Resumo de The Nature Of The Universe

The author of the work which I attempt to but into a more concise fashion such that it be easily read and understood in a minimal amount of time by any person of average intelligence, and who likewise holds a command of the English language that would be considered best as average (though better would be just as well), is a work by Sir Fred Hoyle regarding the Nature of the Universe.
As I myself know with strong certainty that Sir Hoyle is an individual of far greater than average intelligence, and in addition, my limited reading of his particular work suggest that Sir Hoyle was either discussing the theory of Panspermia, the idea essentially that life on this planet arrived here from somewhere out there. In other words, virus like, or bacteria like, or something or other carbon based somehow or other (comet, meteor, little green men in flying saucers, though the latter suggestion probably a rather remote possiblity) came into contact with this planet, and in so doing, seeded this planet (IE., the planet upon which we reside, commonly referred to as planet Earth in the English language, Mundo in Spanish, thereby providing the very first and original precursor to all the forms of life known (and otherwise)to exist on this planet today. To sum that up, something falls from space onto earth, it has biological activity in it, maybe in the manner of a bit of RNA molecule, or a portion of a molecule of RNA, maybe a few chains of linked amino acids. However, these by way of influence of the envirnoment, and some energy or force, or something just a bit beyond our conception, but which is normally referred to as living or life being present in these few molecules of linked amino acids, or RNA strands, and by way of the influence of this "energy" or force, or whatever it exactly is, the essence of biological life, caused those primitive life forms to over millions of years (or if Carl Sagan were here to write this, I suppose it would be billions and billions of years), but no matter how long, essentially, a thing a bit more than a nothing, over a period of time, and having arrived from somewhere out there in the universe, evolved into what we know as the thousands and thousands (where's Carl when we could really use him?) of life forms that surround us today.
The other possibility, and I say possibility, as I have not read the book by Sir Hoyle that I am writing this abstract on. Simply as how can the subject of the entire universe, and even if we go under the simplistic idea that there being only one of them, for the sake of convenience, the thought of discussing the nature of the universe itself, beyond some particular topic related to the entire universe, such as the aforementioned subject of panspermia, to consider such a task that is so utterly beyond the concept of the human mind, and to put that, the nature of the universe, into a book that say is of a size at least that no more than a four wheel vehicle be needed to move the book from one location to another, I would have to assume that Sir Hoyle was suggesting more or less the same in his article/book. How could the concept of everything in existence, regardless of our knowledge, or lack of, as that is the definition of the universe....everything, every single last thing, again, whether or not we know of its existence. That the universe has a simple single nature??? From the theist point of view, I suppose we could assume that yes, the all eternal, never beginning and never ending now (some people use a particular three letter word that is best left unsaid here I believe), but even if Sir Hoyle were to be suggesting that the nature of the universe be essentially that now that never began and will never end, well, writing a book on it, or a twenty volume encyclopedia, would all seem rather senseless, considering that there are no amount of words that can explain the universe. So while I have not read the book of which I am writing this abstract for, I think it at least a 50% hance that Sir Hoyle was either saying, life is the nature of the universe, or, that eternal now, and that somehow being related to life, or vice versa, is the universal nature of all that is...as well as all that is not.
Everyone clear on that now? Thank you.

Alan

Resumos Relacionados