Recently I read a book written by the famous physicist Stephen Hawking, who suffers cerebral palsy since long. At given from the will-be Mr. Universe Bruce, I as if had captured a bright gem and totally innovative artificial agate toward wisdom about our living environment, our universe but not the one Bruce longs for, and even the existence of God. Since we know that Newton at last believed, fully willingly, our strangely habitable solar system did not 'arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature', instead, he maintained, the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this day in the same state and condition. According to Hawking, he believes that it is quite normal for 'normal' people to refer all that seems impossible and incredible to the elicitation of Theology, especially toward the unknowable and unexplainable. Instead, he thinks that the combination of the galaxy was made luckily and is to 'please' us human beings (page 153). He contends with us being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we conceive and perceive ourselves. He called such mechanism 'weak anthropic principle', that is, we human beings, in his opinion, impose rules that select only environments that allow to live. People build pictures and visions out of people's points of views, rather than the whole scale from the universe, or, precisely speaking, out of the interface that may not include the dimentions that humans could ever apprehend.
Well, dear Bruce, forgive me first to be flagrant, is such hypothesis serendipity to us all, or, is this a great discovery of physics that no one before ever refuted, or still, a new kind of novelty or philosophy for people in the 21st century to agape and wonder: 'Wow, why haven't we thought about that before'? Well again, if the said allegations acquired a positive affirmation as sensational consternation, then cerebral palsy would be no longer impairment or disability in the function or normal cerebral metabolism. Maybe we should take another course to check the defination of 'palsy' out of the viewpoints from a person that we consider as palsy since the anthropic principle is arbitrary and apparently objectionable.
Well, dear Bruce, forgive me first to be flagrant, is such hypothesis serendipity to us all, or, is this a great discovery of physics that no one before ever refuted, or still, a new kind of novelty or philosophy for people in the 21st century to agape and wonder: 'Wow, why haven't we thought about that before'? Well again, if the said allegations acquired a positive affirmation as sensational consternation, then cerebral palsy would be no longer impairment or disability in the function or normal cerebral metabolism. Maybe we should take another course to check the defination of 'palsy' out of the viewpoints from a person that we consider as palsy since the anthropic principle is arbitrary and apparently objectionable.
神學第一 (6)