‫بنیانی علمی برای جهانی عقلانی

by Paul C.W. Davies, محمدابراهیم محجوب (Translator)

Throughout history, humans have dreamed of knowing the reason for the existence of the universe. In The Mind of God, physicist Paul Davies explores whether modern science can provide the key that will unlock this last secret. In his quest for an ultimate explanation, Davies reexamines the great questions that have preoccupied humankind for millennia, and in the process explores, among other topics, the origin and evolution of the cosmos, the nature of life and consciousness, and the claim that our universe is a kind of gigantic computer. Charting the ways in which the theories of such scientists as Newton, Einstein, and more recently Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman have altered our conception of the physical universe. Davies puts these scientists' discoveries into context with the writings of philosophers such as Plato. Descartes, Hume, and Kant. His startling conclusion is that the universe is "no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." By the means of science, we can truly see into the mind of God.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Physics, Spirituality, Theology

412 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Paul 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.

Reviews

[Amin · Rating 4 out of 5]

دو نکته درباب کتاب و دو نکته در مورد ترجمه

کتاب:
یک - خاصیت کتاب‌هایی از این دست که مرزهای علم را در منشا عالم و پیشرفت‌های کیهان‌شناسی و فیزیک نوین جستجو می‌کنند و هر روز هم به تعدادشان افزوده می‌شود، این است که در نهایت به مرزهایی فراتر از علم وارد می‌شوند و اغلب پا به قلمرو عرفان و ادیان هم می‌گذارند. اما تفاوت‌شان در القای حس نهایی و اثرگذار به مخاطب است که آیا پارا از گلیم خودفراتر نهاده و به ورطه تعمیم به عرصه‌هایی که تخصصی در آن ندارند افتاده‌اند، یا هوشمندی و ظرافت کافی به خرج داده‌اند تا مرز دانش خود و حوزه دیگر را روشن کنند و فرضیاتی اولیه امّا قابل تامل ارائه دهند. این کتاب بعد از چهارصد صفحه حرف از مرزهای علم وقتی حرف از روش علمی و عقلانی در پاسخ به سوالات غایی و منشا فلسفی عالم میزند، ادعا میکند که نتیجه گیری در این مسیر به سلیقه شخصی دانشمند برمیگردد. اما از طرفی ادعای معرفت های جایگزین و سیر و سلوک عارفانه را به عنوان روشی بی واسطه مطرح میکند که از لحاظ روش شناختی در مرز بین شناخت علمی و مجهولات آن قرار میگیرد و از این لحاظ قابل تامل است

دو - پیچیدگی یا مشکل اصلی هنگام مطالعه و نقد چنین کتبی برای من در این است که به لحاظ علمی نیاز به غور در جزییات فراوان و آشنایی فراتر از مطالب کتاب برای درک نظریه ها و پیوندشان و مهمتر از همه برای اثبات صحت نتیجه گیری هایشان وجود دارد، بنابراین، دانشی در سطح خود نویسنده برای وارد شدن به سطح نقد علمی و منطقی لازم است و برای مخاطبی همچو من راهی جز تامل در نتیجه های کلی و مقایسه با سایر اندیشه‌ها و فرضیه‌های آموخته وجود ندارد

ترجمه:
یک - با اینکه این ترجمه قابل قبول بود و مسلما زحمت زیادی برای آن کشیده شده بود، اما هرچقدر هم که ترجمه خوب باشد، مطالعه چنین متنی با اصطلاحات علمی فراوان و ارتباطات منطقی و پیچیده به زبانی جز زبان اصلی شاید طاقت فرساتر از مطالعه متن اصلی باشد و خواننده ای که مخصوصا قبلا مطالعاتی در این زمینه داشته ناگزیر است از رجوع به پاورقی یا حتی متن اصلی برای فرار از سردرگمی و یافتن وازه های اصلی پذیرفته شده تر

دو - محدودیت ترجمه گاه ضرری بزرگ برای جامعه بهمراه دارد. چنین اثری که در مرزهای علم خود حرکت میکند و هر سال دامنه دانش تولید شده اش چه بسا به اندازه کل دانش گذشته بوده، بعد از حدود بیست سال به دست مخاطب فارسی زبان میرسد تا دشواری درک از قابل قبول بودن یا پاسخ های احتمالی به سوالاتی که بیست سال پیش مطرح شده اند را نیز برای فهم بیشتر به جان بخرد

[Manny · Rating 2 out of 5]

Celebrity Death Match Special: The Mind of God versus Le Petit Prince

The next asteroid the Little Prince came to was inhabited by a Pop Scientist. He was just putting the finishing touches to a large book.

"Good morning!" said the Little Prince. "I see you have written a book. Maybe you could tell me what it is about?"

"It is called The Mind of God," said the Pop Scientist. "It is about how wonderful the world is, and what we can learn from that about the Person who may or may not have made it."

"I enjoyed Signor Dante's book very much," said the little Prince. "Is yours similar?"

"Not really," said the Pop Scientist.

"Then what is it like?" asked the Little Prince.

"Well," said the Pop Scientist. "I consider the fine tuning of the physical constants and the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics as an explanatory mechanism. That surely tells us something important. Though one must also consider the consequences of Gödel's Theorem. And I often use Conway's Game of Life as an illustrative example."

"I said something like that to God the last time I met Him," said the Little Prince.

"Really?" said the Pop Scientist. "And what did God reply?"

"He just laughed," said the Little Prince. "And then I woke up."

"I do not think you understand anything about these matters!" said the Pop Scientist angrily.

"You are quite right," said the Little Prince. "But all the same, I believe I understand them about as well as you do. Now I must be going."

Another one! he said to himself as he saw the asteroid getting smaller behind him. Yes, grown-ups are very, very, very strange.

[Peiman E iran · Rating 1 out of 5]

دوستانِ گرانقدر، تنها میتوان گفت: افسوس... افسوس برایِ آن نویسندگان و مترجمان و انتشاراتی که با تغییرِ عنوان و یا با طرحِ چنین عنوانهایی قصدِ فریبِ خواننده و فروشِ کتابشان را دارند... آیا عنوانِ اصلیِ کتاب، این عنوانیست که مترجم نوشته است؟؟!!!؟؟ آگاه باشید که پولتان را خرجِ چنین خزعبلات و موهوماتی نکنید
---------------------------------------------
عزیزانم، این کتابِ مسخره قرار نیست مبلٌغِ خردگرایی و عقلانیت باشد.. هرچه توانسته از این کتاب و آن کتاب، کپی برداری نموده و پس از آن با تحریف و تغییر به اصطلاح نشخوار کرده است.. آنهم هردمبیل و بی سامان
*****
نویسنده، پرسش ها را با پرسشی دوباره، پاسخ داده است و تنها با روشهایِ مغالطه به نوشتنِ ادامه داده است.... این نویسندۀ بیخرد، حاضر نیست قبول کند که موهوماتِ دینی و مذهبی و موجودی ناپیدا همچون خدا، غیرعقلانی میباشد... میگوید اگر چیزهایی مثلِ "وحی" به عقل و دانش و خردِ انسانی جور در نمی آید، باید عقل را کنار گذاشت و مسائلی اینچنینی همچون وحی و معجزه را قبول کرد!!!! ببینید چقدر ساده این بیشعورها صورت مسئله را پاک میکنند... خودش میداند که تکامل در آفرینش ثابت شده است، ولی بازهم از داستانِ احمقانه و موهومِ آفرینش در کتبِ به اصطلاح مقدسِ ادیانِ سامی، سخن میگوید... میداند که عمرِ زمین و جهان، میلیاردها سال است، ولی بازهم مجبور است که آنچه بر پیامبرانش به صورتِ خزعبلاتی همچون "وحی" نازل شده است را بپذیرد و آن دروغ ها را باور کرده و چرت و پرتهایی همچون عمرِ زمین که در ادیان 6 تا 7 هزار سال بوده است را با طرحِ پرسشهایِ مسخره و ابلهانه به حلقومِ خواننده فرو کند... و آخر هم به این نتیجه برسد که شاید عمرِ دنیا 6 هزار سال باشد!!!! تمامی این موارد را با عنوانِ این کتاب و خردِ خویش بسنجید... آیا این موهوماتِ دینی و مذهبی، ربطی به بنیان علمی و جهان عقلانی دارد؟ جهان عقلانی را چه به جهانِ ادیان و موهوماتِ اینچنینی!!! خرد و دانش را چه به اعتقاداتِ دینی و مذهبی؟؟؟ در پایان بازهم تکرار میکنم: عزیزانِ من، هیچگاه فریبِ عنوانِ کتابهایی که در ایران چاپ میشود را نخورید
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ همیشه آگاه، مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[notgettingenough · Rating 2 out of 5]

I must confess, this is the most monumentally unfair review I have ever written. But how could I resist?

[Peter Lobell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Davies is a working physicist who believes that the universe is not an accident, that the laws science has discovered have a special form that links the human mind with the physical world. You may agree or disagree, but this book will make you think. Recommended to anyone who thinks about science and religion, either together or separately.

[Maryam · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب شامل 9 فصل است. عقل و عقیده-آیاجهان می تواند خودش را بیافریند؟-قوانین طبیعت چیست؟-ریاضیات و واقعیت-جهان های واقعی و جهان های مجازی-راز ریاضی-چرا جهان چنین است که هست؟-جهان صانع-رمز و راز در ژرفنای جهان - از فصل های این کتاب است. کتاب به سادگی و با ترجمه ای خوب نوشته شده است

[Mohammad Kamelan · Rating 5 out of 5]

اول که شروع به خوندن کتاب کردم اصلا فکر نمی‌کردم به این خوبی بتونه تمام بحث‌های مطرح شده رو جمع کنه؛ اما نویسنده به روی فرصت جمع بندی خوبی انجام میده.
حتما اگه فرصت پیش بیاد دوباره می‌خونمش.

[Abolfazl · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب برای من برخی قسمت هاش گنگ بود چون نیاز به آشنایی با فیزیک دارد. شاید بشه گفت تنها چیزی که قطعیت دارد، عدم قطعیت است که در سرتاسر کتاب دیده می شود.
ما را به جز خیالت، فکری دگر نباشد
در هیچ سر خیالی، زین خوبتر نباشد
کی شبروان کویت آرند ره به سویت
عکسی ز شمع رویت، تا راهبر نباشد

[Stephanie H · Rating 2 out of 5]

Once upon a time, I thought Paul Davies was awesome. I read "About Time" for a Physics for Poets and Philosophers class and it was so accessible and fantastic. I thought all his books would be fantastic, but this was lackluster.

Paul Davies makes it perfectly clear that he's a deist -- a believer in God the watchmaker or God the ultimate architect. He's not as pushy about his beliefs like Dawkins is in his books, but he is very very redundant. 200 pages later, we've covered the randomness of quarks, the beauty of pi, the idea of parallel universes and the necessity of the universe being just right for life. Yet this is a book that could have been written in a lot fewer pages.

He doesn't try to introduce any universal theory, of everything, but states purely that the existence of everything is too complex for the mere random arrangement of quarks. It was a good idea, but poorly executed.

[Mohammad Mohsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

أول سؤال تبادر إلى ذهنى بعد الإنتهاء من الكتاب؛ هل أقتربت بالفعل من الله بعد قراءتى لهذا الكتاب؟ وبعد تفكّر ومراجعة كانت الإجابة نعم؛ أكثر من أى وقت مضى.
بول دافيز عالم كوزمولوجى وفيزياء نظرية بريطانى يُعتبر واحدًا من أشهر الربوبيين فى المجتمع العلمى؛ وفى رأيى يُعتبر هذا الكتاب مع كتابيه الآخرين "أصل الحياة" و"الله والفيزياء الحديثة" ملخص نظرته للكون والحياة والوجود.
بول دافيز سيطوف بك فى هذا الكتاب فى رحلة علمية وفلسفية عميقة تتناول مجموعة كبيرة من أعقد المسائل وأكثرها غموضًا والتى نجح دافيز بشكل باهر فى معالجتها بحيادية وموضوعية يُحسد عليها، ولن أزعم أن الكتاب سيعطيك أى إجابات حاسمة أو تفسيرات نهائية لأى مسألة قيد البحث خاصة إنه يبحث أمورًا شديدة الجدل يستحيل حسمها أبدًا بالعقل أو بالعلم رغم انشغال أعظم العقول والأذهان بها طوال قرون طويلة لكنه حتمًا سيضئ الطريق لمن أراد التجرد والموضوعية.
الكتاب رغم صفحاته البالغ عددها 258 صفحة إلا إنه ليس من اليسير الانتهاء منه فى وقت قصير نظرًا لدسامة المحتوى وغزارة الأفكار التى استدعت توقفي أكثر من مرة من أجل التدبر والبحث .. مسائل وأفكار كانت بحاجة إلى كتاب يفوقه أضعافًا من حيث الحجم كى تأخذ حقها من البحث والنقاش ولكنه على أية حال يصلح كمقدمة قوية لقراءات أخرى أكثر عمقًا وتخصصًا لكل راغب فى الاستزادة.
الكتاب يستلزم معرفة أولية جيدة بأسس الفيزياء النظرية والفلسفة والكوزمولوجى وإلا سيكون عديم الفائدة للقارئ.
نادرًا ما أمنح النجوم الخمسة لأى كتاب ولكن هذا الكتاب -الذى لم يعيبه سوى تصدير المُراجع ومقدمة المُترجم- يستحقها عن جدارة ودون تردد.

[Christopher Sutch · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a great argument for the contention that physicists should not write books concerned with metaphysics. Davies, like others in his profession, normally follows empirical reasoning and evidence...EXCEPT in his thinking about "religion," "god," and the destiny of humanity. In those instances, his reasoning becomes trite and circular. Just because some scientists wish that humanity was not just a random event in the universe doesn't mean that there must be a grand destiny for us; that merely replicates, on a large scale, the logical shortcomings the anthropic principle. Still, there are some very interesting ideas to play with here, so long as one avoids the easy temptation toward positivism (another logical error exhibited by physicists with a metaphysical bent).

[WarpDrive · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very enjoyable, interesting and rewarding book. The author is not afraid to tackle the most fundamental questions about the Universe, science/mathematics, consciousness and their fascinating mutual inter-relationships. And he does it in a deep but accessible way, combining a scientific approach/overview with interesting philosophical insights. He is one of the few scientists who are not afraid to be politically incorrect in his positions, and who honestly explores the deep ontological and epistemological questions that have confronted humankind since the ancient Greeks - and he does it approaching the issues from several perspectives, coming to conclusions/insights with which I mostly strongly agree. Excellent book.

[Bekhradaa · Rating 4 out of 5]

۵۹
پرسش های غایی همواره در فراسوی دامنه علم تجربی می افتند. آیا این بدان معناست که پرسش های به راستی ژرف درباره وجود پاسخ دادنی نیستند؟ ... شاید رسیدن به ژرفنای موضوع برای آدمیزاد بیچاره ناممکن است. شاید همواره باید رازی در انتهای کیهان باقی بماند. ولی به نظر میرسد ارزش دارد مسیر پرسشگری عقلانی را تا انتها دنبال کنیم. حتی اگر برسیم به دلیلی که ثابت کند زنجیره استنتاج ها غیرقابل تکمیل است باز هم ارزش دارد

۵۸
دلبستگی به چیزی که به زبانی نه چندان دقیق مواجهه علم و مذهب مینامیم به میزان زیادی بار دیگر سربرآورده است که می توان دو صورت متمایز برای آن قائل شد. یکی گفتمان ژرفی که میان دانشمندان، فیلسوفان و الهیون بر سر مفهوم آفرینش و مباحث مربوطه پدید آمده است؛ دیگری روی آوردن فزاینده مردم به اندیشه عرفانی و فلسفه شرق که به ادعای برخی شارحان پیوندی ژرف و پرمعنا با فیزیک پایه دارد

[SJ L · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished a book that required my full attention and challenged many of the assumptions I had about a divide between god and science. This book I would say is one of the most challenging science slash philosophy book I have completed, but one of the most rewarding. What this book proposes is that science is a limited tool but one that can allow us to gather evidence of god. This is suggested by the mysteries that lie outside the scientific realm (mainly the existence of the laws of physics and consciousness) and the limitations of science and mathematical reasoning. Even though these are two of the chief ways of discovering the truth, they have their limitations, which before reading this book I did not fully understand. This book also proposes a kind of reverential or mystical awe of the world that is furthered through an understanding in science. Therefore it avoids many of the pitfalls of conventional religion and instead simply revers god, the absolute, the infinite, call it what you well. That this book is able to combine science and mysticism though a detailed and concise review of contemporary physics sets it apart as something special.
Science, though beautiful, is limited. It is limited primarily because it uses inductive reasoning, which at best can say something is very likely to happen but never certain. It is further limited because it assumes the world is rational, when there very well may certain questions that lie outside the scope of its reach or do not conform with our assumption of rationality. Mathematics faces similar problems. Both are invaluable, but I did not understand their limitations or the leaps of faith required in following either field.
Another strong aspect of this book is that it does not cling to any one possible explanation or route of reasoning. Instead it proposes many different theories that support its hypothesis of an ordered yet potentially evolving universe. It leaves room for indeterminism and becoming at the individual and even universal scale. In order to support these claims, the author uses many arguments. The bulk of them are from science, explaining the laws of physics, the connection between matter and energy, singularity at the moment of the big bang, quantum mechanics, the elegance of mathematical formulas, the existence of consciousness and others, but he also strays into other somewhat philosophical justifications including the existence of beauty, the potential power of mysticism, and a somewhat Platonic realm of existence. For me, the Platonic argument rang very hollow (as did his explanation of game theory or computer simulation universes), but because that was only one of many strands of evidence employed, I could easily disagree with him in that specific area but agree with him overall. This is a strength of the book, it presents many different options and leaves room for disagreement. It is not limited by a dogma it must defend, but rather open to many different ideas.
One of the most beautiful parts of the book involves a discussion of “existence is this paradoxical conjunction of begin and becoming.” While I usually think of this on a philosophical level and interpret it simply on the realm of people and other animate objects, Davies extends the idea of being and becoming to the universe itself. He calls this process theory, and he says that the universe may in fact be evolving and changing in an indeterministic way much like the individuals who inhabit and actively participate in this change. It “asserts the primacy of becoming over being” 184. That’s a mind blowing idea. Interestingly enough, the idea of a timeless god juxtaposed with a changing physical universe is full of ideological problems, which Acquinas and Augustine among others tried to reconcile. Davie’s theory of an evolving universe that is simply a part of god avoids these pitfalls.
It may also be helpful to describe the three basic notions of god that exist – deism, theism, and pantheism. Deism is “belief in a divine being who starts the universe off and then ‘sits back’ to watch event unfold, taking no direct part in subsequent affairs.” (all these quotes will be from page 43) Secondly comes theism “belief in a god is who creator of the universe, but who also remains directly involved in the day-to-day running of the world, between creator and creature.” Finally comes pantheism where “no such separation is made between god and the physical universe.” I feel myself most comfortably in the last camp, due to the presence of god that I see in others and the physical world. I think Davies is also in this camp, though he may attribute a bit of the watchmaker theist god in terms of the evolving universe. That I can’t quite pin down what he believes in points to the author’s fairness in presenting different ideas without advocating his own at the expense of another.
Perhaps the main argument Davies uses, and I would say rather brilliantly, is that he doesn’t use matter as his main piece of evidence, but rather the existence of overarching physical laws as evidence as to god’s hand in the universe. “[According to Stephen Hawking] The universe of space-time is internally consistent and self-contained. Its existence does not require anything outside of it; specifically, no prime mover is needed…Given the laws of physics, the universe can, so to speak, take care of itself, including its own creation. But where to do these laws come from? Must we, in turn, find an explanation for them?” 68. While most contemporary scientists are content to ignore wondering about the origins of these laws (one could say they make a leap of faith in this area), Davies explores this subject brilliantly. For Davies, these laws are godlike. They are universal, perfect, absolute, omnipotent, and eternal. Isn’t it funny that these are attributes religions often give to their gods? I think this is one of the strongest and most compelling points of the book, scientific laws are clues of god that we can glimpse and study as they are imbedded in the universe.
Equally fascinating is how Davies clearly values science and math and yet recognizes their limitations and ascribes them a level of uncertainty due to quantum mechanics. I had no idea that there are hosts of unsolvable problems and uncomputable numbers in mathematics, or the connection of uncertainty in quantum mechanics to both mathematics and science. “Underlying the complexity of nature is the simplicity of physics” 135, what a beautiful sentence, and what a deeper mystery it points to. Through science we discover the world is simultaneously algorithmically compressible and open to organized complexity, which allows us to be in deterministically open to creating our own path. So cool.
What is ultimately beautiful about this book is it admits that human reasoning and the scientific method may not be enough to answer all our questions, in particular the ultimate questions or metaphysical questions. However, it only arrives at this conclusion after a careful study of science, not just a casual dismissal. This is an author who thoroughly understands science, and does a good job of communicating that eloquence to the reader. This is also an author who understands the limitations of science and the leaps of faith one takes while being a follower of science. I guess I’m proud to consider myself in the same camp as Davies, a student of science and a happy participant in this cosmic mystery that is god’s dream. A damn good book.

Quotes
“There remains that odd problem about the end of the explanatory chain [achieved by reductionism]. However successful our scientific explanations may be, they always have certain starting assumptions built in…sooner or later we all have to accept something as given, whether it is god, or logic, or a set of laws, or some other foundation for existence. Thus ‘ultimate’ questions will always lie beyond the scope of empirical science as it is usually defined.” 15
“Far from exposing human being as incidental products of blind physical forces, science suggests that the existence of conscious organisms is a fundamental feature of the universe. We have been written into the laws of nature in a deep and, I believe, meaningful way…Science is a noble and enriching quest that helps us to make sense of the world in an objective and methodical manner. It does not deny a meaning behind existence. On the contrary.” 21
“This cosmic order is underpinned by definite mathematical laws that interweave each other to form a subtle and harmonious unity.” 21
“Science is founded on the hope that the world is rational in all its observable aspects. It is possible that there may be some facets of reality which lie beyond the power of human reasoning.” 24
“Thinking is a process. Being is a state. When I think, my mental state changes with time. But the ‘me’ to which the mental state refers remains the same. This is probably the oldest metaphysical problem in the book…Through our own selves constitute our primary experience, we also perceive an external world, and we project onto that world the same paradoxical conjunction of process and being, of the temporal and the atemporal. On the one hand, the world continues to exist; on the other hand, it changes...Superimposed on this backdrop of being in continual change. Things happen. The present fades into the past, and the future ‘comes into being’: the phenomenon of be-coming. What we call ‘existence’ is this paradoxical conjunction of begin and becoming.” 34
“Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal…this unpredicatablitiy implies that the microworld is indeterministic: to use Einstein’s picturesque phraseology, god plays dice with the universe…by weakening the link between cause and effect, quantum mechanics provides a subtle way for us to circumvent the origin of the universe problem.” 61
“The essence of the dispute is whether one is simply to accept the explosive appearance of the universe as a bald, unexplained fact – something belonging to the ‘that’s-that’ category – or to seek some more satisfying explanation.” 60
“[According to Stephen Hawking] The universe of space-time is internally consistent and self-contained. Its existence does not require anything outside of it; specifically, no prime mover is needed…Given the laws of physics, the universe can, so to speak, take care of itself, including its own creation. But where to do these laws come from? Must we, in turn, find an explanation for them?” 68.
“The existence of regularities in nature is an objective mathematical fact. On the other hand, the statements called laws that are found in textbooks clearly are human inventions, but inventions designed to reflect, albeit imperfectly, actually existing properties of nature. Without this assumption that the regularities are real, science is reduced to a meaningless charade.” 81
“No one who is closed off from mathematics can ever grasp the full significance of the natural order that is woven so deeply into the fabric of physical reality.” 93
“Is it not a miracle that the universe is so constructed that such a simple abstraction as number is possible?” 108
It appears as if there is a kind of randomness or uncertainty (dare I call it ‘free will’) built into the Life universe, as indeed there is in the real universe, due to the restrictions of logic itself, as soon as systems become complex enough to engage in self-reference. 115
The popular image of mathematics as a collection of precise facts, linked together by well-defined logical paths, is revealed to be false. There is randomness and hence uncertainty in mathematics, just as there is in physics. 133
The world is ordered both in the sense of being algorithmically compressible, and in the sense of having depth. The order of the cosmos is more than mere regimented regularity, it is also organized complexity, and it is from the latter that the universe derives its openness and permits the existence of human beings with free will. 139
‘The book of nature,’ opined Galileo, ‘is written in mathematical language.’ Why this should be so is one of the great mysteries of the universe…There are two broadly opposed schools of thought concerning its character. The first of these holds that mathematics is purely a human invention, the second is that it has an independent existence. 141
If beauty is more than mere biology at work, if our aesthetic appreciation stems from contact with something firmer and more pervasive, then it is surely a fact of major significance that the fundamental laws of the universe seem to reflect this ‘something.’ 176
Process though is an attempt to view the world not as a collection of objects, or even as a set of events, but as a process with a definitive directionality. The flux of time thus plays a key role in process philosophy, which asserts the primacy of becoming over being…process philosophy stresses the openness and indeterminism of nature. The future is not implicit in the present. 181
Is this not to admit an element of irrationality into the world? Einstein thought so (“God does not play dice with the universe!”). This was why he could never accept that quantum mechanics is another complete description of reality. But one man’s irrationality is another person’s creativity. And there is a difference between stochasticity and anarchy. The development of new forms and systems is subject to general principles of organization that guide and encourage, rather than compel, matter and energy to develop along certain predetermined pathways of evolution…One might say there is order in disorder. Even chaos can possess statistical regularities. 192
The world contains individual objects and systems, but they are structured such that, taken together, they form a unified and consistent whole…The life cycle of stars provide just one example of the ingenious and seemingly contrived way in which the large-scale and small-scale aspects of physics are closely intertwined to produce complex variety in nature. 197
All three of the above arguments [regarding the existence of the universe] are founded on the assumption of human rationality: that it is legitimate to seek ‘explanations’ for things, and that we truly understand something only when it is ‘explained.’ Yet it has to be admitted that our concept of rational explanation probably derives from our observations of the world and our evolutionary inheritance. It is clear that this provides adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions? Might it not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd and meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought. 225
[Regarding mystical experiences] the language used to describe these experiences usually reflects the culture of the individual concerned. Western mystics tend to emphasize the personal quality of the presence, often describing themselves as being with someone, usually god, who is different from themselves but with whom a deep bond is felt…Eastern mystics emphasize the wholeness of existence and tend to identify themselves more closely with the presence. 227
According to Rudy Rucker [apparently a guy who trips pretty often] ‘the central teaching of mysticism is this: reality is one. The practice of mysticism consists in finding ways to experience this unity directly. The One has variously been called the good, god, the cosmos, the mind, the void, or (perhaps most neutrally) the absolute. No door in the labyrinthine castle of science opens directly onto the absolute. But if one understands the maze well enough, it is possible to jump out of the system and experience the absolute for oneself. 228
We, who are children of the universe – animated stardust – can nevertheless reflect on the nature of that same universe, even to the extent of glimpsing the rules on which it runs. How we have become linked into this cosmic dimension is a mystery. Yet the linkage cannot be denied. 232

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

۱- «این حقیقت که تعقّل جواب می‌دهد، و «به‌طور نامعقولی» خوب جواب می‌دهد، یکی از بزرگترین رازهای جهان است که من در این کتاب به آن می‌پردازم.»
فصل اول، به طور موجزی بسیاری از چیزهایی را که من در کورس‌های فلسفه و کوانتوم سعی می‌کنم بگویم، به روشنی توضیح داده است. می‌پرسد آیا عقل و استدلال می‌توانند همه‌چیز را توجیه کنند؟ و اگر علم استقرایی و قراردادی است، پس باید دست‌به‌گریبان متافیزیک شویم؟

۲- فصل دوم نگاهی دارد به دیدگاه‌های کیهان‌شناسی درباره‌ی پیدایش جهان، خصوصا نظریات معاصر فیزیکی. (چاپ اول کتاب مربوط به سال ۱۹۹۲ است.)

۳- پاول دیویس معتقد است قوانین فیزیکی جهان، توسط نیوتون و باقی اختراع نشده‌اند و صرفا ساخته‌ی ذهن ما نیستند، بلکه کشف شده‌اند و حقیقی از وضعیت‌های فیزیکی در جهان هستند. استدلالش هم سرشت ریاضیاتی این قوانین است.
اما از طرفی بارها غلط بودن نظریات اثبات شده. پس یقینی به قوانین فیزیک وجود ندارد. (اخیرا کتابی خوانده بودم بنام «جامعه‌شناسی اثبات ریاضی»، که مثل همین کتاب، معتقد است شرایط فرهنگی و تاریخی می‌تواند قوانین علم را به‌کلی متفاوت سازد.)

۴- در فصل چهارم از نسبت ریاضی و واقعیت می‌گوید.

۵- در ادامه می‌پرسد آیا کیهان می‌تواند یک مدل‌ و برنامه‌ی رایانه‌ای باشد؟

۶- درک قوانین فیزیک و ریاضیات، از نظر تکاملی توجیه نمی‌شود. چون مثلا‌ شناخت نشانه‌های ظاهری برای زندگی در جنگل کافی است!

۷- «اگر خدا به‌راستی خود- بسنده است، چنان که اصول موضوعهٔ فهم‌پذیری، او را ملزم می‌دارد، اصلاً چگونه می‌تواند پیش بیاید که او جهانی را بیافریند؟ این کرداری بی‌معنا و دلبخواه می‌شود. از سوی دیگر، اگر خدا به راستی ضروری است و وجودی است که دگرگونی نمی‌پذیرد، چگونه می‌تواند ارادهٔ آزاد داشته باشد؟»

۸- حرف‌هایی که کتاب در مورد باهوش بودن جهان می‌زند، من را تحریک می‌کند که کیهان را با بدن انسان مقایسه کنم. شاید جهان/بدن مکانیسم‌هایی برای دفاع از خودش داشته باشد که خیلی هم پیچیده هستند، اما گاهی گاف می‌دهد؛ بیماری‌های خودایمنی را در نظر بگیرید. یا سپتیسمی که در آن بیشتر از باکتری، واکنش‌های اضافی خود بدن مرگ‌آور هستند. پس از نظر من جهان نه خیلی باهوش است و نه احتمالا بهترین ورژن ممکن!
«دلیل این که این جهان خاص ما مصنوع می‌نماید این است که حیات (و بنابراین، آگاهی) فقط در جهان هایی پا می‌گیرد که مصنوع می‌نمایند. پس شگفت نیست که ما خودمان را در جهانی می‌بینیم که چنین نیک‌بختانه فراخور نیازهای زیست‌مندی است.»

۹- دیویس در فصل آخر این احتمال را بررسی می‌کند که آیا تجربیات عرفانی می‌توانند چیزی درباره‌ی راز دهر به ما بگویند، یا این‌که می‌توان آن‌ها را خوار شمرد.

۳.۵/۵

[Leyla · Rating 5 out of 5]

No matter if you are a deist, atheist, agnostic or whatsoever, just go and read if you have that curiosity beyond. Don't read to decide whether to believe or not, but read to question what you want to believe.

[alireza zarezade · Rating 4 out of 5]

one of the most interesting book i have read, this is about creation and the principle of universe.
discussion about god and his relation to universe.

[Armin Hashemi · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب جالبیه، ولی قدیمی شده. یک مقدار هم خسته‌کننده است.

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

1.) Rövidített összefoglaló:
Én: Te Paul! Szerinted az univerzum kialakulása megfogható a természettudományon belül egyetlen (vagy korlátozott számú) magyarázó tétellel, vagy szükség van Isten létére a magyarázathoz?
Paul Davies: Nos, Pete… Isten tudja …

2.) Hosszított összefoglaló:
Paul Davies arra tesz kísérletet, hogy összefoglalja a világ keletkezésével kapcsolatos eddigi gondolatokat és eredményeket a teológiától a filozófián és a számítógépes mesterséges univerzumokon át egészen a kvantumfizikáig, hogy megtudjuk: van-e határa a megismerésnek. A teológiával meg a filozófiával még elboldogultam, de fel van adva a lecke az írónak, amikor nekem természettudományról értekez. Merthogy egy olyan szám, mint a tíz a mínusz huszonharmadikon, épp annyira része az általam elképzelhető világnak, mint mondjuk Buddha köldökszösze. Amikor Davies elkezdi mondani, hogy „nézzünk egy egyszerű példát. Vegyünk egy elektront, adott spinállandóval…”, akkor engem a zokogás környékez. Úgy érzem, hogy az agyamat egy tésztaszűrőn próbálják meg átgyömöszölni. Miért nem lehet olyan példát hozni, hogy „vegyük mondjuk ezt a kolbászt”, vagy: „itt van ez a két korsó sör” – biztos jobban megérteném. Szóval birkóztam vele, mint Jákób az angyallal. De ennek, gyanítom, nem Davies, hanem az én tudományos előképzetlenségem az oka.

Davies rendszere amúgy lenyűgöző. Az a legszebb benne, hogy képes egyetlen egyenletben felvázolni az olyan abszolút elütő, sőt helyenként egymással vitatkozó emberi tevékenységeket és elgondolásokat, mint a magas matematika, az asztrofizika vagy a vallás. Hiszen mindegyik a végtelent kutatja, csak éppen a módszereik mások. Természetesen tudósunk nem állítja, hogy tudja, melyik közülük a kulcs – ha tudná, akkor alighanem a Marvel univerzumban lenne a helye Thor meg a Vasember mellett. Viszont annyit megkockáztat, hogy ez a világegyetem… ez azért gyanús… Nagyon gyanús…

[Aleksander Prifti · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World" by Paul Davies is an insightful exploration that navigates the intricate relationship between science, philosophy, and spirituality. Davies masterfully elucidates the enigmatic confluence of cosmic order and scientific inquiry, inviting readers on a profound journey through the universe's mysteries. Through lucid prose and cogent reasoning, Davies skillfully connects complex scientific concepts with broader questions about existence, consciousness, and the fundamental nature of reality. He adeptly weaves together diverse disciplines, offering a compelling narrative that challenges conventional thinking while maintaining a reverence for the scientific method. This book serves as a thought-provoking testament to the intricate beauty of the cosmos and the human quest to comprehend its workings.

While some sections may delve deeply into scientific theories, potentially challenging for readers unfamiliar with certain concepts, Davies ensures accessibility by using engaging anecdotes and analogies. His ability to distill complex ideas into understandable frameworks fosters an immersive reading experience, making the book rewarding for both novices and seasoned science enthusiasts alike. "The Mind of God" stands as a captivating testament to the interconnectedness of scientific exploration and the perennial human quest for meaning, leaving readers enriched with a deeper appreciation for the marvels of our universe.

[James Henderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Mind of God by Paul Davies is subtitled The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, it is both a tour and explanation of theories, physical and metaphysical, regarding ultimate causes. Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."

In the preface, Davies explains that he has been interested in ultimate causes since childhood, having annoyed his parents with unending "why's" about everything, with each answer demanding another "why," and usually ending with the reply, "Because God made it that way, and that's that!" Davies' narrative explores: the nature of reason, belief, and metaphysics; theories of the origin of the universe; the laws of nature; the relationship of mathematics to physics; a few arguments for the existence of God; the possibility that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design; and his opinion of the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, that "the search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation is doomed to failure."

[Amir Rajabi · Rating 5 out of 5]

خب کتاب روی لبه روایت تخصصی و همه فهمی حرکت میکنه و خب خیلی جاها خوندنش سخت میشه ، شاید من خودم در واقع دوبار خوندم کتاب رو چون خیلی جاها رو دو یا سه بار خوندم تا متوجه بشم. کار مترجم بنظرم فوق العاده بود و واقعا اقای محجوب ترجمه بی نقصی داشتن بنظرم .
راجع به خود کتاب هم بگم کلی اطلاعات علمی (علم چیست) فوق العاده داره راجع به هستی و شناخت کیهان و در قالب تایم لاین از گذشته تا امروز پیش میاره و بحث میکنه، فقط نمیدونم چرا اخرش اونطوری تموم شد ! با همه این اوصاف با خیال راحت ۵ ستاره میدم چون از کتابای مهم زندگیم بود

[Ali.n · Rating 3 out of 5]

اگر فلسفه، دین و علم را سه جزیره‌ی معرفتی بشر بدانیم، در این کتاب نویسنده انگار روی ساحل جزیره‌ی علم ایستاده و از آن‌جا به دو جزیره‌ی دیگر نگاه می‌کند. "نگاه به مسائل فلسفی و دینی از منظر علم" کار این کتاب است.
نویسنده که فیزیک‌دان است بنابر آخرین یافته‌های علمی (تا سال نشر کتاب، ۱۹۹۲) سعی می‌کند بخشی از "راز دهر" را رازگشایی کند.

مسائلی که در کتاب به آن‌ها پرداخته شده از این سنخ است:
آیا جهان می‌تواند خود را بیافریند؟
قوانین طبیعت چیستند؟
چرا قوانین طبیعت صورت ریاضی دارند؟
چرا جهان چنین است که هست؟
آیا جهان، صنع آفریننده‌ای هوشمند است؟
و...

اصلی‌ترین مشکل من در کتاب، فهم مسائل علمی‌ای بود که نویسنده از آن‌ها نتیجه‌گیری می‌کرد. فکر می‌کنم با شناخت حداقلی از نظریات فیزیک نوین بهتر می‌شود از کتاب بهره برد.

[Jef Sneider · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Davies is really smart. At least he is a lot smarter than I am, or he makes me feel that he is a lot smarter than I am. I am sure that he knows a lot about math and physics. Parts of this book are dense with explanations of mathematical theories and physics that can help us understand the complexity and beautiful simplicity of the universe. Is the universe describable in simple equations like E=((MC) squared) because we like to think in simple terms or because it was designed that way, or maybe because it had to be that way for us to exist to understand it in the first place. Why should the universe even be a place that we can understand at all? Is it because we ourselves are made of the same stuff as the universe and work in a way that gives us an innate ability to think in ways that make the world understandable?

My mother-in-law gave me this book after she finished it. I don't know how she read it. She says she just skimmed over the parts she didn't understand. That could have been a lot of the book.

In any event, I learned less about God and more about physics and math from Davies. My conclusion is that what we have discovered about quantum mechanics and the probabilities that govern subatomic activities contains the clues to all the answers to all our questions about existence. Life seems amazingly improbable, but we are here. Just like the survivor of a catastrophe, many coincidences and fortuitous events had to occur for life to happen. If we were to see it in a movie, we'd find it improbable. But it happens. Life happens, and happened. It almost seems like it had to happen, in retrospect.

The universe is an amazing place and Paul Davies helps us see our improbable place in it. It was fun and challenging to read, and I'll keep looking for the answers to those questions.

[White · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a book on religion. It is a book on science. Where philosophy meets astronomy, you'll find this book. Davies tackles the question of our universe in its evolution, its order and its destruction and the possibility of an intelligence behind it. It is a contemplation of the science-fiction like facts of the universe along with philosophical questions as to the beginning and the guide to its end.

Davies has a savvy way of turning physics into a philosophical debate.

[Aedan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not too bad. Some great insights from what seems to be a spiritual scientist. His writing style tended to lose me and I found myself reading paragraphs several times.

[Ricardo Moreno Mauro · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un libro que mezcla la ciencia, religión y filosofía para explicar porque existe el universo, porque es así y la gra pregunta ¡Necesitamos a Dios para explicar el Universo?

[Siamand Lalisani]

این کتاب با عنوان اصلی «ذهن خدا» نوشته «پائول دیویس» و ترجمه شده توسط استاد گرانقدرم جناب «دکتر محجوب» است. ساختار کتاب چون توسط یک فیزیکدان نوشته شده است از یک شاکله علمی و بسیار پرکشش برخوردار بوده و مطالب دارای انسجام بسیار عالی‌ای هستند. نویسنده سعی کرده که در فصول این کتاب مباحث جذاب فیزیکی همچون نظریات کوانتومی و فیزیک کیهانی رو با مفاهیم عمیق فلسفی همچون پیدایش جهان، وجود خدا و هدف نهایی پیدایش آدمی ترکیب می‌کند. ماحصل این ترکیب نتیجه‌ای جذاب و خواندنی است که لذت مطالعه زیادی رو نصیب خواننده می‌کنه. از جذابترین مباحث طرح شده در این کتاب برای من فصل مربوط به چگونگی پیدایش قوانین فیزیکی و طرح این سوال بود که در صورت قبول بیگ بنگ به عنوان سرآغاز پیدایش هستی، آیا قوانین فیزیکی (همچون قانون جاذبه و الکترومغناطیس و غیره) نیز با بیگ بنگ به وجود آمده‌اند، اگر جواب «آری» است پس چه قانونی بر بیگ بنگ حاکم است و اگر جواب «نه» است، و پس فرض پیدایش هستی از بیگ بنگ به خودی خود می‌تواند اشتباه باشد زیرا قوانینی از قبل در هستی وجود داشته است.
عنوان فرعی این کتاب «بنیانی علمی برای جهان عقلانی» است و دیویس تلاش کرده که علمی‌ترین بنیان برای جهان را به خواننده معرفی کند. خواندن این کتاب خوش‌خوان را به فیزیک‌دوستان و علم‌دوستان پیشنهاد میکنم

[Gwanderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

God is a super computer in the sky. :)

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Turtle trouble?

Paul Davies is perhaps the most prominent of a nouveau species of scientist: the philosopher physicist. Here in The Mind of God he goes all out in an attempt to "trace the logic of scientific rationality back as far as it will go in the search for ultimate answers to the mystery of existence." (p. 223) And yes he runs into "turtle trouble." (You'll recall that the world is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant turtle… And what is the turtle resting on? Another turtle. And what is that turtle resting on? Uh…it's turtles all the way down.)

I think it's fair to say--and this is my belief--that the human mind cannot fully grasp the whole of which it is a part, nor can it see beyond a certain distance, either out into the cosmos or into the very small, instead only to somewhere near the Big Bang, and only tentatively into the future, to the Planck limit perhaps. Clearly the mind of any God worthy of the appellation is far, far beyond our reach. And as for a theory of everything? Well, someday there may be a broken statue in the sand like that of Ozymandias, only this time it won't be that of an emperor drunk with self-importance, but of a humble physicist looking for a TOE.

Davies is a recipient (1995) of the Templeton Prize which is given to people whom the judges think foster human understanding of divine creativity. Typically they like to give it to a scientist who believes in God, although the Rev. Billy Graham and the born-again Charles Colson of Watergate infamy have been recipients. After reading this book, and just from what is in this book, I believe that Davies does believe in God, but in a God that is a bit removed from the personal gods of the major Western religions. (But you might want to Google "Paul Davies" yourself and get a more definitive statement--or not, since what he writes in this book speaks for itself.) He clearly believes in free will (see page 139) and in a universe that could easily be designed. He also believes in "the progressive nature of biological evolution" (p. 183) which is a no-no for most evolutionary biologists, and in something he sometimes calls "the good" or simply "good" (e.g., p 183 and elsewhere). In short Davies is a man straddling two worlds, that of science and religion, who is finding a consilience in philosophy.

Let's look at some of the ideas and discussions in the book, most of which are still viable and fascinating even though the book was first published in 1992.

On the famous, often asked question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" the gist of an answer coming from much of what Davies writes is, "it couldn't be otherwise." From my point of view, the best way to say much the same thing is to recognize that nonbeing has no meaning without being. Of course this subjects the cosmos to the limitations of human logic! But that is what a lot of this book is about, the limits of human logic and human understanding.

Another point nicely made by Davies is that the incompleteness theorems of Godel and the self-referential paradox from Russell strongly suggest that we cannot hope to understand the universe. Those are logical obstacles. A physical one is the problem of getting to the Big Bang as opposed to getting very, very, very close to the Big Bang, which is where we are now and where we are likely to stay. In fact, Davies argues somewhere here that even if we could get to the very instance of the Big Bang that would not explain everything.

Davies is decidedly not a postmodernist. He believes that we discover the laws of the universe. He even sees mathematics as a discovery. However, I think some of the philosophical difficulties in this book would resolve a bit if Davies kept in mind that mathematics is a language, a very precise language with a great grasp but a language that so far as we know is only spoken by human beings. Davies is of the school that finds it surprising that mathematics should be so effective in describing and helping us to order the world. Personally, I am not so surprised since mathematics is part and parcel of the world, as inescapable as the law of gravity. The essence of mathematics is abstraction which is the talent that most clearly separates us from other animals. Mathematic abstraction comes from verbal abstraction, an evolutionary adaptation which allowed us to talk and think concretely about yesterday and tomorrow and things not in our immediate presence.

It appears that Davies believes in God as "a necessary being." He argues that "if"--Davies uses the conditional a lot, perhaps to avoid making the direct statement--"if the universe really has an explanation and it can't explain itself, then it must be explained by something outside itself--e.g., God. But what, then, explains God? This age-old…conundrum is in danger of pitching us into an infinite regress. The only escape, it would seem, is to assume that God can somehow 'explain himself,' which is to say that God is a necessary being…" (p. 177) Personally, I am not so unenamored with the infinite regress. In fact my mind cannot avoid it, despite the "turtles all the way down" parody.

As for marveling at the various "lucky flukes" (Fred Hoyle's term) of physics that allow us to exist in this universe (c.f., the anthropic principle), I want to say that had things been different, there would be no one around to do the marveling--no one around, no marveling--or those doing the marveling would be different from us in such a way as to be the recipients of some other lucky flukes of matter and energy, which they would marvel at.

This is the kind of book--delightful as it is--that makes one understand the need for experimental proof!

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”