Hi Everybody,

I see things somewhat differently from Maya on one point:

> I have to learn and know about these laws because it enhances
> my understanding of, and confirms my suspicion of, patterns in
> human behavior and psychology. I like to see how my need for
> chocolate cake (or for social assimilation) mimics an atom's
> need for an extra electron (or for the company of another atom.)
> Since our needs and our thoughts boil down to processes in our
> biochemistry, I don't see how we can understand ourselves deeply
> without looking into the nature of the elements and forces
> that make up and govern the universe of which we were born.

I think we can understand ourselves independent of the nature of fundamental scientific laws.

For example: if I'm trying to understand how to use Microsoft Word, I read the user manual. I don't need to know how to program, or what the source code says, and if I do know how to program it doesn't make it any easier to understand how the word processor works. Further removed still are the workings of the electronic chips within the computer; the way a transistor works has no influence on how I do things when I write a letter in Microsoft word. In fact, one can imagine computers that don't run on silicon chips, that would still perform the same way. (Certainly companies like Intel are looking for new ways to design computer chips that will get past the limitations of silicon chips; that shouldn't change the way I use my word processor.) And finally, the way Microsoft Word works has no connection with the laws of quantum mechanics governing electrons. If I say that the spell-checker has an affinity for correct spelling, it is merely a coincidence that atoms also have affinities for electrons.

I guess another way to put it is, when we try to describe the physical world, we often use the same words that we use to describe human behavior. Atoms have *affinities* for electrons, gravity *attracts* two masses. This is because human behavior is so rich, it is not suprising that we can describe any scientific situation using the same words we use to describe our own interactions. I do not see this as a fundamental connection between human behavior and the scientific world. Instead, it is just the easiest way to describe the scientific world. Put this way, of course the scientific world will mimic human behavior, because how could it not? What could we see the physical world doing that humans don't somehow also do?

Another way to put it: science has found that the best way to describe the physical world is really through math. Rather than talking about gravity attracting two objects, I can write down all the equations describing the motion of two objects due to gravity, and since those equations result in the two objects coming towards each other, we'd call it an attraction if we wanted to describe it without math. But in the end, the physical world is really obeying those equations, as best as we can tell. And I think we'd all agree that human interactions can't be contained in mathematical equations! At least, I hope that's true.

So, this is just the way I see things, let me know what y'all think.Going back to Amanda's question, why do I find the Big Bang interesting? I guess for me it's just intellectual curiosity. I think it's one of the more interesting questions, it's a "big" question (where the universe came from) rather than just something about the details. I guess this is a more dull viewpoint than most people have expressed in response to her question, sorry!

Some of my interest also is that it's an interesting way to answer the question that various religions have addressed. That is, it's an interesting philosophical question, how did the universe come into existence, and I think it's fascinating that we can look at distant galaxies and figure out some of the answers. (A peculiar fact: when asked how the world came into being, Buddha said it was an uninteresting question.

Apparently Buddhists aren't so interested in this question that has caused such controversy between scientists and some religions.)
--Eric