I think Davies' basic premise is astounding.Most of which is resounded in most of his books:
"They [the laws of physics] seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.... The universe must have a purpose.... If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?... [There is] powerful evidence that there is "something going on" behind it all."
The need for special populations of supernovae and white dwarfs at just the right time and place in our galaxy adds, in the words of British physicist Paul Davies, to the already overwhelming evidence for the design of the cosmos. In one interview Davies stated:
"People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."
One may wonder if science would have arisen had the dominant metaphysical views of the time been naturalistic and materialistic.
This may be a bit off-topic, or maybe not. But when it comes to the concept of Linux and open source software, is socialism being advocated? Some consequences of the open source definition seems to be support collaborative efforts of free developers,develop alternatives to wage-labor for free developers,and advocacy of developer's individual intellectual property rights.
Projects like Linux and GNU are wonderful examples of free association of workers and worker control producing products that far better serve the consumer than anything produced by private industry.The source code is public and administered by a body of programmers and experts.
What's the source of this Utopian condition? Lack of profit motive and worker control of the means of production.This all sounds like the transfer of computer technology to social ownership, bound up with the establishment of a socialist workers government.Is that what this is about? Is that where we are headed? I for one am at a loss, I am a capitalist and I would never want such a thing to occur, or am I a closet socialist because I am passionate about open source software? Or am I completely wrong in my interpretation of the movement?
Vishak ---------------------------------------
Palpatine: The power of the dark side is boundless while that of the light side is finite.
Anakin: Why is that?
Palpatine: The strength of the light Jedi is limited by his or her own personal skill. Thus, their power is bound by their own personal limits and failings. But the power of a dark Jedi is not dependent on his or her own individual skill. Instead, the greater the dark Jedi's hatred, anger and impatience the greater the dark Jedi's power. The dark side feeds on anger and hate. The more anger and hate you can harness, the more powerful you can become. The best light Jedi is no match for even the most novice of dark Jedi . . .
Slashdot Mirror
Mine Leben!
Wumpscut rocks
I think Davies' basic premise is astounding.Most of which is resounded in most of his books:
... The universe must have a purpose. ... If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity? ... [There is] powerful evidence that there is "something going on" behind it all."
"They [the laws of physics] seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.
The need for special populations of supernovae and white dwarfs at just the right time and place in our galaxy adds, in the words of British physicist Paul Davies, to the already overwhelming evidence for the design of the cosmos. In one interview Davies stated:
"People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."
One may wonder if science would have arisen had the dominant metaphysical views of the time been naturalistic and materialistic.
Will their talks be posted on the web?
This may be a bit off-topic, or maybe not. But when it comes to the concept of Linux and open source software, is socialism being advocated? Some consequences of the open source definition seems to be support collaborative efforts of free developers,develop alternatives to wage-labor for free developers,and advocacy of developer's individual intellectual property rights.
Projects like Linux and GNU are wonderful examples of free association of workers and worker control producing products that far better serve the consumer than anything produced by private industry.The source code is public and administered by a body of programmers and experts.
What's the source of this Utopian condition? Lack of profit motive and worker control of the means of production.This all sounds like the transfer of computer technology to social ownership, bound up with the establishment of a socialist workers government.Is that what this is about? Is that where we are headed? I for one am at a loss, I am a capitalist and I would never want such a thing to occur, or am I a closet socialist because I am passionate about open source software? Or am I completely wrong in my interpretation of the movement?
Vishak
---------------------------------------
Palpatine: The power of the dark side is boundless while that of the light side is finite.
Anakin: Why is that?
Palpatine: The strength of the light Jedi is limited by his or her own personal skill. Thus, their power is bound by their own personal limits and failings. But the power of a dark Jedi is not dependent on his or her own individual skill. Instead, the greater the dark Jedi's hatred, anger and impatience the greater the dark Jedi's power. The dark side feeds on anger and hate. The more anger and hate you can harness, the more powerful you can become. The best light Jedi is no match for even the most novice of dark Jedi . . .