Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tardis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!wjh12!tardis!lucius
From: lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Superforce by Davies(?)?  (reposting)
Message-ID: <10033@tardis.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 10:56:10 EST
Article-I.D.: tardis.10033
Posted: Mon Apr  8 10:56:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 00:10:26 EST
References: <129@tardis.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard University, Cruft Lab (TARDIS)
Lines: 79
Xref: linus net.books:1519 net.physics:2185

_ 
	I am reposting this because my last postnews attempt choked to death
on a dead C-shell.  I doubt that anything even got past the /tmp/xxxxxx file,
but if it did, sorry for the inconvenience of the existence of the other
partial copy.

	Michael Bishop writes about Superforce:

> I have  read  it.  I think  the guy  makes a lot of  flowery  statements
> throughout the book.  He makes numerous comparisons of modern physics to
> mysticism,  existentialism,  and  non-objective  reality.  He also makes
> many  arguments in the book for the  existence of some "Cosmic  Creator"
> because the universe  obviously  displays so much order that it couldn't
> possibly  be the result of a random  event  (e.g., the old  watchmaker's
> analogy).  The author never considers that by supposing the existence of
> a creator to explain the  universe, he then leaves  himself  open to the
> question of who created the creator; a creator which obviously  can't be
> the result of a random event, if you stay with his analogy.
> 
> In many  places  in the book I could  not  understand  his  usage of the
> terms:  nothingness,  cause,  effect,  vacuum,  reality, etc.  It seemed
> like his  definitions  were  fluid  meaning  one  thing in one place and
> something  else in another.  He  frequently  makes what I consider to be
> absurd  comments like  "Nothingness  is something  that is thriving with
> energy." And various other ludicrous statements about effects preceeding
> causes as though the meaning of the two words  "cause" and "effect"  can
> be simply  inverted or totally  disregarded  while you absorb  these new
> discoveries in physics.  I think the book is on par with UFO's,  Pyramid
> Power, and  Ancient  Astronauts;  that is, pulp  science.  Therefore,  I
> can't recommend this book to anyone.
> 
> Michael Bishop
> hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
> 
	That's why I was asking about this book before I got it.  I strongly
suspected that it might be like this.  (I wonder why so many other people gave
it favorable reviews though?  Maybe I should get it just for the purpose of
reviewing it.  But then that probably wouldn't stop some other poor jerk like
me from wasting his money because of other favorable reviews.  But then how
am I to know it is actually a waste?  This is bad.)

	I once read a book on -- would you believe it -- black holes -- that was
very much like this.  Might have even by the same guy, although I can't
remember.  If I ever remember when I'm stopping by the Georgia Tech Library
I'll check it out just to give it the review it deserves to warn people away
from it.  Had all sorts of goofy things like Lucifer was red because his image
was trapped at the event horizon of the black hole where God had thrown him
(wouldn't stay red for a perceptible time anyway -- radiation would get
redshifted probably to lower than 4.3 blackbody radiation so fast you wouldn't
even get to see the last stages of his falling in, not to mention all the other
things that are -- I believe the word is "inane" -- about this concept).  More
goofy things like it were that it would be "unbearable" (or maybe it was
"unthinkable") to see a naked singularity (I could see that that might fry you
or something but the impression I got from the book was that the author meant
something was philosophically or morally wrong with it -- would you believe
that?  Maybe these pulp science writers are in with the Moral Majority or
something?  :-)).

	By the way, speaking of people making comparisons between physics and
"non-objective reality" and other mystical things -- that seems to be becoming
a fashion even among some respected scientists.  I can't figure out what the
deal is.  And articles I have seen in Scientific American on advanced physics
topics, such as the 11-dimensional space model, much of the more recent stuff
on the quark theory, and other similar things, seem to be as uninformative as
occult writings (and I can't understand the ones in the more technical
journals such as Science at all).  This could be just because my brain is too
primitive on the evolutionary scale to comprehend such high concepts, but I
can't get rid of the suspicion that a lot of the people making these theories
and writing these articles don't know what they're talking about.  Of course,
I'm sure the high priesthood would be most displeased that a mere normal, who
cannot comprehend their appreciation of the higher plane of existence of
Gordelpus (read Olaf Stapledon's (sp) Last and First Men), dares to question
their encyclicals.

-- 

		-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
		lucius@tardis.ARPA
		seismo!tardis!lucius