DISCLAIMER!!!!! I AM AN ATHEIST. I AM NOT JAQING OFF. I'm trying to understand how these theories are so readily accepted as "scientific facts" I am a novice at this.
So I finally got around to reading A Brief History of Time and even though I'm really only about 3 chapters in, I am a bit unnerved in reading it so far. Just to be clear, since I'm an auditory and visual learner I'm listening to it on audiobook and I've also watched several documentaries explaining the first few concepts in the book.
What puzzles me about the theories of Black Holes, is that I don't see any actual evidence that Black Holes even exist? Only indirect interpretations based on math theories that seem to enthrall mathematicians and physicists.
What is particularly odd to me is that it seems that the thrust of many of these studies is trying to figure out how the Universe came to be. At some point in the book Hawking mentions that it could be true that all these theoretical ideas are just our way of trying to understand the world, and that we simply don't have enough understanding to actually even come close to understanding the universe. (I personally agree with this)
But then he points to Darwin's survival of the fittest and suggests that it is reasonable to conclude that as man continues to evolve he will develop the intelligence to be able to make such conclusions (when I heard this bit I immediately thought "when is the last time he's been to a Walmart on a Black Thursday?)
The underlying sense I got in studying his work and that of other contributors so far, is that it really is no different than Ancient Greeks thinking they sorted out Apollo the Sun God's chariot wheel across the sky, only now they have fancy schmancy equations to make it look more official.
I'm not sure how to explain what I mean, but unless we have an outside objective perspective, completely different than human perspective, aren't all these equations nothing more that patterns that humans have been able to see and recognize and predict?
You can find patterns in anything. But often doing so means ignoring things that don't fit into the pattern.
I quite liked learning about Mandelbrot's fractals because it seemed so clear cut but don't we also ignore any aberration that disrupts the pattern. Just because we can replicate a pattern in a neato computer generated system doesn't mean it actually always exists in reality.
What perplexed me the most was how often the word God came up in his writing.
Suggestions please.
So I finally got around to reading A Brief History of Time and even though I'm really only about 3 chapters in, I am a bit unnerved in reading it so far. Just to be clear, since I'm an auditory and visual learner I'm listening to it on audiobook and I've also watched several documentaries explaining the first few concepts in the book.
What puzzles me about the theories of Black Holes, is that I don't see any actual evidence that Black Holes even exist? Only indirect interpretations based on math theories that seem to enthrall mathematicians and physicists.
What is particularly odd to me is that it seems that the thrust of many of these studies is trying to figure out how the Universe came to be. At some point in the book Hawking mentions that it could be true that all these theoretical ideas are just our way of trying to understand the world, and that we simply don't have enough understanding to actually even come close to understanding the universe. (I personally agree with this)
But then he points to Darwin's survival of the fittest and suggests that it is reasonable to conclude that as man continues to evolve he will develop the intelligence to be able to make such conclusions (when I heard this bit I immediately thought "when is the last time he's been to a Walmart on a Black Thursday?)
The underlying sense I got in studying his work and that of other contributors so far, is that it really is no different than Ancient Greeks thinking they sorted out Apollo the Sun God's chariot wheel across the sky, only now they have fancy schmancy equations to make it look more official.
I'm not sure how to explain what I mean, but unless we have an outside objective perspective, completely different than human perspective, aren't all these equations nothing more that patterns that humans have been able to see and recognize and predict?
You can find patterns in anything. But often doing so means ignoring things that don't fit into the pattern.
I quite liked learning about Mandelbrot's fractals because it seemed so clear cut but don't we also ignore any aberration that disrupts the pattern. Just because we can replicate a pattern in a neato computer generated system doesn't mean it actually always exists in reality.
What perplexed me the most was how often the word God came up in his writing.
Suggestions please.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1Bkc1lv
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire