h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi everyone,

Does Stephen Hawking make sense to you or is what he says only meant for theorist like himself?

Does the String Theory make sense to you?

Does the Big Bang Theory make sense and if so, in what way?

MAKE SCIENCE MAKE SENSE

The heading implies, and quite rightly so, that science does not make sense or that scientists are not making sense of Life and the Universe in a language we can all understand. In a lot of cases only a mathematical theorist can understand what another theorist is saying and we have no way of verifying their conclusions. The sign of an intelligent person is one that has the ability to communicate what it is he thinks he knows and not shroud it in mystery or try and bamboozle us with science.

As far as I can see, there are branches of science that are not communicating intelligently, or empirically testing their hypothesis scientifically. For instance, in cosmology how does one test and verify the Big Bang theory? For me, the Big Bang theory makes no more sense than does the idea of a magician called God having created the Universe. There is no place in science for hocus-pocus or would be high priests. What are wanted are factual statements that the majority of us can understand and appreciate rather than pronouncements that are beyond most people’s comprehension. For instance, illusory ideas, such as the ‘big bang’ that created everything from which has come the theory of an expanding universe, into what may I ask? Then there are those who talk about ‘universes’ when the word ‘universe’ means everything and also the wacky idea of time travel. What are these people trying to do to us, remove every grain of common sense we have?

A good place to start, I think, would be to abolish mathematical theories altogether and devise a more practical and common sense way of explaining the whys and wherefores of our existence, the Universe and the Nature of everything, something that would communicate more readily to the majority of us who are interested. For example, there are universal principles that apply to every day things; principles that have not been created but have always existed and are intrinsic of a complete and total Universe. It is not possible to place universal principles in any order of priority or importance because as they work in harmony as a single unified whole they are all equally important, in which case it matters not in what order I take them.

I will begin then with the fundamental truth that ‘Energy’ is a universal indestructible substance of the Universe from which everything is manifested. We need to understand that everything is formed out this cosmic energy, which is fundamental to life. There are two forms of energy, inactive and active and it is the active energy that manifests itself in a multiplicity of varying energy-excited forms. Common sense tells me that one cannot explain away this marvel of creation as being some monumental accident or god-magic and therefore I can only conclude that it is as a consequence of an intelligence or mind activity inherent within the energy of the Universe.

Active Mind/Energy in principle is the basis of Life, from which I conclude that the Universe is a living entity. Because “I think, therefore I am” is a reasonable assumption, mind must be the medium or product by which we appreciate our own existence and that of everything else. This reasoning is as a result of mind and brain activity, which is stimulated by appreciation, some would say by love but maybe they are both the same thing.

If we develop a sense of appreciation for who we are, what we are and where we are, we will then heighten our awareness of the Universe and everything around us. We will realise that the Universe is seething with life giving energy and that it is in fact our ultimate life support system. The word ‘universe’ means everything including ourselves and because we are conscious of these facts means that we are a vital intrinsic conscious entity within the whole, in which case the Universe is obviously an intelligent conscious living entity.

Does what I have said thus far ring true? It is not a theory but a conclusion arrived at by observation and reason. As such it is not open for argument but further reasoning. The Ultimate Truth, in the last analysis, can only be achieved by reason. One’s ability to reason is determined by one’s level of consciousness, as Absolute Truth is the highest possible principle and is freely available to every conscious being. Truth is fact and the facts are paramount to our existence because if it were not true that I existed I would not exist and that goes for everything. This means that ‘Truth’ is creative and full of purpose whereas ‘False’ is purposeless and deluding. I reason therefore that our purpose in life is to arrive at the ultimate truth.

Mathematical theories are void of reasoning, illusory and subject to human error or influence, whereas reasoning is self-questioning and self-correcting. Reasoning stems from one’s higher consciousness that of absolute truth whereas mathematical theorists live in a fantasy world, isolated from the realities of nature, which means they are narrow minded and of a low consciousness. They are unable to determine by their mathematical equations the truth about anything or that the universe is a living entity or what is the purpose of life and for that matter their own purpose and others within the whole scheme of things. Therefore I maintain that a mathematical model of the Universe is inadequate to solve and explain the intricacies and complexities of the Universe.

So in order for science to make sense to intelligent interested people, scientists will have to devise a more practical commonsense means of communication, instead of expecting the members of our society to accept in blind faith and without question, the hypothesises scientists pontificate on as being factual.

David Mawer 05/01/2004

Hi DM!

I was first going to suggest that you consider reading C.S. Lewis' 'The Screwtape Letters'. It is marvelously funny, especially when read aloud by John Cleese. Whether you 'have religion' or not, it is amusing, and perhaps informative.

Now that I've read this comment, however, I thought perhaps I could give you an even better list.

First, I respect you for your curiousity and your longevity. To see that you've reached such a ripe age (twenty years my senior), and are bopping about on the internet is enough to impress me.

If you are actually interested in True Facts, well there's not a lot of definite facts in this universe. We do however have a lot of clues, evidence, and physics out there. We make do with what we have; and I think we're doing pretty well just to be discussing things like a 'big bang' while sitting and arguing on a mudball, hurtling around a burning ball of gas.

Modern physics (and theoretical physics) have been built upon direct observation coupled with a few basic assumptions. Two of these concepts are symmetry and conservation.

Conservation merely means that in a contained environment, nothing ever appears, or completely disappears, even if it does convert from one type of thing to another. Matter and energy are never destroyed.

Symmetry means that for every push there is a pull, and that the universe should be capable of being described in a simple and beautiful set of calculations describing it.

It is amazing what scientists have done with these two concepts. If you truly want to understand much of Stephen Hawking, String Theory, the Big Bang, etc., there are marvelous books for us lay people. My favorite author, who makes it all understandable, is Anthony Zee. He wrote:
'Fearful Symmetry - the Search for Beauty in Modern Physics', and
'An Old Man's Toy - Gravity at Work and Play in Einstein's Unviverse'.

If you read these, I feel you'll have every reason to change your views on a lot of things.

There is, for instance, evidence of the big bang, and the story of how they found it is very entertaining. These concepts are not 'beyond most people's comprehension', they just have to be willing to read up on them in plain english.

You may also want to check out my entry on 'Time - A Bi-Directional Dimension', and let me know if it is understandable. I could use the feedback. (It tries to explain why time travel will always be impossible for us.)

Abandoning science, just to make some people more comfortable, is definitely the wrong approach, though. The EM spectrum gives us radio waves, among others. Radio waves give us microwave ovens, cellular phones, wireless computers, and a host of other advantages.

The 'common sense' approach was given up once Newton developed his theories on gravity; and even that was given up once Einstein improved on them. When something works so well that you can predict the universe from it, you must be getting close to the 'true facts'.

It would be like abandoning calculus, because too many people cannot understand geometry! Or, going back to leeches and bleedings because most of us cannot do heart surgery!

By the way, the very harmony of which you speak is what the theoretical physicists are working within. They too seek to understand the unified universe; that's what grand unification theories are about.

Your suggestion that the 'fundamental truth that ‘Energy’ is a universal indestructible substance of the Universe from which everything is manifested' is precisely in line with the work of the particle physicists!! They just suggest that there may be more to the universe than the space-time we are able to sense and measure.

It would be a sad thing if someone as curious and vital as yourself were to settle for 'observation and reason' (which used to suggest that heavier things fall faster than lighter things, something we have since disproven, by direct observation and reason).

Mathematical theories are not so very hard to understand in general, even for those of us who do not have the math; but to say that they are 'void of reasoning' is the exact opposite of the true facts. True, they can be illusory and subject to human error or influence, which is why there are always new theories and hypotheses to test them and question them. This is where their reasoning is self-questioning and self-correcting.

You seem to have a good mind. I'd hate to see it forever wrapped up in the 'magic' of observation and reason, when testable experimentation is what tells us we're on the right track.

Please consider reading those two books (start with 'An Old Man's Toy). I'm certain that they will take the mystery out of scientific theory for you.

Not all will be able to understand them, but I believe that you will. And then you can still question them, but you'll have better questions.