- #1
victorhugo
- 127
- 5
I'm very interested as far as I've gone into the book (just over 100 pages) and there is a lot of stuff that I've pondered about myself.
However, quite a few things don't make sense to me. The main one I'd like to ask your opinions on is at 9:15 until about 12:00 (he talks about it here: )
Basically that everything was exactly made just for us to exist. I think this is flawed. It's like seeing a rock land in a particular spot after an explosion and conclude that everything in that explosion was perfectly set out, such as the arrangements of the larger rock it was a part of, density, and even external factors like gravity and air friction, such that the rock landed at the exact spot. But, the rock only landed at that spot BECAUSE it was bound to these factors. Same with life, this way that life evolved on planet Earth (and the universal ways that the universe behaves), is a product of everything else that went on around life. if it was a very different planet orbiting a different star, then different sensory organs and ways of the organism being shaped would've been favoured as it is simply what thrives and survives in that environment.
Anyway, I think the problem is that he's not going from the fundamentals which built up the complex we are, he is going from the complex we are to the fundamentals.
We don't know whether the only way for 'life' to exist is the way it does on Earth. We don't know if patterns similar to DNA that arrives at conscious beings is only possible by "the rules our universe plays by".
Anybody else care to share their point of view?
However, quite a few things don't make sense to me. The main one I'd like to ask your opinions on is at 9:15 until about 12:00 (he talks about it here: )
Basically that everything was exactly made just for us to exist. I think this is flawed. It's like seeing a rock land in a particular spot after an explosion and conclude that everything in that explosion was perfectly set out, such as the arrangements of the larger rock it was a part of, density, and even external factors like gravity and air friction, such that the rock landed at the exact spot. But, the rock only landed at that spot BECAUSE it was bound to these factors. Same with life, this way that life evolved on planet Earth (and the universal ways that the universe behaves), is a product of everything else that went on around life. if it was a very different planet orbiting a different star, then different sensory organs and ways of the organism being shaped would've been favoured as it is simply what thrives and survives in that environment.
Anyway, I think the problem is that he's not going from the fundamentals which built up the complex we are, he is going from the complex we are to the fundamentals.
We don't know whether the only way for 'life' to exist is the way it does on Earth. We don't know if patterns similar to DNA that arrives at conscious beings is only possible by "the rules our universe plays by".
Anybody else care to share their point of view?