What do you think?
Rate this book
الجائزة الكونية الكبرى
يعود بول ديفيز إلى علم الكون بهذا الكتاب، وهي عودة مذهلة اشتقنا إليها كثيرًا. ويتناول في هذا الكتاب جميع «القضايا المهمة»، ويطرح أحدث الاكتشافات التي مكنت العلماء من سرد تاريخ الكون بتفاصيل لم يسبق لهم الوصول إليها. ومع هذا فإن ديفيز يوضح سبب الاختلاف الحالي بين علماء الكون الذي زاد أكثر من أي وقت مضى. ويجيب عن الأسئلة الآتية: لماذا تعد جميع الظروف مناسبة للحياة على الأرض؟ كيف حاول الإنسان تفسير ذلك؟ كيف أثر الإيمان الديني في شكل المناظرات العلمية؟ ما الذي نعرفه حق المعرفة بشأن المكان الذي نحتله في الكون؟ في هذا الكتاب يحل بول ديفيز ألغاز العلم، ويصل إلى دقائق نظرتنا إلى الكون.
354 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 1988
26 people are currently reading
733 people want to read
About the author
Paul C.W. Davies
51 books572 followersPaul Charles William Davies AM is a British-born physicist, writer and broadcaster, currently a professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. He has held previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University of London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University. His research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has proposed that a one-way trip to Mars could be a viable option.
In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics.
In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
April 3, 2022
The first third was a rehash of knowledge i had, but well presented on history of scientific discoveries related to the atom and she universe. Made me appreciase more Isaac Isamov's fify year-old books on the subjeot. It was educational in that i learned they had bounced beams off Venus and Mercury, when properly aligned, to prove Eisinstein's bending of space theory, and that such a triangle's corners (lmE > V > M > E) would add up to more than 180°. I was interested in the chapters around "Goldilocks" universe but the niscussion was too philosophical for my tastes. I did get something out of "designer universe" debate but got lost later on with other discussions such as mentioning teological arguments. I looked up "teological" > "relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise"
"teleological narratives of progress" > i still don't know what that means.
I only wanted to give it three stars for what i got out of the book but am bumping that up to four for making me aware of all the perspectives presently considered on untiverse origins and possible purpose. I think the author misses the boat by not giting an imperfect Creator perspective.
"teleological narratives of progress" > i still don't know what that means.
I only wanted to give it three stars for what i got out of the book but am bumping that up to four for making me aware of all the perspectives presently considered on untiverse origins and possible purpose. I think the author misses the boat by not giting an imperfect Creator perspective.
September 8, 2018
Great for those who like to explore the boundary between science and religion. Some of the concepts are mind-bending/ mind-altering. The reader should not worry about absorbing all of the science- just keep going and don’t get bogged down as it is a worthwhile and enjoyable read.
June 27, 2017
Nice introduction to some of the physics behind cosmology. I thought his explanations behind how a multiverse could exist were more reasonable than what I've heard so far. Unfortunately, Davies spends a lot of the second half of the book engaged in wild speculation, though he acknowledges it as such. Also, he is really reluctant to resort to a first-cause even preferring self-sustaining time-loop universe to this. It seems like this bias and the felt need to cover every possible scenario gave this book less focus on the solutions which are more reasonable in favor of a broad treatment of everything. The afterward does contain a nice list of cosmology options. Very easy to read. This was my first Davies book and I would read more.
December 17, 2014
Interessante, ben scritto.
Ho difficoltà a comprendere l'argomento.
Le tesi dell'autore mi perplimono alquanto, le sue argomentazioni pure.
Ho difficoltà a comprendere l'argomento.
Le tesi dell'autore mi perplimono alquanto, le sue argomentazioni pure.
June 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
December 7, 2011
The first part of the book is good: it covers, for the uninitiated, quantum theories and the people who developed those theories. The second half of the book is speculation: the author attempts to explain the origin of the universe and how life seems to be a fundamental part of the universe (like quarks and photons) with ideas that are non-verifiable (and that could make for some interesting fiction), concluding with a some kind of god-like force.
March 23, 2018
في نظر كثير من الناس ( و اظن نظر الكاتب ايضا )
كان السؤال .. لماذا الكون مناسب للحياة ..
لماذا الكون منظم ! .. لماذا الكون يبدو كما لو كان مفصلا على مقاسنا ! ..
ولكن هذه الاسئلة لم تثر انتباهي
..
بل السؤال الحقيقي من وجهة نظري هو :
لماذا جاءت معرفتنا اليوم تؤيد و تشير الى الشئ الوحيد الذي لازم البشرية منذ مولدها .. الدين ! ..
ما هي الاحتمالات لصدفة كهذه ..
لا اظنها صدفة .
كان السؤال .. لماذا الكون مناسب للحياة ..
لماذا الكون منظم ! .. لماذا الكون يبدو كما لو كان مفصلا على مقاسنا ! ..
ولكن هذه الاسئلة لم تثر انتباهي
..
بل السؤال الحقيقي من وجهة نظري هو :
لماذا جاءت معرفتنا اليوم تؤيد و تشير الى الشئ الوحيد الذي لازم البشرية منذ مولدها .. الدين ! ..
ما هي الاحتمالات لصدفة كهذه ..
لا اظنها صدفة .
May 23, 2015
افضل ما في الكتاب هو حيادية الكاتب و محاولة اظهاره لإيجابيات و سلبيات النظريات المختلفة التي تحاول تفسير نشأة الكون مع شرحها بشكل مبسط نوعا ما،
الكتاب غني بالشرح و الافكار لذلك اجزم ان لي عودة ثانية له.
انصح به لجميع المهتمين بالقراءة عن الكون و النظريات التي تحاول شرح نشأته.
الكتاب غني بالشرح و الافكار لذلك اجزم ان لي عودة ثانية له.
انصح به لجميع المهتمين بالقراءة عن الكون و النظريات التي تحاول شرح نشأته.
December 18, 2017
Great writer. Not the best philosopher. Presupposes that methodological naturalism. Does not explore enough about the existence of information in the universe and its implications. However, I learned a lot about science.
July 31, 2017
ولا زال السؤال إلى الآن ، منذ أن بدأ الإنسان بطرح الأسئلة ، كيف وجد هذا الكون ، ومن وجده ، وما المغزى من وجوده ووجودنا ؟
رغم الأجوبة المتواجدة والمتزايدة جيل بعد جيل ، لكنها لا زالت غير مرضية ومشبعة لفضول الإنسان ..
فكل جواب يفتح باب آخر للسؤال ، حسنًا إنه الإله العظيم صانع وموجد هذا الكون والخليقة ، حسنًا ومن الذي اوجد هذا الإله ؟ أي من أين اتى ، وما كان يفعل قبل الخلق ؟!
حسنًا إنه الانفجار العظيم .. وماذا كان قبل الانفجار ؟ كيف حدث ؟ هل هو فعلًا من لا شيء ، ولماذا لم يحدث في وقت آخر ؟
فكما قلت مهما كانت الاجوبة كثيرة هنالك اسئلة أكبر .
واعلم جيدًا البعض منا قد اشبع فضولة ببعض الكتب والإجابات المضحكة والسطحية ، ظنًا منهم قد امتلكوا الحقيقة وبها بدأوا يشرعون .
هذا الكتاب نستطيع أن نطلق علية الأسئلة الكونية الكبرى ، لا أعتقد أن أي سؤال قد طرحته مسبقًا حول الكون والوجود ولم تجدة هنا ، وبالطبع لن اقول لك أن جميع الأجوبة هي مقنعة ومرضية ، ويجب أن يكون لديك بعض الألمام بالفيزياء والكونيات لفهم الكتاب جيدًا
رغم الأجوبة المتواجدة والمتزايدة جيل بعد جيل ، لكنها لا زالت غير مرضية ومشبعة لفضول الإنسان ..
فكل جواب يفتح باب آخر للسؤال ، حسنًا إنه الإله العظيم صانع وموجد هذا الكون والخليقة ، حسنًا ومن الذي اوجد هذا الإله ؟ أي من أين اتى ، وما كان يفعل قبل الخلق ؟!
حسنًا إنه الانفجار العظيم .. وماذا كان قبل الانفجار ؟ كيف حدث ؟ هل هو فعلًا من لا شيء ، ولماذا لم يحدث في وقت آخر ؟
فكما قلت مهما كانت الاجوبة كثيرة هنالك اسئلة أكبر .
واعلم جيدًا البعض منا قد اشبع فضولة ببعض الكتب والإجابات المضحكة والسطحية ، ظنًا منهم قد امتلكوا الحقيقة وبها بدأوا يشرعون .
هذا الكتاب نستطيع أن نطلق علية الأسئلة الكونية الكبرى ، لا أعتقد أن أي سؤال قد طرحته مسبقًا حول الكون والوجود ولم تجدة هنا ، وبالطبع لن اقول لك أن جميع الأجوبة هي مقنعة ومرضية ، ويجب أن يكون لديك بعض الألمام بالفيزياء والكونيات لفهم الكتاب جيدًا
January 15, 2018
"Šance, že vám padne panna tisíckrát za sebou, je téměř nekonečně malá (okolo jedné ku 10^301). Pokud nicméně házíme 'vedle sebe' dostatečně mnoha mincemi, někde k tomu dojde. Abychom si udělali nějakou představu o číslech, jež zde vystupují, představme si každý atom v pozorovatelném vesmíru jako minci, kterou jednou za sekundu hodíme. Pravděpodobnost, že se za dobu trvání vesmíru mezi našimi 10^80 atomy vyskytne posloupnost 1 000 panen, je stále menší než jedna ku 10^200. Nejdelší série panen, kterou můžeme očekávat, i kdybychom házeli bilionkrát za sekundu, je okolo 360."
Tyhle knihy jsou vždycky totálně "blow my mind".
Tyhle knihy jsou vždycky totálně "blow my mind".
July 8, 2020
Sono fra quelli che prima di lasciare questo mondo vuole sapere quello che le ultime scoperte della scienza ci dicono su di esso. Questo libro raggiunge lo scopo anche se per comprenderlo completamente bisogna avere una preparazione scientifica universitaria. Ma anche se non riusciamo a capire la meccanica quantistica dobbiamo sapere quello che menti geniali ci dicono e prove sperimentali ci dimostrano. Davies ce lo spiega. Non accetta né il mistero né un Dio creatore e ci descrive le ipotesi scientifiche che potrebbero rispondere ai grandi interrogativi. Purtroppo sono solo ipotesi e me ne andrò senza avere una risposta.
August 5, 2017
الكاتب يضعك امام جميع النظريات المطروحة و المرشحة للاجابة عن سؤال (لماذا يوجد الكون او الحياة؟) .. مع ان موقفي كان (لا احد يعلم!)
November 16, 2018
Understandable with nice summaries at the end of each chapter
December 19, 2019
لا أفهم شيئا
March 7, 2018
كتاب يفوق الوصف, أنصح به بشدة لم يحب الفيزياء والفلسفة.
November 11, 2025
I am glad I checked out this book when researching the anthropic principle as the book gives a very general view of cosmology with a huge payoff towards the end of several proposed explanations of the conditions of the universe for life and defends his own. In the afterword Davies even lists the 8 explanations by letters A to H.
A) Absurd universe (easy to hold, cop out, success of science is miraculous)
B) Unique universe (string M theory, grand unified explanation, no chance or undefined parameters, ultimately is unexplained) B1 this universe is necessary B2 could be others but it is this one.
C) Multiverse (Max Tegmark, require super turtle or every explanation, simulated universes predominate)
D) Intelligent design (god, gods, demiurges-no necessary likeness to natural world, itself is unexplained scientifically at least)
E) Life principle (the anthropic principle, strong and weak. But life itself depends on background conditions and parameters and may not itself be the end point)
F) Self-explaining universe (John Wheeler’s participatory universe, it from bit-information creates things even nonlocally from the future. Has to be internally consistent with a complete physics, relies on very speculative paradoxical assumptions.)
G) Fake universe (The Matrix or majority of multiverse is simulations all the way down so we cannot reliably know reality, self-defeating which I don’t agree with, but only meaningful if we can know we are in a simulation as a consolation)
H) None of the above (some other explanation or combination of the previous?)
Davies was inspired by John Wheeler who either did not publish very much on his own participatory universe or it is not easily available. Davies considers (E) and (F) the best scenarios but (B) would be desirable too since we would have a unified scientific explanation of everything even if not a metaphysical one since such a theory would enable asking and answering more questions than our current fragmentary theories. Davies describes superstring and m-theory as the leading candidates for a grand unified theory GUT which was some of the most interesting content but still leaves open questions about the free parameters or background conditions of the universe.
Davies’ self-explaining universe comes closest to pantheism or panpsychism or one of their varieties (panentheism, panprotopsychism), that the universe is its own reason for existing, as conscious intelligent life is at least part of the purpose of being. Davies criticizes traditional theistic accounts (D) of assuming a specific number or nature of gods which are themselves unexplained ‘superturtles’ similar to those of the naturalists which everything else rests on but is itself unexplained. Usually the designer is assumed to be of a separate transcendental nature to its creation, which creates an ontological or at least epistemological gap which may frustrate purely naturalistic explanations. However (F) still contains a good prospect for theism as to why consciousness has an important role in the cosmos. The framework of open theism can allow intentional design without assuming an entirely ‘other’ deity, not totally aloof or inscrutable who allows us to shape creation. Otherwise one can accept Tegmark’s hyper realism in which every mathematically possible reality exists which like the multiverse is itself unexplained except as statistical inevitability, but most of these structures would not be physical or conscious and so causally inert.
Ultimately all explanations appeal to a trilemma of fluke (unexplained dogma), self-selection (infinite regress), and self-causation (circularity). The self-explaining or self-subsuming universe is a circular explanation but circularity is not paradoxical if internally consistent. Conditions for such a universe would be that the laws of the universe are synthetic, they change over time, and are finite rather than infinite. This kind of universe could develop in manner to produce intelligent life without miraculous assumptions and be computable which means universally understandable by intelligent beings, otherwise complete self-understanding would be impossible within the universe.
Appealing to computation however would bring in the multiverse and simulated-fake universes explanations. Per Nick Bostrom’s trilemma if superintelligence is possible it is more likely it has already been achieved and we are an ancestral simulation actually bolstered by anthropic and participatory principles: a retroactive creation akin to theism although maybe bearing a direct relation to its creator, or if unintentional all the way back to the absurd universe, or if truly deterministic the unique-unexplained universe. The possibilities are just about endless for a none of the above.
A) Absurd universe (easy to hold, cop out, success of science is miraculous)
B) Unique universe (string M theory, grand unified explanation, no chance or undefined parameters, ultimately is unexplained) B1 this universe is necessary B2 could be others but it is this one.
C) Multiverse (Max Tegmark, require super turtle or every explanation, simulated universes predominate)
D) Intelligent design (god, gods, demiurges-no necessary likeness to natural world, itself is unexplained scientifically at least)
E) Life principle (the anthropic principle, strong and weak. But life itself depends on background conditions and parameters and may not itself be the end point)
F) Self-explaining universe (John Wheeler’s participatory universe, it from bit-information creates things even nonlocally from the future. Has to be internally consistent with a complete physics, relies on very speculative paradoxical assumptions.)
G) Fake universe (The Matrix or majority of multiverse is simulations all the way down so we cannot reliably know reality, self-defeating which I don’t agree with, but only meaningful if we can know we are in a simulation as a consolation)
H) None of the above (some other explanation or combination of the previous?)
Davies was inspired by John Wheeler who either did not publish very much on his own participatory universe or it is not easily available. Davies considers (E) and (F) the best scenarios but (B) would be desirable too since we would have a unified scientific explanation of everything even if not a metaphysical one since such a theory would enable asking and answering more questions than our current fragmentary theories. Davies describes superstring and m-theory as the leading candidates for a grand unified theory GUT which was some of the most interesting content but still leaves open questions about the free parameters or background conditions of the universe.
Davies’ self-explaining universe comes closest to pantheism or panpsychism or one of their varieties (panentheism, panprotopsychism), that the universe is its own reason for existing, as conscious intelligent life is at least part of the purpose of being. Davies criticizes traditional theistic accounts (D) of assuming a specific number or nature of gods which are themselves unexplained ‘superturtles’ similar to those of the naturalists which everything else rests on but is itself unexplained. Usually the designer is assumed to be of a separate transcendental nature to its creation, which creates an ontological or at least epistemological gap which may frustrate purely naturalistic explanations. However (F) still contains a good prospect for theism as to why consciousness has an important role in the cosmos. The framework of open theism can allow intentional design without assuming an entirely ‘other’ deity, not totally aloof or inscrutable who allows us to shape creation. Otherwise one can accept Tegmark’s hyper realism in which every mathematically possible reality exists which like the multiverse is itself unexplained except as statistical inevitability, but most of these structures would not be physical or conscious and so causally inert.
Ultimately all explanations appeal to a trilemma of fluke (unexplained dogma), self-selection (infinite regress), and self-causation (circularity). The self-explaining or self-subsuming universe is a circular explanation but circularity is not paradoxical if internally consistent. Conditions for such a universe would be that the laws of the universe are synthetic, they change over time, and are finite rather than infinite. This kind of universe could develop in manner to produce intelligent life without miraculous assumptions and be computable which means universally understandable by intelligent beings, otherwise complete self-understanding would be impossible within the universe.
Appealing to computation however would bring in the multiverse and simulated-fake universes explanations. Per Nick Bostrom’s trilemma if superintelligence is possible it is more likely it has already been achieved and we are an ancestral simulation actually bolstered by anthropic and participatory principles: a retroactive creation akin to theism although maybe bearing a direct relation to its creator, or if unintentional all the way back to the absurd universe, or if truly deterministic the unique-unexplained universe. The possibilities are just about endless for a none of the above.
February 12, 2016
الجائزة الكونية الكبري
لغز ملاءمة الكون للحياة
بول ديفيز
......................
في هذا الكتاب يتحدث المؤلف عن الكون و تفسير ظهور الحياة فيه . فمنذ الاف السنين فكر البشر في العالم المحيط بهم محاولين معرفة اجابة اسئلة الوجود العظيمة : لماذا نحن هنا ؟ كيف بدأ الكون ؟ و كيف سينتهي ؟ و كيف تكوّن العالم ؟ و لماذا هو علي النحو الذي هو عليه؟ و علي مدار التاريخ الانساني بحث الناس في اجابات هذه الاسئلة ، في الدين و الفلسفة و العلوم . لكنهم في النهاية يرون انها خارج نطاق الفهم البشري. لكن العديد من هذه الاسئلة صارت جزء من مباحث العلم الحديث و اصبح العلم علي وشك تقديم اجابات لها .
يري علماء الدين ان الكون مصمم تصميما مقصودا من اجل ظهور الحياة البشرية العاقلة ، بينما يرفض كثير من العلماء نظرية التصميم المقصود . بينما يري الكثير من الفلاسفة علي مر التاريخ ان العام الذي ترصده ادوات العلم ليس الا تجسيد سطحي لحقيقة خفية اعمق .
يحتار العلماء في دقة القوانين الفيزيائية التي يدور بموجبها الكون بكل اجزائه ، فالقوانين الفيزيائية تشبه القانون المدني الذي ينظم الحياة الاجتماعية في المجتمع الانساني .
ان حقيقة انصياع العالم المادي للقوانين الرياضية قادت جاليليو الي تلك العبارة الشهيرة التي قال فيها : " ان كتاب الطبيعة العظيمة يمكن قراءته فقط بواسطة من يعرفون اللغة التي كتب بها ، و هذه اللغة هي الرياضيات ."
الكتاب و من خلال قائمة محتواه يتكون من 350 صفحة الا ان النسخة المتوافرة فيها فقط 70 صفحة فاظن ان المتوافر هو المختصر.
لغز ملاءمة الكون للحياة
بول ديفيز
......................
في هذا الكتاب يتحدث المؤلف عن الكون و تفسير ظهور الحياة فيه . فمنذ الاف السنين فكر البشر في العالم المحيط بهم محاولين معرفة اجابة اسئلة الوجود العظيمة : لماذا نحن هنا ؟ كيف بدأ الكون ؟ و كيف سينتهي ؟ و كيف تكوّن العالم ؟ و لماذا هو علي النحو الذي هو عليه؟ و علي مدار التاريخ الانساني بحث الناس في اجابات هذه الاسئلة ، في الدين و الفلسفة و العلوم . لكنهم في النهاية يرون انها خارج نطاق الفهم البشري. لكن العديد من هذه الاسئلة صارت جزء من مباحث العلم الحديث و اصبح العلم علي وشك تقديم اجابات لها .
يري علماء الدين ان الكون مصمم تصميما مقصودا من اجل ظهور الحياة البشرية العاقلة ، بينما يرفض كثير من العلماء نظرية التصميم المقصود . بينما يري الكثير من الفلاسفة علي مر التاريخ ان العام الذي ترصده ادوات العلم ليس الا تجسيد سطحي لحقيقة خفية اعمق .
يحتار العلماء في دقة القوانين الفيزيائية التي يدور بموجبها الكون بكل اجزائه ، فالقوانين الفيزيائية تشبه القانون المدني الذي ينظم الحياة الاجتماعية في المجتمع الانساني .
ان حقيقة انصياع العالم المادي للقوانين الرياضية قادت جاليليو الي تلك العبارة الشهيرة التي قال فيها : " ان كتاب الطبيعة العظيمة يمكن قراءته فقط بواسطة من يعرفون اللغة التي كتب بها ، و هذه اللغة هي الرياضيات ."
الكتاب و من خلال قائمة محتواه يتكون من 350 صفحة الا ان النسخة المتوافرة فيها فقط 70 صفحة فاظن ان المتوافر هو المختصر.
August 28, 2007
This is a very solid review of the different ideas that have been put forward as to how the universe became so well suited for life. Davies's goal is a model in which life is central to the existence of the universe, not just something extra that happened to appear.
For me the best part was learning about all of the multiple-universe theories that have popped up, and he gives them a fair shot. There's some study of creationism, and some string theory.
In the end he proposes something bold: That the existence of life, and especially of "observers" (basically scientists) is woven into the fabric of creation from the beginning, and even that observers now might be affecting the past.
Unfortunately he doesn't have much to back this assertion up, he's more just throwing it out there, but that's how some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs have come.
For me the best part was learning about all of the multiple-universe theories that have popped up, and he gives them a fair shot. There's some study of creationism, and some string theory.
In the end he proposes something bold: That the existence of life, and especially of "observers" (basically scientists) is woven into the fabric of creation from the beginning, and even that observers now might be affecting the past.
Unfortunately he doesn't have much to back this assertion up, he's more just throwing it out there, but that's how some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs have come.
June 4, 2014
بول ديفيز كان طرحه محايد، الكتاب باختصار سيضع لك التفسيرات النهائية للكون التي يعتنقها العلماء والمتدينين والفلاسفة، ثم في نهاية المطاف يحدد الكاتب التفسير المناسب من وجهة نظره للغز ملائمة الكون للحياة، وقد كان قاب قوسين أو أدنى من تفسير "التصميم الذكي" إلا أنه يرى أن العلة الغائية ليست منهجا علميا صارما في التعاطي مع المشكلات لأنها تفترض وجود غاية مسبقة يسير إليها الكون وهو ما يخالف المنهج العلمي -لأنه يبتر العلة بمعلولها "المادي"- ونظرياته كالداروينية مثلا التي تنكر الغائية وتعتنق التفسير الطبيعي "الانتخاب الطبيعي" كعملية عشوائية بلا هدف.
بشكل عام الكتاب جيد بغض النظر عن آراء الكاتب، لكنك ستندهش أيضا إذا كنت متمرس في الفلسفة من الضعف الفلسفي للعلماء فهم يسألون أسئلة عفا عليها الزمن بل وغير منطقية في الغالب وإجاباتها أغرقت ألوف الكتب والصحف، وستندهش من كيف أنهم قد تركوا التفكير الفلسفي العقلي الرصين وركنوا إلى خيالات علمية كالتي في الروايات والأفلام ليس لها أساس في الوجود.
بشكل عام الكتاب جيد بغض النظر عن آراء الكاتب، لكنك ستندهش أيضا إذا كنت متمرس في الفلسفة من الضعف الفلسفي للعلماء فهم يسألون أسئلة عفا عليها الزمن بل وغير منطقية في الغالب وإجاباتها أغرقت ألوف الكتب والصحف، وستندهش من كيف أنهم قد تركوا التفكير الفلسفي العقلي الرصين وركنوا إلى خيالات علمية كالتي في الروايات والأفلام ليس لها أساس في الوجود.
Read
June 18, 2014كتاب مفيد ومسلي حقا اصبح من الان فصاعدا من الكتب المفضلة لدي لانه يطرح الاراء بموضوعية وحيادية حول علة الوجود ونشأة الكون (الانفجار العظيم) ومصيره مستقبلا ويتحدث ايضا عن نظرية كل شئ وعن فكرة الاكوان المتعددة التي تحاول تفسير كيف بدأ الكون وكيف اصبح مناسب للحياة كما هو عليه الان .والكتاب بالرغم من كل ما يقدمه من معلومات لكنه يطرح تساؤلات اكثر مما يطرح اجوبة حول هذه المواضيع الشائكة وفي الفصول النهائية نلاحظ ان الكاتب يقوم بطرح ارائه الشخصية بالنسبة لفكرة الكون المفسر لذاته الذي برائيه لا يصطدم بمعضلة برج السلاحف اللانهائية وبذلك يتلافى مشكلة العلة الاولى لنشأة الكون ...فكرة ذكية ولكنها ليست علمية لانها تحوي على نكهة من الغائية اذا صح التعبير حيث يتحدث الى ان الكون مقدر له ان يأتي بالحياة والمراقبين .وبما ان الكون يفسر ذاته بذاته اذا من الضروري ان يطور كائنات قادرة على تفسيره !!
August 10, 2008
This book starts out as a typical sort of physics review; it's engaging enough, but nothing too special. Stick with it though, because the strange philosophical ideas really kick in after about the 100th page. Davies lists various possibilities for where our universe began and how it might fit into a larger scheme, each one more fantastical to common understanding and thought than the last. These ideas aren't really, strictly, scientific, although reason is an important part of the thinking in this book. At least for me, I have little place within my life to place these ideas, other than as cool mind games. Great book for people who like to think on a grand scale.
December 3, 2010
This asks several of the big questions such as why the universe is hospitable to life.
Of course that is a bit of a misnomer, a more accurate way to put it is that, although the universe is almost entirely hostile to life, the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow life to develop in those places where conditions are just right.
On the heels of this, they just discovered terrestrial organisms that use arsenic in their DNA. Perhaps it is surprising that the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow the type of life we know to develop, but that there are many unknown ways that life can exist of which we are not aware.
Of course that is a bit of a misnomer, a more accurate way to put it is that, although the universe is almost entirely hostile to life, the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow life to develop in those places where conditions are just right.
On the heels of this, they just discovered terrestrial organisms that use arsenic in their DNA. Perhaps it is surprising that the laws of physics are very finely tuned to allow the type of life we know to develop, but that there are many unknown ways that life can exist of which we are not aware.
December 6, 2007
Very very interesting stuff. The first half of the book is sometimes hard going as it involves discussions on string theory, super symmetry and other such difficult to digest science. Luckily it is not essential you understand it 100% before getting to the good stuff in the second half of the book which is basically a discussion of the latest arguments for and against the various forms of anthropic principle, and why the universe is built in such a way that life can exist. Some of the ideas are freakin mind boggling to say the least. Well worth a read.
April 5, 2016
في هذا الكتاب حاول الكاتب أن يعالج مسألة بدء الكون وماوصل إليه العلم في هذا المجال
وقد حاول الاجابة فيه على الاسئلة التي فكر فيها البشر لألاف السنين والمتعلقة بالوجود:
لماذا نحن هنا؟ كيف بدأ الكون؟ كيف سينتهي ؟ كيف تكوّن العالم ؟ ولماذا هو على النحو الذي هو عليه ؟
اي حاول أن يعالج أسئلة الوجود الصعبة بدون الأخذ بطرق الاستكشاف الأخرى مثل التصوف أو التنوير الروحي أو الالهام الناتج عن الخبرات الدينية..
وذكر فيه الكاتب عدّة نظريات واكتشافات في هذا المجال والتي ارتبطت مع تطور علوم الفلك وعلوم الفيزياء الكمية وربطها مع علم الهندسة اللااقليدية
وقد حاول الاجابة فيه على الاسئلة التي فكر فيها البشر لألاف السنين والمتعلقة بالوجود:
لماذا نحن هنا؟ كيف بدأ الكون؟ كيف سينتهي ؟ كيف تكوّن العالم ؟ ولماذا هو على النحو الذي هو عليه ؟
اي حاول أن يعالج أسئلة الوجود الصعبة بدون الأخذ بطرق الاستكشاف الأخرى مثل التصوف أو التنوير الروحي أو الالهام الناتج عن الخبرات الدينية..
وذكر فيه الكاتب عدّة نظريات واكتشافات في هذا المجال والتي ارتبطت مع تطور علوم الفلك وعلوم الفيزياء الكمية وربطها مع علم الهندسة اللااقليدية
July 23, 2024
A really good book by physicist Paul Davies. Davies explores why our universe is just right for life and the evidence seems compelling. As a Christian, the fine tuning of the laws of nature and the free parameters look to me like strong evidence for God. While Davies seems to remain agnostic in this book and devotes lots of pages to alternative explanations within physics, astronomy, and cosmology, I think both religious and non-religious people will enjoy the book and have to ponder why things are just right.
July 8, 2007
If you are like me and read books about quantum mechanics for fun, this is a good book to read. While the book is supposed to be non-technical, you may need to pop back to a reference book once in a while. And do make certain to look at the end notes as you come up upon them, they can at times clarify items.
Read
August 10, 2011If you want to read a few hundred pages about the future of the universe, this is it. Readable, though you need some background in physics to smoothly follow some of the concepts. It tackles the big questions of everything, while at the same time saying that we will never be around to witness it. Stimulating food for deep thought...
July 29, 2016
A very good book to read. although I am not a specialist I was able to understand almost everything in it.
However, it's shocking to see such disconcertion in scientists society.. tons of questions without answers. It looks like science is perfect in daily life and helpless when facing the big questions about existence -at least hitherto-.
However, it's shocking to see such disconcertion in scientists society.. tons of questions without answers. It looks like science is perfect in daily life and helpless when facing the big questions about existence -at least hitherto-.
February 6, 2008
The first three quarters of the book is largely dedicated to a review of theoretical cosmology as it stands today. If for nothing else I can recommend it on this basis. He gets to the meat of his theory in the last couple of chapters, which seemed a bit of a short treatment.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews