The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World

Rating:
Summary: Packed full of contemporary physics; not for everyone
Review: "The Mind of God" would be a great book for someone interested in theoretical physics and the evolution of ideas related to questions of existence. Author Paul Davies wanders through a multitude of different angles related to contemporary thought in the realm of physics and mathematics, and how explanations can be arrived at to describe creation, nature, and numerous scientific laws. Many great thinkers, past and present are cited, and it is easy to see how extensive debate can arise as scientific and philosophic thought evolve from developing theories.

For someone who is seeking a link between Judeo/Christian thought and scientific explanation, this book is not likely what you're looking for, and will not be easy to read for those who are unfamiliar with cosmology, causation theories, quantum physics, logic and mathematical processes. Though I have a basic understanding of the above, I still found it hard to concentrate and grasp all the physics theories. The tie-in between scientific application and biblical history wasn't there. The 3-star rating doesn't mean this book isn't good; I just happened to be expecting something different.

Rating:
Summary: Not for the religious
Review: I am looking for a religion to fulfil my needs as an individual. This book is to much logic and to little intuition. If you are looking for a lot of scientific babble, then this book is for you. In my opinion, it didn't help my journey at all.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating, with a qualification...
Review: In a word, fascinating. Wonderfully lucid account of what modern cosmology and science tell us about the origin and nature of our universe. However, in my view, Western science is very much limited by its own, unquestioned, metaphysical assumptions. Many of which I think Davies has innocently swallowed. Don't get me wrong, Davies is a brilliant man, and a masterful writer. I just think he's hamstrung by the unquestioned metaphysical assumptions of the Western science that he's had years of training in, and made his career in.

The main flaw with Western science is that it generally assumes (without analysis) that there is a physical reality which exists independently of our perceptions and conceptions, but which we can still somehow know by means of those same perceptions and conceptions. This is a metaphysical position that cannot, in fact, withstand analysis. For those who wish to know more on this point, I'd direct them to a wonderful book called Choosing Reality, by B. Alan Wallace. It's a very fond wish of mine that Davies would read that book and tell me what he thinks!

Rating:
Summary: A Disappointment
Review: Mathematical physicist Paul Davies offers a grand synthesis of the possibility of a "theory of everything" vis-à-vis physics - leading to the nature of physical laws, mathematical jargon, and philosophy by exposing various perspectives of the existence of the universe. Written with a general audience in mind The Mind of God presupposes no prior knowledge of math, physics, computer science, etc., which makes it easy for the reader to stay afloat.

Davies's purpose is to broaden the horizon and enhance the perspective of his readers. He does this by laying down a mathematical framework of reality from a physicist's point of view for a better understanding of our world and the universe in which we live. A framework, like a model, is something worth remembering when one confronts a situation. Davies's situation offers a scientific perspective to finding a rational explanation and meaning in a universe that is persuasively personal and subjective.

Davies's book takes two but interrelated directions. The first is an objective understanding of the universe to support his position of a "process thought" for adopting an open universe (this is what I accept also). The second is a subjective understanding of the universe that appeals to Davies's proposed religious-philosophical mysticism that our existence has a fundamental goal and existential purpose.

Davies says, "The future is not implicit in the present: there is a choice of alternatives. Thus nature is attributed a sort of freedom... This freedom comes about through the abandonment of reductionism" (181-182). Davies recognizes that "the world is more than the sum of its parts" and that physical systems are "the existence of many different levels of structure" (Ibid). Despite tensions of order and novelty of an open universe, Davies perhaps warrants his rationality of an open view, which powerfully personifies a being and a personal universe.

Thus, an openness of God is analogous to warranting a "process thought" to "open systems," which stresses the "openness and indeterminism of nature." Process thought, indeed necessitates the universe expanding or changing since it has been observable in being in flux and in the direction of becoming, in contrast to a "rigid mechanistic view of the universe," that the universe was once thought.

I now turn to Davies's second direction. And this is his appeal to a religious-philosophical mysticism that our existence has a fundamental goal and existential purpose. This second direction, once again, is interrelated to the first direction just mentioned above by the fact that one can truly have a meaningful existence (subjective authentic experience) in the world shared and lived in by others (objective universal reality) that one contributes to create and define.

By appealing to mysticism Davies takes his own leap of faith into the infinite "beyond" rational explanation by saying, "If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of 'understanding' from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is a way to such an understanding" (232). It was rather disappointing to me that Davies abandoned his own scientific discipline of rational explanation of the universe in favor of embracing a religious mysticism. If Davies seeks to examine the great questions of existence by providing "an entertaining and provocative tour of recent developments in theoretical physics," he succeeds.

However, he fails his own work because he deconstructs his own work and "process thought" by resorting to a "mystical path" in the end. If it is Davies's intention to end his work open-ended on mysticism then he leaves knowledge open for the reader to discover his or her own meaning in the universe. In this respect, Paul Davies succeeds in writing a brilliant exposé and nothing more.

Rating:
Summary: Can one know the mind of God?
Review: Paul Davies book, 'The Mind of God', is a follow-up to is book, 'God and the New Physics.'

Davies explores in more depth and detail the philosophical implications of modern physics and how the theories and ideas of modern physics can help in the understanding (and occasionally, deepen the confusion) of ideas that have been in the traditional purview of philosophy and theology. In this respect, science has a basic question that comes to the root of all systems of thought -- why?

'Scientists themselves normally take it for granted that we live in a rational, ordered cosmos subject to precise laws that can be uncovered by human reasoning. Yet why this should be so remains a tantalising mystery. Why should human beings have the ability to discover and understand the principles on which the universe runs?'

Davies discusses certain conceptual principles that are essential to the discussion. The division between rational and irrational, particularly in light of 'common sense' -- not too long ago science held itself to be rational because it more conformed to 'common sense' than did 'irrational' religion; as science edges toward the irrational (defined in common sense terms) it loses the ability to use that argument against religion.

'It is a fact of life that people hold beliefs, especially in the field of religion, which might be regarded as irrational. That they are held irrationally doesn't mean they are wrong.'

Davies admits his bias toward rationalism, but leaves room open for discussion. He discusses metaphysics in terms of Kant, Hume, and Descartes, drawing into question the very idea of rationality and the terms of existence in which the scientific universe operates.

'No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal.'

From this opening discussion, Davies proceeds to examine the creation of the universe, asking the interesting question in terms of quantum realities -- does the universe have to have had a creator? And, even if scientifically the universe can 'spontaneously' come into being (as some mathematical models and theories seem to allow), how do we account for the construct of laws of nature that permit such a spontaneous generation? Once again, the question 'where is God?' can still have meaning.

Davies spends a great deal of time looking at the nature and use of mathematics in understanding the 'real' world and 'virtual' worlds. Does mathematics exist independently of the universe, or independently of the human conscious construct of mathematics? At what points does mathematical meaning break down (for instance, in the very early universe, when the volume falls below the so-called Planck time, where the universe is theoretically too small for mathematics to be operative).

In the final chapter, Davies returns to the ideas of mysticism and the limits of science.

'Mysticism is no substitute for scientific inquiry and logical reasoning so long as this approach can be consistently applied. It is only in dealing with ultimate questions that science and logic fail us. I am not saying that science and logic are likely to provide the wrong answers, but they may be incapable of addressing the sort of 'why' (as opposed to 'how') questions we want to ask.'

While many scientists have mistrust of religion and mysticism, there are nonetheless notable exceptions, scientists who themselves are deeply religious or have a mystical turn of mind, such as Einstein, Pauli, Schrödinger and Heisenberg.

This is another fascinating trip through the realm of modern science with a particular emphasis on how we know what we know and what there really is to know, and what is in fact knowable.

Rating:
Summary: Can one know the mind of God?
Review: Paul Davies book, `The Mind of God', is a follow-up to is book, `God and the New Physics.'

Davies explores in more depth and detail the philosophical implications of modern physics and how the theories and ideas of modern physics can help in the understanding (and occasionally, deepen the confusion) of ideas that have been in the traditional purview of philosophy and theology. In this respect, science has a basic question that comes to the root of all systems of thought -- why?

`Scientists themselves normally take it for granted that we live in a rational, ordered cosmos subject to precise laws that can be uncovered by human reasoning. Yet why this should be so remains a tantalising mystery. Why should human beings have the ability to discover and understand the principles on which the universe runs?'

Davies discusses certain conceptual principles that are essential to the discussion. The division between rational and irrational, particularly in light of 'common sense' -- not too long ago science held itself to be rational because it more conformed to 'common sense' than did 'irrational' religion; as science edges toward the irrational (defined in common sense terms) it loses the ability to use that argument against religion.

`It is a fact of life that people hold beliefs, especially in the field of religion, which might be regarded as irrational. That they are held irrationally doesn't mean they are wrong.'

Davies admits his bias toward rationalism, but leaves room open for discussion. He discusses metaphysics in terms of Kant, Hume, and Descartes, drawing into question the very idea of rationality and the terms of existence in which the scientific universe operates.

`No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal.'

From this opening discussion, Davies proceeds to examine the creation of the universe, asking the interesting question in terms of quantum realities -- does the universe have to have had a creator? And, even if scientifically the universe can 'spontaneously' come into being (as some mathematical models and theories seem to allow), how do we account for the construct of laws of nature that permit such a spontaneous generation? Once again, the question 'where is God?' can still have meaning.

Davies spends a great deal of time looking at the nature and use of mathematics in understanding the 'real' world and 'virtual' worlds. Does mathematics exist independently of the universe, or independently of the human conscious construct of mathematics? At what points does mathematical meaning break down (for instance, in the very early universe, when the volume falls below the so-called Planck time, where the universe is theoretically too small for mathematics to be operative).

In the final chapter, Davies returns to the ideas of mysticism and the limits of science.

`Mysticism is no substitute for scientific inquiry and logical reasoning so long as this approach can be consistently applied. It is only in dealing with ultimate questions that science and logic fail us. I am not saying that science and logic are likely to provide the wrong answers, but they may be incapable of addressing the sort of 'why' (as opposed to 'how') questions we want to ask.'

While many scientists have mistrust of religion and mysticism, there are nonetheless notable exceptions, scientists who themselves are deeply religious or have a mystical turn of mind, such as Einstein, Pauli, Schrödinger and Heisenberg.

This is another fascinating trip through the realm of modern science with a particular emphasis on how we know what we know and what there really is to know, and what is in fact knowable.

Rating:
Summary: Good information -- but not impressed with writer's style
Review: The writer presented excellent information to readers who are interested in relating the latest advances in physics and the question of God's role in the universe. I think there is a wealth of information provided and an attempt by the author to amalgamate many (too many) views in the scientific community from ancient Greeks to modern times. However, I think there are 2 major flaws in the book: First, the author has limited his analysis (intentionally or unintentionally) to the so called western-philosophies with only a couple of references to eastern schools of thought. He has fallen in to the trap that many western thinkers have fallen into, which is that the domain of nature philosophies has only started from the Greek and gone westward ever since. I found that narrow and limiting. Second, the style of writing made me feel like I am reading a researcher's notebook where the emphasis on stuffing the pages of information without paying close attention to the easy flow of the developing argument or thought. The writer managed to develop many thoughts and arguments, but could have made it an easier read.

Rating:
Summary: Metaphysical journey
Review: This book addresses fundamental metaphysical and epistemological issues, in a clear, rational, and profund way, using a language accessible to any reader who has basic knowledge of the main streams of present theoretical physics. Paul Davies has the merit of being a great and at the same time humble scientist, one who is able to lower himself from the high pedestal and make his thoughts available to the general public. Paul Davies is a scientist who does not subscribe to convential religion and for this reason some readers might interpret his ideas as a denial of "God." In fact, in his quest for an ultimate understanding of the laws of nature, he is actually affirming the existence of something "beyond," whilst admitting our inherited limitations and the possibility that there may be some things with explanations that we could never grasp, and maybe others with no explanation at all. Some routes to knowledge might bypass or transcend human reason (be it mystical, revelation, or supernatural).
He carries the reader throughtout this journey for ultimate truths, starting with the Greek philosophers, all the way to the main streams of theoretical physics, probing theories of origin and destiny, space and time, creation by design or chance, nature of life and consciousness, the universe as a gigantic computer, mathematical "truths," quantum physics and so forth. The beauty of Paul Davies is that he is able to present all this rich and complex matter with an open mind, exposing not only his personal opinion but also the pros and cons as manifested by a wide range of intellectual gifted minds. He does take a firm stand with respect to a "superunifed" theory, arguing against it on the basis that such model relies on mathematical assumptions which do not correspond to our universe and though the theorems of mathematics may be deduced from within the system of axioms, the axioms themselves cannot.
Beside being a scientist, Paul Davies is above all a man who feels bewildered, seduced, and enchanted by nature's simplicty within its overall complexity, by this universe which is not seen as the plaything of a capricious deity, but as a coherent, rational, elegant, and harmonious expression of a deep and purposeful meaning (we are truly meant to be here). It is a positive stand, with an open mind, where there is no room for dogmas!

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, Comprehensive; Rational, Yet Acknowledges Mystery
Review: This is a brilliant book and very thought provoking. Written in a very understandable way for the layman such as myself and questions some of the heavy weights in substantial comprehensive order and understanding. Some of the points raised with much more detail are as follows:

The book is written with clarity with ideas in physics and logic. And yet, Davies acknowledges the eventually of all logic and math which hit boundaries or encircle themselves, as in the explanation of Godel's Theorem. Anotherwards, the study of physics is truly mind expanding, beneficial in our knowledge and understanding, and yet paradoxically, the same rational logic and mathematical equations are always doomed to failure: with infinite regress or mysterious self-explaining axioms or unexplained rings. So it is, at the end of the book Davies, an educated, and I'd like to say brilliant, physicist, acknowledges that mysticism and meditation are valid alternatives to the paradox of circular logic, acknowledging that the universe remains a mystery where mathematics and rationalism will never completely decode in a supertheory of everything calculated and finished. I'm very impressed with this balanced view and can't help but think of all the great understanding in physics, and simultaneously, the psychology Carl Jung's Eastern approach of the "collective unconscious" or the world of symbols, images, dreams and the unconscious, archetypes undefined by our scientific logic.

Godel's Theorem relates to our Rationalism and Logic, which turns out to always be Circular, Uncomputable. I personally think this is what made the brilliant man Nieztsche go insane, besides syphillis. The fact of the matter is all rational thinking rests and ends in a total paradox, which cannot equate a determination of truth. Our truths are merely the best set of lies. Such paradoxes reveal that there are certain logistics and mathematical statements that cannot be determined true or false. This puts uncertainty in our logistic rationality and mathematics. Such statements together as
"This statement is a lie"
"If the statement is true, then it is false; and if it is false, then it is true "
&
SOCRATES: "What Plato is about to say is false"
PLATO: "Socrates has just spoken truly."

Other ideas in this book include the Idea of a Self Contained Universe. The existence may not require anything outside of it: specifically, no prime mover or supernatural act needed. In this he addressses the ideas of initial laws, initial conditions, nonlocality of singularity, a point of infinite compression. Davies writes about the differences of the big crunch, big bang, expansion, contraction, cycles, the steady-state theory of continuous creation.

Davies supports, with many references, not necessarily a designer as we intepret in monotheism, but the universe with intelligent design from a complex set of conditions with particular laws of physics based on such conditions.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - that all measurable quantities are subject to unpredictable fluctuations in their values, the micro world indeterministic, as in quantum fluctuations.

Creation Without Creation - The shape of the universe being a cone with no abrupt beginning; time fades gradually away toward the base, no well-defined beginning, although time is still finite in the past. This takes in Einstein's idea of space possibly being finite. And also the expansion of the universe over time.

Two Types of Physics, Newtonian and Quantum - The universe of Newtonian physics of contingency of determined causes by a chain of cause and effect events and the Quantum physics that reveal an indeterminacy of electrons and chance events. While we live in a rational world, the deepest layers are absurd.

Stochasticity - The principle of compromise of the being with the becoming or the necessary and the contingent, the cause and effect Newtonian and the undetermined of Quantum, an open system with general laws. There is a difference between stochasticity and anarchy. There is order in disorder; even chaos can possess statistical regularities. God plays dice.

General Laws of Organization Exist in Open Systems - that is within Quantum physics consists of indeterminacy within a range of defined boundaries., which limits the amount of possibilities. Regarding the electron, the nature of the alternatives is fixed necessarily, whereas, the actual alternative adopted is contingent. The prediction of probabilities over certainties.

Necessary or Contingent - The religious paradox of whether God, the Creator or the universe or the beginning point is necessary or contingent. If he/she/it is necessary, then all good, evil, ethics and choice is predetermined as a prior or axiom. If this is true then free choice cannot be, as contingency cannot come from necessary. If he/she/it is contingent then all good, evil, ethics and choice is based on the preexisting meanings they are formed and built from and then free choice becomes chaotic. The dualism of the dipolar God of Plato as the God of Good - the eternal and unchanging in the world of perfect forms and the God of Demiurge the fleeting and impermanent in the world of changes is one attempt. The Christian idea of ex nihilo, of a God outside and transcendent of our world of changes is another. However such ideas do not reconcile a God with a permanent nature creating a world of change, so this dilemma remains.

We Do Not Know The Initial Conditions That Determined The Laws Of Physics - Such conditions were much different then they are today. Cosmologists have argued that thermodynamics and similar processes could have erased the details of the cosmic initial conditions.

Process Theology (Whitehead & Russell) - that all life consists of and is simultaneously determined by the both the lower biological levels that make it up, and in turn, determined by the teleology or final goal-directed causes of the higher levels of organizations which they are part of. There is both the Newtonian predetermined cause and effect and the undetermined Quantum.

Ontology - There is No Definitive Proof of The Meaning of "Existence.

Mathematicians Attempt to An Equation of a Theory of Everything -A superstring or master code of the entire universe. Einstein believed there is such a code; this is based solely on the rationalism.

Anthropic Principle - We construct our theories as part of the universe, not outside it, and this fact must inevitably limit the theories we construct. We relate our existence as observers of the universe to the laws and conditions of the universe.

The Laws of Physics - are universal, absolute, eternal and omnipotent as in all-powerful. Or is it that humans impose the regularities of nature on the world by their minds in order to make sense of it. We can never get behind the stuff of the cosmos to the law as such. Can the software exist without the hardware? Davies is convinced that with our mathematics we discover objective truths about he universe rather then invent them.

Davies writes of Von Neumann's Universal Constructor - self-replication through a control mechanism and Turings machine, Conway's game of life and the ideas of both together.

The idea and objections of mulitiple universes.

The idea of Virtual Worlds to The Real World And A Master Code is unknowable, due to the wisdom in the uncomputable numbers and number called omega which is defined by a halting problem with a formula to overcome but never revealed and can be compared with the magic numbers of the ancient Greeks. The universe must be algorithmically compressible, or economical in computation, within our horizon of computation, time-dependent, with a finite number of particles, and in order for us to know part from whole, must contain both linear and locality properties.

Rating:
Summary: Too many assumptions!
Review: This is a good book overall, but if never quite focus too well and it leaves the subject at the end with way too many assumptions that will make you feel like you have been running in circle and never really got nowhere. Overall: Decent to Good.