Perhaps that is the point – he has a fundamental lack of faith in our significance.
In the book of astrophysicists John Burrow and Frank Tipler “Anthropic cosmological principle” is now a classic, formulated the principle of our centrality in the universe.
First, the universe is as it is, with all its spatiotemporal parameters and constants, precisely because we are in it and we observe it. This position, which the authors called the “weak anthropic principle”, is acceptable to most scholars, although many do not like it, because it is an “anti-Copernican” heresy.
Its validity is easy to verify by a simple mental experiment: if at least one of the many parameters of the universe known today had a slightly different meaning, life in it would be simply impossible, there would be no observers, and no one would have any questions. It is possible that our universe with you is just one of many, but we are possible with our problems only in our own.
As for the so-called “strong anthropic principle”, it assumes that the universe in the form in which it exists today, arose specifically for our presence in it. In this formulation, this principle clearly goes beyond science and interferes in the field of religion. As a hypothesis, it does not contradict anything, but science has nothing to do with it.
However, even the “weak anthropic principle” will drive away too much religion to the taste of many. We grew up in a scientific tradition that once and for all removed man from the center of the universe, and his sudden return to that center seems like a betrayal of Copernicus’ wills, although Copernicus himself was, of course, a believer. Fred Giren has interviewed leading contemporary natural scientists.
“Many scholars do not like the direction that the ‘anthropic principle’ shows them, not simply because it presupposes God as an easy answer, but because it again turns into a heresy against Copernican dogma.” It seems to me something like pride to think that God created The universe is exclusively for us, – said cosmologist George Smoot. “I would seem to have created a universe full of life.”
Theoretical physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, spent a great deal of energy searching for a proper explanation for the many anthropic “coincidences” of seeing the red rag in every violation of the “Copernican principle.” But, obviously, there must be deeper reasons for the superiority of one principle over another.
Hoping to know them, I asked Stephen Hawking himself what he didn’t like most about the “anthropic principle”? “The human race is too small,” he told me. “I find it hard to believe that the whole universe is a necessary condition for our existence.” Perhaps that is the point – he has a fundamental lack of faith in our significance. This disbelief is typical of most natural scientists: “Why are we so important? Why spend all this space on us?”
Fred Giren, the author of a book called “Show Me God,” might have to start with this, although it would hurt a certain detective story. The book is a collection of interviews with leading scholars on their attitudes toward religion, and this article is quite relevant in a religious journal, although nowhere does it lead us to think about the inevitability and necessity of religion directly – rather indirectly.
The idea of religion, or rather – the absolute mind, which lies at the origins of the universe, and designed it to the smallest detail for the sake of intelligent life, causes most scientists dislike. Science prefers to deal with hypotheses that can be tested and refuted, but God’s hypothesis is not. From the scientist’s point of view, it leads us into a vicious circle: if God created the universe, then who created God himself? And if God existed eternally, then why not assume that the universe itself also exists eternally, from one “big bang” to another, or in parallel with others, or one inside the other, like bubbles?
That is why many scholars avoid hypotheses that suggest religion, even with their scientific excellence. One of the leading astrophysicists of our time, the recently deceased Fred Goyle, disliked the “big bang” theory all his life because of its allusion to the biblical creation of the world, although he coined the term “big bang”. Goyle preferred his own theory of the “steady state” of the eternal universe, in which there are virtually no supporters today.
According to Giren, the author of a review of the book “Rare Earth” in the “Chicago Tribune” ended it with a call to care even more about each other and the planet, which we seem to be unique in the universe, and even unique. But such a morality does not follow from a scientific book. A person who suddenly, due to some fantastic circumstances, finds himself in a completely deserted department store, is unlikely to think of constantly caring for him because of his uniqueness and uniqueness. Most likely, she will just go ashore.
Authors like Fred Giren end up cunningly trying to lure us to the other shore, where science, by definition, has no bridge. The silence of https://123helpme.me/write-my-lab-report/ the universe and the silence of God are still different things: they are silent, perhaps in the same way, but for completely different audiences.
V. Rubtsov – Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Academician of the Academy of Cosmonautics. K. Tsiolkovsky (Russia). His dissertation was devoted to philosophical and methodological aspects of contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. Author of the books “The Problem of Extraterrestrial Civilizations”, Chisinau, 1984 (co-authored with A. Ursul), “UFOs and Modern Science”, Moscow, “Science”, 1991 (co-authored with Y. Platov). One of the co-authors of the collection “50 years of UFOs”, Great Britain, 1999
… On June 24, 1947, an American businessman, K. Arnold, flew nine strange objects in the sky while flying in his plane near Mount Rainier, Washington. Eight of them were flat disks glistening in the sun. Their movement, according to an eyewitness, was very strange, “like a saucer gliding on the surface of the water.” Arnold, an experienced pilot, determined their approximate speed – 2600 km per hour.
When he landed, he told the airport staff about what he had seen. Journalists became interested in the story and it was widely covered by the press. But since no real traces of “flying saucers” could be found, similar reports from other observers were met with ridicule. UFO sightings have been classified as “national mass hysteria,” and Arnold himself has earned a reputation as a liar and madman in the eyes of many Americans. However, until the end of his life, he stood his ground: “Let me be called … a deceiver, I do not doubt for a moment what I saw.”
The above case was the beginning of controversy in the United States, and then in other countries, about strange objects in the sky, which, judging by chronicles, legends and other sources of the past, have been observed since ancient times. However, at different times they were called differently – celestial signs, celestial pearls, flying saucers, unrecognized flying objects, abnormal atmospheric phenomena … But the essence has not changed. Unusual moving formations, unlike anything earthly, appeared in the sky above the heads of the eyewitnesses.
After the case of Arnold, various scientific and amateur organizations began to collect evidence. Thus, the participants of the American research project “Blue Book” in just one month in 1951 received 326 such messages. By the way, the term UFO instead of “flying saucers” (in English UFO) was proposed by the head of this project E. Ruppelt. Interestingly, depending on the situation in the world, each new “wave” of UFO sightings was given new explanations: mirages, atmospheric phenomena, optical illusions, secret inventions of the enemy, extraterrestrial vehicles.
It was difficult to investigate these objects, because the starting point for the analysis was not themselves, but the subjective testimony of eyewitnesses. The data sets contained information of such varying degrees of reliability and quality of observation that there was every reason to consider a significant part of them “noise” or “garbage”. Still, in the mid-1960s, the US Air Force decided to involve scientists in research that would put an end to the “and”. The head of the topic “Scientific dosthe recognition of unrecognized flying objects “with funding of almost half a million dollars became the authoritative American physicist E. Condon.
The commission studied the received reports for two years. The main conclusion of her report was: “UFOs do not threaten the national security of the United States and are not spaceships of extraterrestrial civilizations. … During 21 years of studying UFOs, nothing has been obtained that could enrich science. … Studying the information available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive research of UFOs, most likely, can not be justified by the hope for the development of science.
Point? No. The work of the Condon Commission did not satisfy everyone. When members of the American Astronomical Society were asked a few years later, “Does the UFO problem deserve serious study?”, 23% of the 1,500 respondents said yes. Another 30% – “probably”, 27% – “not excluded”. And 62 astronomers have described their own UFO observations! Since then and until now, centers and commissions, projects and committees have been formed to study this problem, and symposia and conferences have been held in various countries around the world.
The initial classification of UFOs was made by J. A. Gainek, who for twenty years was a consultant to the US Air Force on the problem of UFOs. He conventionally divided all observations into two groups – “close”, when the object is less than 150 meters from the observer, and “far”. “Distant” are divided into three groups: “Day Disks”, such as those seen by Nicholas Roerich in the Himalayas, “Night Lights”, observed in 1981 in the Hessdalen Valley in Norway, and radar-visual observations, for example, the flight of luminous objects over plains of East Anglia in 1956, recorded by three different radars of the air base near Lakekenhit.
However, the most popular among the general public were stories about contacts with “UFO pilots” – “green men”, giants in silver suits, and so on. In the United States, there are even so-called “contact” support groups. However, not a bit of new knowledge “contactors” did not give. Among the least reliable data are rumors that the US military has targets or destroyed in the fall of unrecognized flying objects, as well as the bodies of humanoids.