Yes, really!:)
>I was rather impressed by Layzer's popularisation COSMOGENESIS,
>BTW.
I was impressed too, though I feel he should have stuck to cosmology
and physics.
>`Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is a vast amount of genuine,
>irreducible randomness in the world.' But quantum processes,
>inherently indeterminate, are not thereby more `creative' (an argument
>that should give Davies and Gribbin pause). `The outcomes of self-
>creation are new and unforeseeable, yet coherent with what has gone
>before.'
This irreducible randomness and directedness seems real, yet most
cannot accept it and try to explain them as an epiphenomena of our
awareness. Where, pray tell, did our awareness come up with them
then!?!:)
>To fans of Big Science, Layzer offers one stunning challenge after
>another. The standard story of creation has a highly ordered fireball
>Big Bang, inflating instantly to a smooth expanding cosmos - and can't
>easily explain why galaxies clump into vast walls hugging cosmic
>bubbles. Layzer proposes a highly random cold origin, distinctly
>unfashionable but intriguing.
But it seems to explain the large scale structure and mass distribution
which extant Hot Big Bang theories has trouble have trouble accounting
for.
>Nothing daunted, he applies his theory to evolution - `beta genes', he
>suggests, both provoke and edit mutations, spurring development - and
>to the nature of language. Ultimately, order emerges in hierarchies of
>self-organisation, attributable in the final instance to the very expansion
>of spacetime itself.
Where he takes this is intriguing, but I feel it is a bit premature and
might be attached to closely with his cosmological theory. If his
notions of self-organization prove wrong, then people might reject his
Cold Big Bang -- even though it might be right.
Daniel Ust