, and there would be a chasm of exceedingly rapidly expanding space, and then you'd come to another bubble. And in that other bubble, maybe all electrons would be a little bit heavier or gravity would be a little bit stronger. There would be some variation. And you would find that in only a tiny, tiny fraction of those bubbles, all the conditions would be right so there can be life. And of course it's no surprise that we find ourselves living in such a life-encouraging bubble because we couldn't live in any of the others.
The "strong anthropic principle" is far more controversial. What is this theory?
The strong anthropic principle says that the universe must bring forth life and observers at some stage. So even if there's only one universe, it must be the case that this universe will end up being observed by beings such as ourselves. Now, that's much harder for scientists to swallow because it seems to turn everything upside down. Most scientists think that the universe came into existence by some happy coincidence, or maybe from this multiverse selection there were beings who emerged. But these beings don't play a central role even in the multiverse theory. They don't play a creative role, whereas in the strong anthropic principle, the observers are in the central position. They are the ones dictating how the universe is put together. And that seems too much for people to swallow. It gives mind and consciousness a central place in the great scheme of things.
Well, it sounds fairly religious. Let's face it, the most common explanation for how all of this happened is that God set the process in motion so that human beings could eventually evolve.
You could give this either a religious or an anti-religious interpretation. The religious interpretation is that God made the universe just as it is in order that life and conscious beings could emerge. The other way, which I suppose would be anti-religious, is to say that the emergence of life and observers causes the universe to have the laws that it does. In the causal sense, it puts the cart before the horse. It makes the emergence of life and observers later on in the universe have some responsibility for the way the laws come into being at the beginning.
Is this what John Wheeler, the famous theoretical physicist, talked about when he made the case for a "participatory universe"?
Yes. Now we're into another variant of the anthropic principle -- which is sometimes called the "final anthropic principle" -- where, somehow, the emergence of life and observers link back to the early universe. Now, Wheeler didn't flesh out this idea terribly well, but I've had a go at trying to extend it. This has some appeal because the conventional theistic explanation and the conventional scientific explanation both suffer from the same shortcoming. They attempt to explain the universe by appealing to something outside it. In the religious explanation, appeal is made to an unexplained God who simply has to be there in order for the universe to be created in the form that it has. In the scientific explanation, the laws of physics just happily exist for no particular reason, and they just happen to have exactly the right properties, but it's all unexplained and it's all pushed off to outside of the universe. What appeals to me about John Wheeler's idea is that it attempts to provide an explanation for the bio-friendliness of the universe from entirely within it. Now, the difficult point is that we have to explain why life today can have any effect on the laws that the universe emerged with at the time of the big bang.
This sounds like it's coming right out of science fiction. Somehow, future people can go back in time and have some role in creating the universe. It's pretty far-fetched.
It is pretty far-fetched until you stop to think that there is nothing in the laws of physics that singles out one direction of time over another. The laws of physics work forward in time and backward in time equally well. Wheeler was one of the pioneers of this underlying time symmetry in the laws of physics. So he was steeped in the fact that we shouldn't be prejudiced between past and future when it comes to causation. The particular mechanism that Wheeler had in mind has to do with quantum physics. Now, quantum physics is based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In its usual formulation, it means that there's some uncertainty at a later time how an atom is going to behave. You might be able to predict the betting odds that the atom will do this or that, but you can't know for certain in advance what's going to happen. Now, this uncertainty principle works both ways in time. There's no doubt about this. If we make an observation of an atom in a certain state now, then its past is uncertain just as its future is uncertain.
So one way to think about this is that there will be many past histories that will lead up to the present state of the universe. In the remote past, its state was fuzzy. Now in the lab, it's all very well to put an atom in a certain state and experiment on it at a later time. But when we're applying quantum physics to the whole universe, we simply can't establish the universe in a well-defined quantum state at the beginning and make observations later. We're here and now. So we can only infer backward in time. It's part of conventional quantum mechanics that you can make observations now that will affect the nature of reality as it was in the past. You can't use it to send signals back into the past. You can't send information back into the past. But the nature of the quantum state in the past can't be separated from the nature of the quantum state in the present.
So you're not talking about super-smart beings in the far future who go back in time and somehow fiddle with the laws of physics to create the big bang. You're saying this happens just through the act of observation itself, through the fact that human beings or other intelligent beings are aware of the universe.
Right. I'm not talking about time travel. This is just standard quantum physics. Standard quantum physics says that if you make an observation of something today -- it might just be the position of an atom -- then there's an uncertainty about what that atom is going to do in the future. And there's an uncertainty about what it's going to do in the past. That uncertainty means there's a type of linkage. Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance."
But what's so hard to fathom is that this act of observation, which has been observed at the subatomic level, would affect the way matter spread right after the big bang. That sounds awfully far-fetched.
Well, it's only far-fetched if you want to think that every little observation that we perform today is somehow micromanaging the universe in the far past. What we're saying is that as we go back into the past, there are many, many quantum histories that could have led up to this point. And the existence of observers today will select a subset of those histories which will inevitably, by definition, lead to the existence of life. Now, I don't think anybody would really dispute that fact.
What I'm suggesting -- this is where things depart from the conventional view -- is that the laws of physics themselves are subject to the same quantum uncertainty. So that an observation performed today will select not only a number of histories from an infinite number of possible past histories, but will also select a subset of the laws of physics which are consistent with the emergence of life. That's the radical departure. It's not the backward-in-time aspect, which has been established by experiment. There's really no doubt that quantum mechanics opens the way to linking future with past. I'm suggesting that we extend those notions from the state of the universe to the underlying laws of physics themselves. That's the radical step, because most physicists regard the laws as God-given, imprinted on the universe, fixed and immutable. But Wheeler -- and I follow him on this -- suggested that the laws of physics are not immutable.
I'm trying to understand how the laws of physics could change. You're suggesting that they were different 10 billion years ago. How could they change through the act of observation?
I have to explain my point of view in relation to the laws of physics. In the orthodox view, the laws are regarded as just unexplained, fixed, idealized mathematical relationships. It's an idea that goes right back to Newton-- that the universe is governed by these infinitely precise mathematical laws.
This is basically the Platonic view of the universe.
Plato had the view that mathematics lies outside of the physical universe, in a realm that's not part of space and time. It's often called the "Platonic heaven." But there's another view of the laws of physics, which is gaining increasing currency, that has really come about because of the information revolution. So a lot of physicists think that we should regard the laws of physics not as perfect, immutable mathematical forms that just happen to exist for no reason in this Platonic realm, but rather that they're more like computer software.
Let me explain that. When the Earth goes around the sun, we can imagine applying Newton's laws to predicting how it's going to move. That's just like a computer algorithm. If we know the position and motion of the Earth today, we can compute its position and motion this time next year. So the laws of physics could be thought of like a computer algorithm, taking input data, processing it and delivering output data. That inevitably leads to the analogy that the universe is really a gigantic computer. And many people are enamored of that idea.
So basically, information is all there is in the universe.
That's right. The universe is just a big information processor. Wheeler calls this "it from bit." Now if you take that view -- that the universe is a gigantic computer -- then it leads immediately to the conclusion that the resources of that computer are limited. The universe is finite. It's finite because the speed of light is finite. There's been a finite time since the big bang. So if we have a finite universe, we have a computer with finite resources, and hence, finite accuracy. So once you recognize that the universe is a gigantic computer, then you see that the laws of physics can't be infinitely precise and perfect. There must be a certain amount of wiggle room or sloppiness or ambiguity in those laws.
And the key point here is that the degree of error, which is inherent in the laws, depends on time. As the universe gets older, there are fewer errors because it's had longer to compute. If you go back to the first split second after the big bang, then the underlying errors in the laws of physics really would have been very large. So instead of thinking of the universe as beginning magically with a bang, and the laws of physics being imprinted magically on the universe with infinite precision right from the word go, we must instead think of the laws as being emergent with and inherent in the universe, starting out a little bit vague and fuzzy, and focusing down over time to the form that we see today.
There are some obvious questions about the big bang. Can we really talk about it coming out of nothing? Don't we have to ask, wasn't there something that caused the big bang?
Many people fall into that trap. But Augustine, in the fifth century, pointed out that the world was made with time, not in time. I think he got this exactly right. Of course, most people think that there must have been a previous event that caused whatever event we're talking about. But this is simply not the case. We now know that time itself is part of the physical universe. And when we talk about the big bang in a simplified model, then we're talking about not only matter and energy coming into being, but space and time as well. So there was no time before the big bang. The big bang was the origin of time.
People want to ask, what happened before the big bang, or what caused the big bang? But in a simple picture where there's just one universe, the big bang can be the ultimate origin of space and time as well as matter and energy. So unless the universe has always existed, you're faced with the problem that time itself comes into existence. And any attempt to talk about causation has to be couched in terms of something that comes after the beginning and not before the beginning ... because there was no before.
There are some obvious religious implications to all of this. My sense is that a lot of Jews and Christians are actually quite delighted with the big bang -- the idea that the universe was created out of nothing. It seems to correspond to the story of creation in Genesis.
I think there's a misunderstanding by religious people if they think that creation ex nihilo is anything like the big bang. People misunderstand what creation ex nihilo is about. It's not that there existed a God within time who was there for all eternity and then at some particular moment, on a whim, decided, "I'm going to make a universe" and then pressed a button that made the big bang. That raises exactly the objection that Augustine was addressing: What was God doing before making the universe? If the universe was a good idea, why wasn't it made an infinite time ago?
I might also say that it's always a bad idea for people to decide what to believe on religious grounds and then to cherry-pick the scientific facts to fit, because these facts are likely to change. And we may find that the big-bang theory goes out of favor at some point in the future. And then what? Religious people will have backed the wrong horse. So it's fraught with danger to seize on these cosmological ideas. But I personally think we can draw the conclusion that we live in a universe that's deeply imbued with meaning and purpose.
But most scientists would probably say there's no inherent meaning or purpose to the universe. It's an absurd universe. There's a famous quote from the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." Weinberg is an atheist who believes there's no ultimate point to human existence. Is he just wrong?
He and I would agree entirely on the scientific facts and would simply draw opposite conclusions from them. It's really an argument about whether the bottle is half full or half empty. Words like "meaning" and "purpose" are human categories, derived from human experience, and so we're projecting them onto nature and saying, well, the best way of understanding the universe is to say it behaves in a purpose-like manner.
In your book, you say it looks as though the universe's evolution is following a script. This raises the specter of teleology, which is a dreaded word among scientists.
I don't think anyone, including Weinberg, would deny that it looks like the universe is following a script. We call that script the laws of physics. There is no doubt that the universe seems to be following a pattern; we might even use the word "plan." The reason that I feel comfortable using words like "meaning" and "purpose" in connection with the universe is because I don't see them as being very different from words like "mechanism" or "information processing." I've said that the universe is like a computer. So the politically correct idea is to say the universe is a mechanism, a machine. That's OK. But to say it's like a living organism with a purpose is not. I just think that's inconsistent.
Are you saying that if you go back to the first few seconds of the universe, somehow the laws of nature were put in place so that intelligent life would arise billions of years later?
I'm not saying that an intelligent designer figured it all out and created the universe with a set of laws that would bring intelligent beings into existence.
You want to stay away from God.
I want to stay away from a pre-existing cosmic magician who is there within time, for all eternity, and then brings the universe into being as part of a preconceived plan. I think that's just a naive, silly idea that doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians these days and doesn't fit the scientific facts. I don't want that. That's a horrible idea. But I see no reason why there can't be a teleological component in the evolution of the universe, which includes things like meaning and purpose. So instead of appealing to something outside the universe -- a completely unexplained being -- I'm talking about something that emerges within the universe. It's a more natural view. We're trying to construct a picture of the universe which is based thoroughly on science but where there is still room for something like meaning and purpose. So people can see their own individual lives as part of a grand cosmic scheme that has some meaning to it. We're not just, as Steven Weinberg would say, pointless accidents in a universe that has no meaning or purpose. I think we can do better than that.
Do you think one reason the multiverse theory has become so popular in recent years is to keep the whole idea of God at bay?
Yes.
Because a lot of physicists seem to be at a loss for how to explain this cosmic fine-tuning. But with the multiverse, you can say there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be lucky to live in one that supports life.
There's no doubt that the popularity of the multiverse is due to the fact that it superficially gives a ready explanation for why the universe is bio-friendly. Twenty years ago, people didn't want to talk about this fine-tuning because they were embarrassed. It looked like the hand of a creator. Then along came the possibility of a multiverse, and suddenly they're happy to talk about it because it looks like there's a ready explanation. Only those universes in which there can be life get observed, and all the rest go unobserved. Notice, however, that it's far from a complete explanation of existence. You still have to make a huge number of assumptions. You need a universe-generating mechanism to give you all these universes. You need a set of laws that can be scattered across these universes, distributed in some way, according to some algorithm. You're no better off than saying there is an unexplained God.
Even the scientific explanations for the universe are rooted in a particular type of theological thinking. They're trying to explain the world by appealing to something outside of it. And I think the time has come to move beyond that. We can -- if we try hard enough -- come up with a complete explanation of existence from within the universe, without appealing to something mystical or magical lying beyond it. I think the scientists who are anti-God but appeal to unexplained sets of laws or an unexplained multiverse are just as much at fault as a naive theist who says there's a mysterious, unexplained God.
You say in your book that there's another explanation for how the universe is structured. You suggest we may actually live in a fake universe. We could be part of an "ingeniously contrived virtual reality show," as in the "Matrix" movies. Do you really think that's a possibility?
Clearly, it's a logical possibility that this entire universe could be a simulation, if we imagine that in a hundred or a thousand years we'd be able to make computers that are sufficiently powerful to simulate consciousness. You need only to believe that consciousness is ultimately a physical process, which in principle we can mimic. Then we clearly have the possibility of building a machine and feeding in electrical impulses to produce this or that sensation. So this raises the obvious question, is there a real world out there? And how do I know that it's not all a gigantic virtual reality show, with my own mental experiences being created by some super-duper computer, so that I'm just living inside this machine? Now, there are a number of philosophers who are enamored of this idea. How would we know from within the simulation that it is a simulation and not the reality? If it's a good simulation, we couldn't know. So we must be open to the possibility that this whole world is in fact a gigantic simulation.
Near the end of "The Cosmic Jackpot," you say that all these explanations about the universe are probably wrong, and "Perhaps we have reached a fundamental impasse dictated by the limits of the human intellect." Do you think future scientists will ever resolve these questions?
If future scientists are human beings, they may be stuck with the same problems that we have. The way we think, the way we like to analyze problems, the categories that we define -- like cause and effect, space-time and matter, meaning and purpose -- are really human categories that cannot be separated from our evolutionary heritage. We have to face up to the fact that there may be fundamental limitations just from the way our brains have been put together. So we could have reached our own human limits. But that doesn't mean there aren't intelligent systems somewhere in the universe, maybe some time in the future, that could ultimately come to understand. Ultimately, it may not be living intelligence or embodied intelligence but some sort of intelligent information-processing system that could become omniscient and fill the entire universe. That's a grand vision that I rather like. Whether it's true or not is another matter entirely.
RELATED ARTICLE: The Holographic Universe: Does Objective Reality
/////////////////////Vitamin D likely responsible for decreased risk of advanced breast cancer in women with greater sun exposure
An article published online on October 12, 2007 the American Journal of Epidemiology revealed the finding of researchers from the Northern California Cancer Center, the University of Southern California, and Wake Forest University School of Medicine that increased levels of vitamin D in the body which are found among those with greater sunlight exposure are associated with a reduced risk of developing advanced breast cancer, defined as disease that has spread beyond the breast.
Esther John, PhD of Northern California Cancer Center and colleagues matched 1,788 Hispanic, African-American, and non-Hispanic White women with newly diagnosed breast cancer with 2,129 control subjects. To calculate sun exposure, the color of underarm skin, which is not usually directly exposed to sunlight, was classified as light, medium, or dark, and compared with the color of the forehead, which is normally exposed to the sun.
The team determined that light skinned women with the most exposure to the sun had half of the risk of developing advanced breast cancer than those whose exposure was low. Because the finding occurred in only one group of women, the researchers suggest that the effect was due to differences in vitamin D production. The effect was seen only in advanced and not localized breast cancer, which may mean that vitamin D slows the growth of breast cancer cells.
“We believe that sunlight helps to reduce women’s risk of breast cancer because the body manufactures the active form of vitamin D from exposure to sunlight,” Dr John stated. “It is possible that these effects were observed only among light- skinned women because sun exposure produces less vitamin D among women with naturally darker pigmentation.”
The authors do not recommend reducing breast cancer risk by sunbathing because the practice increases the risk of skin cancers. Rather, they suggest increasing the intake of the vitamin from fortified foods, fish, and supplements. “If future studies continue to show reductions in breast cancer risk associated with sun exposure, increasing vitamin D intake from diet and supplements may be the safest solution to achieve adequate levels of vitamin D,” stated coauthor Gary Schwartz, PhD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Co-researcher Sue Ingles, PhD added, “Since many risk factors for breast cancer are not modifiable, our finding that a modifiable factor, vitamin D, may reduce risk is important.”
////////////////////The most successful people are those who are good at Plan B." -- James Yorke
/////////////////"Simplify the task. Continually look for faster, better, easier ways to get the job done." -- Brian Tracy"It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation." -- Herman Melville
/////////////////Habit and routine have an unbelievable power to waste and destroy. - Paradoxes.~Henri De Lubac~
////////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment