Paul Davies - Why the Cosmos?

The search for meaning and purpose is humanity’s never-ending quest. Some say that ‘how’ questions belong to the realm of science, but ‘why’ questions do not. Yet extraordinary scientific discoveries offer radical powers of explanation. Can ‘why’ questions be brought into science? What about the biggest ‘why’ of them all?

Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist.

Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[MrVikingsandra]

Paul Davies is one of my favourites! I wish I could have listened to this whole conversation

[keithwalmsley]

These videos are superb and love listening to them, and I can't wait for the day that somebody actually answers the questions asked!!! 🤣

[quantumkath]

Paul Davies gives a simple explaination to such a complex question. Occam's razor at it's finest!

[kodaskycastle]

It was an actual relief to see someone acknowledge that the laws of physics have to have an explanation for their existence. All facts are based upon assumptions (you have to assume time and space exist for matter to be a fact). Without consciousness (an observer) nothing exists. Consciousness can perceive complete realities without the need for physical objects (dreams, hypnosis, psychosis, psychedelics) so it is possible that physical reality is simply a highly organized "dream" or illusion within consciousness. In that case the laws of physics would be metaphysical (beyond physical reality) in nature, existing within a universal consciousness where all phenomena (including physical reality) are illusions. Mathematics is a non-physical phenomena which not only describes the laws of physics but might also be the controlling force causing the behavior of physical phenomena -- which is itself an illusion.

[TracyWitham]

Near the end of his life the 18th Century American philosopher of science, C. S. Peirce, argued for the reality of God based on an analogy between the predictive power of science based on a mathematical understanding of its laws and the predictive power of the human mind that must be assumed to account for the evolution of a capacity for intentional action. Peirce's analogy is relevant to Davies' thoughts because Peirce's argument is that the universe functions like a mind, not that a Mind created it: Thus something analogous to mind is embedded in a universe that the human mind can understand. Since having read Davies' The Mind of God many years ago I have assumed that he was relying on the same analogy as was Peirce. But I have not seen him endorse or critique the analogy explicitly. Hearing him do so would be interesting...

[yoyovlogs]

What do you mean by Cosmos is very important like is it the visible universe or The Whole Universe? Because the visible universe is finite in time and space, but The Whole Universe is truly infinite in both size and time and in every directions with out any doubt.

[jmanj]

Dang. I just realized this episode is about to end.
Go Bluejays!

[arthurwieczorek]

In my mind we don't have a good grip on the question here. 0:47. "The apparent purpose, meaning or fine-tuning of the universe." That's the question? That doesn't cut it for me. You want a precise answer, you ask a precise question. You want a malarkey answer, you ask a malarkey question. There's your answer.

[jebidiahkorn]

you seriously couldn't pour yourselves a pint?! cracking conversation nonetheless.

[mykrahmaan]

As the only person, who at least mentions the necessity for physical interpretaion of the laws of mathematics, Paul deserves respect.

Yet it is obvious that there is a long way yet to go from the fact that none of the two here (nor any other historically) ever noted the necessity to assosiate digits with unique particles, interpret the 4 basic arithmetic operations as the laws of their interactions and verify the accuracy of the interpretations by describing growth of and on PLANTS as functions of particle interactions inside the core of the earth.

PLANTS being the only entity in the entire known universe that sustains 100% of all life in it, searching for LAWS OF NATURE by describing functions of any other entity (minerals in classical and quantum physics as well as celestial entities in classical physics including relativity) is sheer waste of time, efforts and funds.

Unless scientists recognize this fundamental flaw in the purpose and the criterion of proof of Experimental and Obaervational Science and change course abruptly, all its inventions (yes) would join epicycles, deferents and eccentrics of the pre Copernican era in the dumpyard of history in the very near future.

What we need is a mathematical model of the mechanism how apples grow and NOT why they fall. It is immaterial whether the answer is correct or wrong when the question itself is irrelevant for sustenance of life on this earth, hence in the entire known universe as a whole too, as this is the only place we know of where life exists.

[thomasridley]

The how and why are questions that we will never have the answer too. And even if we do somehow manage too. We may not like the answers we find.

[UncensoredFitness]

I think the laws of physics comes first and mathematics is generated or derived from the laws.

[playpaltalk]

Free Will, Reasoning, Logic and Consciousness are an entanglement with the spirit of God.

[simonhibbs]

I think this view is overly complex as well. At the foundation is physical reality, it’s the base level. Because it is persistent and it’s components have consistent relationship and transformations between them, these can be described precisely in formal language. That language is mathematics, but it’s just descriptive, it doesn’t cause anything. The vast majority of mathematics doesn’t describe the physical world at all, but the fact that some of it does is as I said just a feature of the fact that the physical world and its internal relationships are consistent.
These consistent relationships between particles and physical phenomena encode information. Physical processes transform those relationships, which transforms that information, and so physical processes can be seen as computational processes. Certain types of self-referential, self modifying information processes that encode and transform information about the world and themselves become conscious. So all of this can be built up from the simple observation that the world is persistent and has consistent transformations and relationships between physical objects and systems. Everything else is epiphenomenal.

[georgegrubbs]

Mathematics can model just about everything. The fact that the universe has properties and behaviors that can be modeled by mathematics doesn't really imply much.

[Nicoladen]

Logic allows for a finite number of truths, but language allows for an infinite number of words. Thus since we use them interchangeably; unless we stop inventing new words, we will never stop expanding on logic. The expansion of our network of symbols which we call knowledge and logical rules, will only ever lead to more complexity but not clarity or understanding.
Because if it did then we would be wiser than we were a thousand years ago. And looking at ourselves now, I'd argue that we're far away from being at all wise, productive or healthy. In fact we're the opposite

[patientson]

Artificial endurance plus breath equals death. The day you start minding your business by doing your own job as a being, new endurance and breath will back you up. It is everywhere. If you let a pastor, imam, or rabbi think and interpret for you, you will never find the feeling you need that generates breathing moving breath.

[stoyanfurdzhev]

Doesn't occured to the honourable gentleman that the concept of law implies also the concept of determinism?

[rickwyant]

Gods are not an answer. It just pushes the question, why gods?

[rickwyant]

Some things will never be known. For some reason that bothers people. I suppose our assumption that humans are the pinnacle of evolution it bruises our egos