What do you think?
Rate this book
Die Zweite Sonne: Quantenmechanik, Rote Riesen Und Die Gesetze Des Kosmos
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
- GenresScience
319 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
6 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 23, 2024
IS THERE A SYMBIOTIC UNION BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND THE MIND?
George S. Greenstein is Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at Amherst College. He wrote in the Prologue of this 1988 book, "the universe... appears to have been designed by an extravagant, spendthrift hand. All that wasted space!... Most remarkable of all is that the overall emptiness of the cosmos seems to have no other consequence in the astronomical realm... we are only just barely safe---and that is the point of this book... Our existence, and that of every other life form in the universe, depends on a concatenation of circumstances... each one of which must have held true in order for life to come into being...
"The burden of this book is not the dangers facing us. It is that none of these dangers have come to pass. But why have they not come to pass? The more one ponders this question the more mysterious it becomes. I believe that we are faced with a mystery---a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment...
"Scientists today share the conviction that the cosmos is preeminently suited to life. They're right---the cosmos IS suited for life... most scientists have taken this suitability for granted... But the central argument I wish to pursue in this book is ... that the habitability of the universe is an utterly astonishing thing... I hope to persuade the reader that whether life is common or rare, the fact that it has arisen at all on the cosmic scene is profoundly mysterious... So why get excited about the set of conditions required for life in general to exist? The answer is that... every one of them is surprising... because they involve striking and remarkable coincidences..." (Pg. 20-23)
He observes, "When I first became attracted to [Brandon] Carter's Anthropic Principle... I figured it would be amusing to know the conditions required for life to arise in the universe... I set myself the task of summarizing ... in the form of a list... The list kept getting longer... but that was not the point. The point was its strangeness. So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such `coincidences' could hardly have happened by chance." (Pg. 25)
But he adds strongly, "No scientist worth his salt would tolerate for an instant a return to the prescientific mentality enshrined in notions such as creationism… I believe that there is no relationship between the anthropocentric mentality and the central thesis of this book." (Pg. 26) He continues, "I believe that the discoveries of science are not capable of proving God's existence---not now, not ever. And more than that: I also believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation." (Pg. 27-28)
He begins the sixth chapter by summarizing, "My concern in this book is with a mystery, a great and profound mystery I believe, and one of immense significance: the utterly unexpected habitability of the cosmos. But it is important to get the mystery straight. It has nothing to do with the Earth. Had our planet not been hospitable, life could have developed somewhere else...” (Pg. 83-84)
He asserts, "Could it be that suddenly, without anybody's looking for it, evidence had been found of some supernatural Agency at work in the world?... Religious people would call it God. Others ... would keep the capital A on Agency all the same. It is a matter of taste how one deals with that notion. Those who wish are free to accept it, and I have no way to prove them wrong. But I know where I stand---I and every other scientist. I reject it utterly. I will have nothing to do with it. My conviction is that the world obeys laws, the laws of nature, and that nothing can ever occur that stands outside those laws." (Pg. 86-87)
He observes, "The question is not whether the universe will eventually recontract into a second Big Bang. The question is why the universe did not do so the instant after it was created. Don't ask about the future. Ask about the past." (Pg. 134) He admits, "Creation is the great unknown... For all its strides, modern science has made not the slightest progress in comprehending the very act of creation itself." (Pg. 149)
He argues, "Was it God Himself who crafted these laws so precisely for our benefit?... You, the reader of this book, will have to give your own answer to that question... The answer can only come from the realm of opinion and belief... My belief is that the discoveries of science have nothing whatsoever to do with religion... They have no relevance to one another. We cannot explain by reference to God the fitness of the cosmos for life… To argue that the laws of nature are so remarkably suited to the needs of life because God wanted things that way tells us only about the present paltry state of our knowledge. It is merely a way of saying that we cannot think of any other reason... Science expands, rather than shrinks, the list of unsolved problems." (Pg. 189-190)
He suggests, "The religious view, I suspect... would uphold the fitness of the universe as an example of God's goodness. But was it really such a good thing that the universe conspired to bring forth life? Why be thankful for the fact?... Are you alive? Then you can feel pain. Are you conscious? Then you can feel more pain... Perhaps we even suffer more than the dumb animals. No one among us has led a life free from grief, loneliness, and despair. The more that cosmic evolution has progressed, the more suffering has come forth in the world. There may be no cause for thankfulness in the fact that against all odds the cosmos succeeded in bringing forth life. It may be the only truth." (Pg. 194-195)
He says, "I cannot accept the notion that it was God Himself who so carefully crafted the cosmos in order that it might being forth life. I reject the supernatural. But in that case, how to account for the habitability of the cosmos?... in the remainder of the book I wish to explore a tentative reply to that question, a reply suggested by the great revolution in thought that is quantum mechanics." (Pg. 197)
He proposes, "The proposal is that the cosmos brought forth life in order to exist... in order for a single particle to exist, it must be observed... what is true of a single particle is also true of collections of particles: stones, planets--even the universe as a whole. The implication is that the very cosmos does not exist unless observed.... only a conscious mind is capable of performing such an observation." (Pg. 223) But he also notes, "according to the most widely accepted [scientific] picture, observation is not required to bring the universe into being… But it may not be correct. There are many difficulties with it." (Pg. 234-235)
He concludes, "It's a participatory universe; nothing exists unless it is observed. But observation itself is problematic... mind therefore cannot be bound by the limitations of quantum mechanics... The very cosmos itself depends for its being on the uttermost mystery of consciousness. And thus the symbiosis, the union between the physical world and mind, great metaphysical dance by which each brings into being the other." (Pg. 237-238)
Given Greenstein's firm atheism, his conclusions seem almost consonant with "New Age" ideas (e.g., Fritjof Capra, Michael Talbot). Be that as it may, this book (which is nearly 40 years old, and thus a bit out-of-date in terms of scientific data) is a fascinating, thought-provoking exploration, that will be of keen interest to anyone studying modern cosmological theories.
George S. Greenstein is Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at Amherst College. He wrote in the Prologue of this 1988 book, "the universe... appears to have been designed by an extravagant, spendthrift hand. All that wasted space!... Most remarkable of all is that the overall emptiness of the cosmos seems to have no other consequence in the astronomical realm... we are only just barely safe---and that is the point of this book... Our existence, and that of every other life form in the universe, depends on a concatenation of circumstances... each one of which must have held true in order for life to come into being...
"The burden of this book is not the dangers facing us. It is that none of these dangers have come to pass. But why have they not come to pass? The more one ponders this question the more mysterious it becomes. I believe that we are faced with a mystery---a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment...
"Scientists today share the conviction that the cosmos is preeminently suited to life. They're right---the cosmos IS suited for life... most scientists have taken this suitability for granted... But the central argument I wish to pursue in this book is ... that the habitability of the universe is an utterly astonishing thing... I hope to persuade the reader that whether life is common or rare, the fact that it has arisen at all on the cosmic scene is profoundly mysterious... So why get excited about the set of conditions required for life in general to exist? The answer is that... every one of them is surprising... because they involve striking and remarkable coincidences..." (Pg. 20-23)
He observes, "When I first became attracted to [Brandon] Carter's Anthropic Principle... I figured it would be amusing to know the conditions required for life to arise in the universe... I set myself the task of summarizing ... in the form of a list... The list kept getting longer... but that was not the point. The point was its strangeness. So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such `coincidences' could hardly have happened by chance." (Pg. 25)
But he adds strongly, "No scientist worth his salt would tolerate for an instant a return to the prescientific mentality enshrined in notions such as creationism… I believe that there is no relationship between the anthropocentric mentality and the central thesis of this book." (Pg. 26) He continues, "I believe that the discoveries of science are not capable of proving God's existence---not now, not ever. And more than that: I also believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation." (Pg. 27-28)
He begins the sixth chapter by summarizing, "My concern in this book is with a mystery, a great and profound mystery I believe, and one of immense significance: the utterly unexpected habitability of the cosmos. But it is important to get the mystery straight. It has nothing to do with the Earth. Had our planet not been hospitable, life could have developed somewhere else...” (Pg. 83-84)
He asserts, "Could it be that suddenly, without anybody's looking for it, evidence had been found of some supernatural Agency at work in the world?... Religious people would call it God. Others ... would keep the capital A on Agency all the same. It is a matter of taste how one deals with that notion. Those who wish are free to accept it, and I have no way to prove them wrong. But I know where I stand---I and every other scientist. I reject it utterly. I will have nothing to do with it. My conviction is that the world obeys laws, the laws of nature, and that nothing can ever occur that stands outside those laws." (Pg. 86-87)
He observes, "The question is not whether the universe will eventually recontract into a second Big Bang. The question is why the universe did not do so the instant after it was created. Don't ask about the future. Ask about the past." (Pg. 134) He admits, "Creation is the great unknown... For all its strides, modern science has made not the slightest progress in comprehending the very act of creation itself." (Pg. 149)
He argues, "Was it God Himself who crafted these laws so precisely for our benefit?... You, the reader of this book, will have to give your own answer to that question... The answer can only come from the realm of opinion and belief... My belief is that the discoveries of science have nothing whatsoever to do with religion... They have no relevance to one another. We cannot explain by reference to God the fitness of the cosmos for life… To argue that the laws of nature are so remarkably suited to the needs of life because God wanted things that way tells us only about the present paltry state of our knowledge. It is merely a way of saying that we cannot think of any other reason... Science expands, rather than shrinks, the list of unsolved problems." (Pg. 189-190)
He suggests, "The religious view, I suspect... would uphold the fitness of the universe as an example of God's goodness. But was it really such a good thing that the universe conspired to bring forth life? Why be thankful for the fact?... Are you alive? Then you can feel pain. Are you conscious? Then you can feel more pain... Perhaps we even suffer more than the dumb animals. No one among us has led a life free from grief, loneliness, and despair. The more that cosmic evolution has progressed, the more suffering has come forth in the world. There may be no cause for thankfulness in the fact that against all odds the cosmos succeeded in bringing forth life. It may be the only truth." (Pg. 194-195)
He says, "I cannot accept the notion that it was God Himself who so carefully crafted the cosmos in order that it might being forth life. I reject the supernatural. But in that case, how to account for the habitability of the cosmos?... in the remainder of the book I wish to explore a tentative reply to that question, a reply suggested by the great revolution in thought that is quantum mechanics." (Pg. 197)
He proposes, "The proposal is that the cosmos brought forth life in order to exist... in order for a single particle to exist, it must be observed... what is true of a single particle is also true of collections of particles: stones, planets--even the universe as a whole. The implication is that the very cosmos does not exist unless observed.... only a conscious mind is capable of performing such an observation." (Pg. 223) But he also notes, "according to the most widely accepted [scientific] picture, observation is not required to bring the universe into being… But it may not be correct. There are many difficulties with it." (Pg. 234-235)
He concludes, "It's a participatory universe; nothing exists unless it is observed. But observation itself is problematic... mind therefore cannot be bound by the limitations of quantum mechanics... The very cosmos itself depends for its being on the uttermost mystery of consciousness. And thus the symbiosis, the union between the physical world and mind, great metaphysical dance by which each brings into being the other." (Pg. 237-238)
Given Greenstein's firm atheism, his conclusions seem almost consonant with "New Age" ideas (e.g., Fritjof Capra, Michael Talbot). Be that as it may, this book (which is nearly 40 years old, and thus a bit out-of-date in terms of scientific data) is a fascinating, thought-provoking exploration, that will be of keen interest to anyone studying modern cosmological theories.
October 6, 2014
Many of the author's ideas, views, and perspectives are consistent with the strong anthropic principle, I believe, which seems to have fallen out of favor in modern mainstream thinking in physics/cosmology. (This book was published in 1988, and is correspondingly out-of-date with more recent experimental and theoretical developments in cosmology, i.e., the multiverse, dark energy, etc.). The author also ends up delving a bit into metaphysics (which he refers to as 'experimental metaphysics') which some more scientific-minded readers may be uncomfortable with ...
August 9, 2009
I never quite remembered, from chemistry class, or if I ever learned, what makes water work as a solvent and this book kinda 'splains it in plain language. Also, Greenstein gives some interesting ideas about where carbon is produced and its chemical interaction to produce our kind of life in this universe.
This is stuff that I may have already gleaned along the road and now this piece of stuff fits a little better in my puny, shifting mosaic of mind.
This is stuff that I may have already gleaned along the road and now this piece of stuff fits a little better in my puny, shifting mosaic of mind.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews