Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life

by Paul C.W. Davies and  

Cosmic Jackpot is Paul Davies's eagerly awaited return to cosmology, the successor to his critically acclaimed bestseller The Mind of God. Here he tackles all the "big questions," including the... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0618592261
• ISBN13: 9780618592265
• Release Date: April 2007
• Publisher: Mariner Books
• Length: 336 Pages
• Weight: 0.35 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Life and mind ... etched deeply into the cosmos

Paul Davies is a physicist and cosmologist whose web site cosmos.asu.edu also describes his interest in the field of astrobiology: "a new field of research that seeks to understand the origin and evolution of life, and to search for life beyond Earth." Among his many publications, the best known is probably "The Mind of God" in which Davies showed that while concepts outside the realm of science were typically regarded by the science community as irrational, they could not so easily be declared untrue. In Cosmic Jackpot, Davies expands on the "fine-tuning" argument for an intelligent origin of the universe by explaining the many phenomena of which we are aware that point to something more in the nature of "mind" than entirely blind, random processes. If such ideas were proposed by a theologian with only a scant grasp of physics, they might easily be dismissed; Davies' credentials, however, require that his proposals be seriously considered. Davies is not apparently religious or theistic; he says of the subject only that: "I do believe that life and mind are etched deeply into the fabric of the cosmos, perhaps through a shadowy, half-glimpsed life principle, and if I am to be honest I have to concede that this starting point is something I feel more in my heart than in my head. So maybe that is a religious conviction of sorts." Among the many deep points that Davies raises in the book is the confusion about what preceded the Big Bang: "You can't have time without space, or space without time, so if space cannot be continued back through the big bang singularity, then neither can time. This conclusion carries a momentous implication. If the universe was bounded by a past singularity, then the big bang was not just the origin of space, but the origin of time too. To repeat: time itself began with the big bang." In quoting Augustine: "The very order, disposition, beauty, change and motion of the world and of all things silently proclaim that it could only have been made by God", Davies acknowledges "the hypothesis of an intelligent designer applied to the laws of nature is far superior than the designer ... [of ID] who violates the laws of nature from time to time by working miracles in evolutionary history. Design-by-laws is incomparably more intelligent than design-by-miracles ... So the "intelligent design" beloved of the Intelligent Design movement strikes me as not very intelligent at all, in contrast to a designer of the laws of nature that by themselves have such astonishing creative ability without the need for intervention and miracles." It is not only the ID movement with which Davies takes issue; at the other end of the spectrum he shows how monist concepts that fail to take account of the profound differences between life and non-life are too simplistic to justify belief in abiogenesis. "What makes life special is not the stuff of which it is made, but the things it does ... evolutionary principle of replication with variation and sele

A Superb Book on the Physics and Philosophy Surrounding Single and Multiple Universes

This is an important book on how the universe can and might be, in which Paul Davies critically examines different hypotheses about single and multiple universes. His book illuminates the most critical issues of physics and philosophy (and of some biology) underlying our understanding of Science and Religion. He has called himself an agnostic, and he does not argue for religious beliefs. This newest book by Davies is somewhat more technical than his other books but is still well within the general readership level. Davies updates and expands upon all previous overviews I know of in the ways the universe can begin and remain in existence, enriching previous accounts especially in his discussion of multiple universes. Also particularly fascinating is his discussion of dark mass and dark energy, which constitute 96% of our (potentially) observable universe and which we cannot see and about which we can make only indirect observations. Throughout the book, Davies flags the free parameters, or "constants of nature", some 20 of them counting force coupling constants and the masses of elementary particles, which, in the standard models of nuclear physics, astrophysics and cosmology, must be exquisitely fine-tuned to yield a single universe capable of supporting life. As an alternative to this fine-tuning, physicists have proposed multiple universes, or a multiverse, wherein infinite universes, a few of them with properties supporting life, could counterbalance the infinitesimal probability of the degree of fine-tuning necessary in a single universe if it occurred only by chance. The difference between these views has obvious and profound metaphysical and religious implications. Beginning about two-thirds through the book, Davies describes the possibilities afforded, in principle, by string theory/superstring theory/M-theory to bring about a multiverse. Unfortunately, that is the problem with the current state of string/M theory. It is a mathematical construct wherein physical theories might be "accommodated" - it can in principle provide a way to make predictions for those theories - but so far it cannot predict anything real, anything that has been or could be measured. And right now the odds are about even and rapidly getting longer that it ever will. However, if a multiverse can, in principle, be supported, or dignified, by string/M-theory, we have a science-fiction writer's paradise. Davies spells out some of these wild possibilities - wild because there would be infinite possibilities, including infinite variations of the laws of physics among different universes - and he describes some that might be more likely from probability arguments. (I cannot do justice to that exciting ride without quoting his whole discussion. But, mind you, Davies does not do this in any lighthearted way; he is deadly serious in scientifically examining these possibilities.) One of the inevitable possibilities is that some universes are but computer si

Paul Davies at his best...

Paul Davies at his best. An incredibly well written book intended for the general reader, covering the state of current thinking in modern physics and cosmology, boldly taking on the tough questions concerning the world's existence. As a physicist, I've seen much of the material before, but marvel at Davies ability to clearly explain the essential concepts. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the origins of the Universe.

Is there a cosmic blueprint?

This (2004 edition) is an updated re-publication of Davies' 1988 book. In the new preface, Davies (mathematical physicist, prolific writer, recipient of the Faraday Prize, the Kelvin Medal, and the Templeton Prize) suggests the possibility of something quite outlandish--that if humanity can somehow survive the full future of the universe, that upon the universe's thermodynamic and quantum demise, our descendants might scramble into a new universe of their own manufacture. The assertion brings several thoughts to mind, we might begin with, well, let's say, idea-heisting [I'll not say plagiar_sm, that would be a bit harsh]. (Frank Tipler famously envisioned this kind of scenario in a universe headed for a "big crunch." The big crunch has currently fallen out of favor with astronomers and theorists, and Davies' invented universe envisions the currently favored thermodynamic "big fade away" scenario.) It also might strike us as unrealistic or even arrogant; but, foolish or not, Davies' reason for such 'optimism' is unveiled in the following 200 pages. What follows is a fast-paced and critical tour-de-force of the state of current and emerging scientific theories and prospects (promising and otherwise) for the future. There are many outstanding discussions, one centered on the mathematics of self-similar scaling -- the "Mandelbrot set" being a famous example. Davies believes that, in principle, science will one day explain, comprehensively, how the world works. Don't hold your breath, we're not exactly close to that day just yet. In some significant areas, notably the deepest theoretical understandings of biological and mind sciences, there seems to have been rather little progress at all. From popular treatments [like glossy spreads in National Geographic magazine, or Discovery Channel shows], one might be led to believe that great insights have been gained into how biological evolution proceeds and how life arises spontaneously from non-life. Davies surveys the competing claims and theories in these disciplines and exposes them as being starkly impotent to date. (There is a popular myth that only religious fundamentalists are skeptical of the neo-Darwinian story line -- but many of the most penetrating minds of modern theoretical science and mathematics, including Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, John von Neumann, and Kurt Godel, among others, have found the Darwinian story to be non-compelling at best, and on some points glaringly wrong. As Davies points out, a world in which 'natural selection' was The Great Generative Engine, supporting only reproductive advantages, many life forms that we observe, like elephants [low birth rate, long gestation period, etc], could not have been 'selected' into existence. It does no good to protest that elephants should not and could not reproduce like bunnies -- in a truly Darwinian world there simply should not be elephants [or humans: striving to discern whether the universe might be headed toward a 'big crunch'

Analytical, informative and creative...

Davies has the unique ability to integrate various scientific ideas into a cohesive whole. Rather than dodging questions, he addresses them directly. There is a resistance to many of his ideas partly because some scientists are fearful that creationists will use his arguments to denigrate contemporary science. I hope Davies will continue to do what he does best-- analyze, synthesize and share his ideas.