Structure of the lecture

These just raw notes from the lecture, interleaved with some of my questions/ideas.

  • Why is universe with laws and not lawless?
  • Changed worldview over the last 70 years.
    • universe has beginning, not eternal
  • General introduction into BBT and cosmic background radiation.
  • Einstein: What are god’s thoughts? The rest are just details (spectra, element molar mass, …)
  • Planck: Science and religiion complement each other.
  • We only see shadows on the wall.
    • Me Why? What if there’s nothing more than the shadows?
    • Analogy with radio waves (couldn’t see them, they’re there still).
  • God is for what we don’t understand, such a god is not necessary.
    • Me Agreed.
    • God is behind everything (derived from Einstein’s quote)
  • Heisenberg: First sip of the science cup makes you atheistic, however, there’s god on the bottom of the cup.
  • Universe is running a code that was not made in the universe.
  • Natural laws are discovered, not made.
    • Where do they come from?
    • Who takes care they’re still working?
      • Constness of fundamental constants?
        • There’ll be no people otherwise.
          • Me Hmm, controverse how narrow/wide the livable range is.
  • Let’s say laws are given, and we can tune only those constants
    • aiming 1 cm target from
      • 1 km, Denmark, Moon, Sun, … (theatrical demonstrations of shooting)
      • after gradual prolongation he got to size of the universe
    • Me You are not aiming, you just shoot and watch what follows – because something always happens.
    • Me What’s the precise reasoning? Did he explore whole state space?
    • Universe designed just for us, but we are negligible (compared to Earth, Sun, galaxy, …)
    • he is trying to impress us with super great/small numbers
      • universe doesn’t care about us (music, emotions,… by Jacques Monod)
    • Me If he doesn’t mention anthropic principle, he is biased. Yes, he was.
    • Me Why considering just life in the form as we know it, it could be so much different.
  • He is quoting Stephen Hawking
    • only the part where he is amazed by the precise settings of the constants
    • still regards him as an atheist
  • gets to atoms
    • again making impressions with Avogadro constant
    • he is comparing water molecules to human products (how reliably the stick to laws of nature)
      • breath count taken by Caesar in his life == no. of Caesar’s molecules in a sigle breath today
    • talking about sparsity of matter in an atom
  • now back to universe scales
    • impressions by images from HST

    • suddenly, we are not gonna measure the god
    • sending a message to god (assumes limit of light speed)
    • we don’t have to find the god, he’ll come to us – he became one of us as Jesus Christ
      • Me Why on our Earth, how did he find us, on that little planet?
    • James Irwin: landing on the Moon is nothing compared to coming of Jesus Christ
  • Jesus Christ: whoever comes to me, I’ll not reject him (his explanation – we are free to do our observation science)

  • Me Students of FF are not supposed to understand and speak English.

Authentic comments

(In Czech only, written by me and my friend on shared keyboard.)

tak to mě teda zklamalo… to co jsi mohl vidět byla metoda Baroko… fascinace vším možným, zlatem a pozlátkem… a pak fascinované lidi oddělat dvouma větami z bible…

přesně – obrázky, velká, malá čísla a proložení citáty – ale nijak to mnou neotřáslo :)

já si uvědomil: 1) nechci skončit jako pan přednášwjící 2) proč nemá stránky s tagem fakulty 3) jaký byl Kant genius, že nepodlehl této plytkosti a uchoval si lásku k filozofii atd.

ještěže nestuduji fyziku, takže z definice takhle nemůžu skončit, ale taky je mi ho trochu líto, sice asi rozumí svému oboru, ale jeho náboženské názory mi přijdou celkem popíčkové/naivní

Hlavní problém přednášky pro mě je, že jeho názor nebyl vůbec naznačen, či řečen… a pokud ano… tak žádný nemá…

na mě působí jako prostě křesťan od výchovy, možná moje chyba, že jsem si ho tak namatchoval, navíc mi přišlo, že pokud by přišel na přednášku někdo s nepříliš silným přesvědčením či mdlým rozumem, mohl by se tím nechat okouzlit, ale přitom to bylo jednoznačně zaujaté pro boha

nevím, nemyslím si… člk od výchovy křestanem je mnohem mdlejší… musel na to přijít v dospělosti… ale od poloviny přemýšlím zda není jehovista… ale mám strach se zeptat…