explain the title of the chapter choosing our universe.(in 1-2 pages)
Answers
Answered by
7
Hi friend!
Your answer is as follows
Ch. 1 The Mystery of Being
p 5 Raises philosophical questions like "Where did this all come from? Did the universe need a creator?" Then responds with "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." I think these are really stupid statements, so my immediate impression was that I hope Hawking gets a great burst of sales from pre-publicity, because if this kind of statement characterizes the approach, the public is going to get wind of it. Another thing that came to mind was G. K. Chesterton's statement "Philosophy is thought that is well thought-out" None of this seems well thought-out.
p6 gives Feynmann a ride, and points to idea that universe has no single history.
p7 basically argues against common sense, in that it is tied to common experience. Also introduces a kind of post-modern view of truth. "If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is most convenient." This appears to be saying there is no ultimate truth or reality.
p8 Points to M-theory as the model for an ultimate "theory of everything".
p10 Ends with profoundly philosophical questions "Why is there something rather than nothing?, Why do we exist?, Why this particular set of laws and not some other?" but has trivialized philosophy and rambled in a post-modern way, even after declaring that philosophy is dead.
Ch. 2 The Rule of Law
p15-28 A rather lame historical essay about the development of physical law.
p 29 Again raises philosophical questions "What is the origin of the laws? Are there any exceptions to the laws, i.e., miracles? Is there only one set of possible laws?" Does raise the view of Galileo, Descartes and Newton that the laws are the work of God, but then flippantly dismisses it as "a definition of God as the embodiment of the laws of nature." That's the kind of thing Steven Weinberg says, so it gives you some idea of the thought that has influenced these authors.
p 30 Drags out LaPlace's reply to Napoleon about where God fits "Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis."
p 30-31 Raises and ridicules the idea of free will.
p 31 "Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and are therefore as determined as the orbits of the planets."
p 32 pg 1 "it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." Sounds like Daniel Dennett. This whole thing does not sound like Hawking to me - just a rambling of all the common punch lines of the new atheists.
p 33 Continues with the general rambling about the complexity of human consciousness, and it is not apparent why either author would pretend to have any particular expertise on that subject.
p
p 34 "This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism, which implies that the answer to question two is that there are no miracles, or exceptions to the laws of nature."
p 34 Later in the same paragraph, "do we really have reason to believe that an objective reality exists?" This seems like a swing from total philosophical materialism to some kind of weird non-materialism, all in one paragraph!
Ch. 3 What Is Reality?
p 42 "There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality."
p 48 Has spent several pages defending the idea of "model-dependent realism".
p 51 Qualities of a good model.
Ch. 4 Alternative Histories
p63 Uses buckyball interference to make the case that quantum phenomena are sometimes counterintuitive - behave like waves when you expect point particle behavior.
p69 Wave particle duality
p70 Uncertainty principle
p74 probabilities as fundamental randomness in QM
p75 Idea of all possible paths in interpreting Young experiment
p77 Feynman view of quantum reality
p79 "It turns out that for large objects, paths very similar to the path predicted by Newton's will have similar phases and add up to give by far the largest contribution to the sum, and so the only destination that has a probability effectively greater than zero is the destination predicted by Newtonian theory, and that destination has a probability that is very nearly one." This is like my baseball wavelength example, and appears to totally undermine their claim that the double-slit type wave behavior can be applied to the whole universe, except in the very early stages where the universe is of quantum scale.
p80 Sum over histories formulation of quantum mechanics
p82 "observations you make on a system affect its past." This refers to the ideas of Wheeler, interesting since Wheeler thought we made the past.
Your answer is as follows
Ch. 1 The Mystery of Being
p 5 Raises philosophical questions like "Where did this all come from? Did the universe need a creator?" Then responds with "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." I think these are really stupid statements, so my immediate impression was that I hope Hawking gets a great burst of sales from pre-publicity, because if this kind of statement characterizes the approach, the public is going to get wind of it. Another thing that came to mind was G. K. Chesterton's statement "Philosophy is thought that is well thought-out" None of this seems well thought-out.
p6 gives Feynmann a ride, and points to idea that universe has no single history.
p7 basically argues against common sense, in that it is tied to common experience. Also introduces a kind of post-modern view of truth. "If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is most convenient." This appears to be saying there is no ultimate truth or reality.
p8 Points to M-theory as the model for an ultimate "theory of everything".
p10 Ends with profoundly philosophical questions "Why is there something rather than nothing?, Why do we exist?, Why this particular set of laws and not some other?" but has trivialized philosophy and rambled in a post-modern way, even after declaring that philosophy is dead.
Ch. 2 The Rule of Law
p15-28 A rather lame historical essay about the development of physical law.
p 29 Again raises philosophical questions "What is the origin of the laws? Are there any exceptions to the laws, i.e., miracles? Is there only one set of possible laws?" Does raise the view of Galileo, Descartes and Newton that the laws are the work of God, but then flippantly dismisses it as "a definition of God as the embodiment of the laws of nature." That's the kind of thing Steven Weinberg says, so it gives you some idea of the thought that has influenced these authors.
p 30 Drags out LaPlace's reply to Napoleon about where God fits "Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis."
p 30-31 Raises and ridicules the idea of free will.
p 31 "Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and are therefore as determined as the orbits of the planets."
p 32 pg 1 "it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." Sounds like Daniel Dennett. This whole thing does not sound like Hawking to me - just a rambling of all the common punch lines of the new atheists.
p 33 Continues with the general rambling about the complexity of human consciousness, and it is not apparent why either author would pretend to have any particular expertise on that subject.
p
p 34 "This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism, which implies that the answer to question two is that there are no miracles, or exceptions to the laws of nature."
p 34 Later in the same paragraph, "do we really have reason to believe that an objective reality exists?" This seems like a swing from total philosophical materialism to some kind of weird non-materialism, all in one paragraph!
Ch. 3 What Is Reality?
p 42 "There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality."
p 48 Has spent several pages defending the idea of "model-dependent realism".
p 51 Qualities of a good model.
Ch. 4 Alternative Histories
p63 Uses buckyball interference to make the case that quantum phenomena are sometimes counterintuitive - behave like waves when you expect point particle behavior.
p69 Wave particle duality
p70 Uncertainty principle
p74 probabilities as fundamental randomness in QM
p75 Idea of all possible paths in interpreting Young experiment
p77 Feynman view of quantum reality
p79 "It turns out that for large objects, paths very similar to the path predicted by Newton's will have similar phases and add up to give by far the largest contribution to the sum, and so the only destination that has a probability effectively greater than zero is the destination predicted by Newtonian theory, and that destination has a probability that is very nearly one." This is like my baseball wavelength example, and appears to totally undermine their claim that the double-slit type wave behavior can be applied to the whole universe, except in the very early stages where the universe is of quantum scale.
p80 Sum over histories formulation of quantum mechanics
p82 "observations you make on a system affect its past." This refers to the ideas of Wheeler, interesting since Wheeler thought we made the past.
Answered by
0
'Choosing our universe'.
Explanation:
- 'Choosing our universe' is a story that shows the different questions of human beings.
- There are a lot of minds to think and to acquire answers for the fact that why do we exist.
- Some people asked why are we alive and why is there a place to live.
- People who don't have knowledge about real facts do ask questions that 'why did we born in this family'?.
- Philosophically there are answers but philosophy is vanishing too.
- It simplifies reality by just keeping the mind in peace.
Learn more about it.
Describe bumba choosing our universe
https://brainly.in/question/13209581
Similar questions
Social Sciences,
7 months ago
English,
7 months ago
Math,
1 year ago
English,
1 year ago
Math,
1 year ago