Literary Insights

BOOK LINK:

Here is a summary of the key points about what we believe but cannot prove:

The preface introduces the concept of the “third culture”, referring to thinkers who are taking the place of traditional intellectuals in making sense of the world. It describes the origin of the annual “Edge Question” tradition.
The 2005 Edge Question asked contributors what they believe is true even though they cannot prove it. The responses generally reflect a focus on consciousness, knowledge, truth and proof.
The introduction frames the question in terms of the elastic and imperfect nature of proof in science, philosophy and daily life. It suggests the responses represent a reaction to an abundance of certainty in the “age of search culture”.
The contributors include leading scientists, philosophers, writers and technologists. Their unprovable beliefs span a wide range of topics, including the nature of consciousness, the limits of science, the existence of God, the role of chance in the universe, and the psychological underpinnings of morality.
Though diverse, many responses exhibit a common skepticism about the limits of human knowledge and certainty. There is also a shared sense that science must move beyond seeking definitive answers to engage with deeper mysteries.

In summary, the book compiles leading thinkers’ speculations on what truths might exist beyond the limits of proof and certainty. It emphasizes humility in the face of life’s deepest questions.

Here is a summary of the key points made by Martin Rees:

Intelligent life may currently only exist on Earth, but has the potential to spread throughout the galaxy and beyond. Even if no other intelligent life is found, life on Earth is still cosmically significant.
There is enough time for intelligence to permeate the galaxy and evolve into complexity beyond our comprehension.
Future evolution will be intelligently directed and progress much faster than natural selection, through genetic modifications, drugs, and brain implants.
Humanity may not survive as a single species for more than a few centuries, especially if communities spread away from Earth.
The remote future is speculative, but advanced intelligences could create new universes and simulate universes as complex as our own.
His belief that intelligence has cosmic potential may remain unprovable for billions of years, but is still worthy of open-minded consideration.

Here is a summary of the main points:

Ray Kurzweil believes that technological progress will allow us to circumvent the speed of light as a limit on the communication of information. He suggests we may find ways to expand computation outward using readily available materials, send nanobots at close to the speed of light to colonize other planets, or use wormholes as shortcuts through spacetime.
Douglas Rushkoff believes evolution has purpose and direction, with matter progressing toward complexity. He argues meaning and purpose may emerge as byproducts of human collaboration and our creative future rather than being predesigned by a divine being.
Richard Dawkins states that all life on Earth is shaped by natural selection, but we cannot currently prove whether this process operates elsewhere in the universe. However, many scientists suspect there is life elsewhere that may be shaped by similar evolutionary processes.
Carolyn Porco believes extraterrestrial life exists in the universe, even though there is no direct evidence yet. Her justification is based on the following:
The timeline of events leading to life on Earth was very quick, appearing just 300 million years after the heavy bombardment period ended 3.8 billion years ago. This suggests that once conditions are right, life can emerge rapidly.
The processes that created the solar system and led to life on Earth, driven by gravity, seem common throughout the galaxy and universe.
There are enormous numbers of galaxies, stars, and likely habitable planets in the visible universe.
Given the ease with which life developed on Earth once conditions allowed it, and the prevalence of similar conditions, it seems likely that life is a fundamental feature of the universe.
While no direct proof yet exists, the circumstantial evidence makes Porco believe extraterrestrial life is common in the cosmos. Her belief is based on scientific reasoning about the origins of life, not religious faith.

Here is a summary of novae and black holes:

Novae:

Novae are explosive events that occur in binary star systems containing a white dwarf star and a companion star.
Matter from the companion star accumulates on the surface of the white dwarf until it reaches a critical mass, triggering a thermonuclear explosion. This causes the white dwarf to brighten substantially for a period of time.
Novae recur as the companion star continues transferring matter to the white dwarf. The recurrence intervals range from 10 years to millions of years.

Black Holes:

Black holes are regions of spacetime with gravity so intense that nothing, including light, can escape.
They form from the gravitational collapse of massive stars at the end of their life cycles. The collapse causes the matter to be compressed into an extremely small volume, creating the black hole.
Black holes have an ‘event horizon’ boundary, inside which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Material that passes inside the event horizon is forever trapped within the black hole.
Black holes continue to grow in mass and size as they absorb surrounding material, such as gas and dust. Supermassive black holes millions to billions of times the mass of the sun are thought to exist at the centers of most large galaxies.
String theory is an area of theoretical physics that some believe to be futile, including Philip W. Anderson. He thinks it is an interesting mathematical exercise but not vital as physics since it lacks experimental evidence.
Robert Sapolsky states he believes there is no God or soul despite having no proof. He would be fine with proof there is no God and might continue disbelieving even if there was proof.
Jesse Bering discusses Miguel de Unamuno’s death and his supposed last words being “God does not exist” showing his atheism despite lifelong philosophical struggles with faith.
The common thread is these scientists and thinkers believe in certain things without definitive proof, whether it’s the futility of string theory, the lack of gods and souls, or the nonexistence of God. Their personal judgments shape these beliefs even lacking conclusive evidence.
I believe, but cannot prove, that reality exists independent of human and social constructions. Science and naturalism provide the best methods for understanding this reality, even though our knowledge remains provisional.
There is no such thing as the paranormal or supernatural, only the normal, natural, and yet-to-be-explained mysteries.
There is no God, intelligent designer, or divine being, despite thousands of years of attempts by great minds to prove or disprove such an entity. Belief or disbelief in God ultimately rests on nonrational grounds.
The universe is determined but we have free will, an apparent paradox likely due to the immense complexity of the causal net making human actions pragmatically unpredictable and undetermined.
Morality is the natural outcome of evolution and social learning, not divinely ordained. Moral principles must be evaluated with reference to their real-world consequences for human well-being and flourishing.
Though these propositions cannot be proven definitively, science and reason provide the best hope for understanding reality and morality, surpassing faith and religion. Our knowledge remains provisional but we can achieve an ever greater understanding of the world.
People gain an evolutionary advantage from believing in things they cannot prove, because intense emotions and passionate beliefs confer selective benefits in certain situations.
Those prone to false beliefs or swept away by emotions do better than those who insist on evidence and calculate every move. This has shaped mental capacities for emotion and faith.
Irrationality can cause problems, but to understand why these tendencies exist, we should consider their evolutionary origins and functions, not just dismiss them as defects.
Lacking passions or faith has disadvantages too. The rational actor is predictable and can be exploited, while the passionate or faithful actor is a force to be reckoned with.
Great achievements often come from people acting on conviction without proof. Faith and passion have advantages and disadvantages - optimal traits lie in the middle.
Understanding these capacities requires examining their origins and adaptive purposes, not just condemning them. Proof may strengthen or disprove beliefs.
In summary, belief without proof confers evolutionary advantages, though also risks. To comprehend human nature, we must study the functions of faith and passion, not just label them irrational.
Scott Atran argues that God exists only in people’s thoughts and minds, not as an actual being with the power to suspend natural laws. But the human urge to find overarching meanings and relations drives humanity forward.
David G. Myers, as a Christian monotheist, believes in God but also recognizes his own fallibility. This leads him to hold his unproven beliefs tentatively, assess others’ ideas with skepticism, and pursue truth through observation and experiment.
Jonathan Haidt believes that hostility towards religion obstructs progress in psychology. Understanding religious experiences from an insider’s perspective, as anthropologists do, would enrich psychological science.
Sam Harris believes, but cannot yet prove, that belief is a content-independent brain process, relying on the same neural circuitry whether the belief is about gods, numbers, or anything else. Debunking religious faith would clear the way for new approaches to ethics and spirituality.
David Buss believes in true love, though his research on the dark side of mating makes him think true love is rare. It follows its own course rather than well-worn paths.
Seth Lloyd believes in science, even though scientific results cannot be definitively proven. Testing theories over and over inspires enough confidence for him to practically apply conclusions, like the existence of electrons.

Here are the key points about what Timothy Taylor believes but cannot prove regarding cannibalism and slavery in human prehistory:

Taylor believes, but cannot prove, that both cannibalism and slavery were prevalent in human prehistory, even though these beliefs do not have consensus among specialists and remain controversial.
The empirical evidence for cannibalism and slavery in the archaeological record is ambiguous and elusive.
Truth and belief are uncomfortable words in scholarship. Science does not believe in belief or truth in an absolute sense, but rather seeks the best understanding based on current knowledge and evidence.
Under normal conditions, most scholars act to support a set of beliefs that functions like a religion, with best guesses hardening into orthodoxies.
Taylor’s beliefs about ancient cannibalism and slavery challenge the current orthodoxy, even though he cannot prove them based on available evidence. He seems to suggest that scholars adhere rigidly to consensus views, making it difficult to advance alternative theories.

In summary, Taylor expresses unprovable personal beliefs that go against the prevailing views among scholars regarding cannibalism and slavery in prehistory. He suggests academic orthodoxies can calcify and hinder challenging new perspectives.

The author believes, but cannot prove, that three selection processes - natural selection, sexual selection, and parental selection - were involved in human evolution.
Parental selection is the idea that parents select for certain traits in their children based on aesthetic criteria, not just fitness or sexiness. This could explain rapid changes like skin color and hairlessness.
The author hypothesizes that Neanderthals were furry and survived the Ice Age that way. Modern humans were hairless and may have hunted and eaten the furry Neanderthals when they migrated to Europe.
The author learned of some very simple languages on the Indonesian island of Flores, where Homo floresiensis (“hobbits”) lived until recently. This suggests the possibility that two human species coexisted and the simple languages may have belonged to the “little people.”

In summary, the author lays out some interesting hypotheses about human evolution and language origins, focused on the roles of parental selection and possible coexistence of humans and archaic hominins, but admits these cannot be proven with current evidence.

Here are the key points I took from the responses:

John McWhorter believes that some unusually simple languages like Keo, Ngada, and Rongga evolved that way because they were learned imperfectly as second languages by another hominid species (“little people”) interacting with modern humans on Flores island. This fits with his view that languages tend to simplify under sociohistorical pressures, not just through natural evolution.
Elizabeth Spelke believes all humans share fundamental cognitive abilities and values, even though superficial differences make us think groups are profoundly different. She thinks with time, science can reveal our common human nature and help overcome intergroup conflicts.
Stephen Schneider believes the evidence, while not meeting the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt,” is sufficient to prove human-caused global warming to a civil standard of “preponderance of evidence.” He thinks there is enough evidence to justify taking action on climate change.
Bruce Sterling succinctly states his belief that we are in for significant climate chaos and disruption.
Robert Trivers believes deceit and self-deception play a large role in human disasters, underdevelopment of social sciences, and limitations of individuals.
Verena Huber-Dyson believes in the creative power of boredom, no matter how much distraction we provide for the young. She also discusses Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and their implications for what can be proven in formal systems.
Mathematical proof is not as absolute as it may seem. Even proofs in geometry, long held as the ideal of certainty, have been found to contain errors over time. Modern proofs can be incredibly complex, stretching hundreds of pages, making certainty even harder to maintain.
With the concept of proof being so uncertain, even in mathematics, answering whether there are things we believe but cannot prove becomes tricky. The best we can do is offer arguments that would convince experts in the field, based on reputation and prior work.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems showed mathematical statements that cannot be proven within an axiomatic system. But this does not preclude proving them in a larger system. So even appeals to Gödel’s theorems do not provide unambiguous examples of believed but unprovable statements.
Dyson offers a probabilistic argument that the reverse of a power of two will never be a power of five. The essence is that this seems very unlikely to happen by chance, but there is no deeper mathematical reason it must be true. So it is likely true but cannot be proved.
Goldstein believes scientific theories describe unobservable aspects of reality, going beyond observations in a mysterious way. The theoretical parts are not just algorithms but have descriptive content. She believes they are true or false by corresponding to reality. But it is difficult to explain how science accomplishes this penetration into the unobservable via abstract mathematics.
The mathematical nature of the world corresponds fundamentally to our cognitive modes, reflecting what they saw as God’s friendly intentions toward us. This justified their scientific methodology.
However, not all properties of nature are mathematically expressible. There are aspects of nature we cannot reach through science. Our scientific theories, like mathematical systems, must be forever incomplete, as proven by Gödel.
Consciousness demonstrates this incompleteness, as it is an aspect of the material world we know about but not through science.

In essence, the mathematical nature of the world reflects an assumed correspondence to our cognition that justified early scientific methods. However, there are inherent limitations to this, as not everything is mathematically expressible. Consciousness exemplifies something science cannot fully explain, showing the inherent incompleteness of our theories.

The neural code is the algorithm by which the brain transforms sensory input into perceptions, memories, decisions, etc. It is idiosyncratic to each person, shaped by their unique life experiences.
Scientists may never fully crack the neural code and be able to read people’s thoughts without consent. The only way to know someone’s specific neural encodings would be to invasively monitor their brain activity while they describe their thoughts.
The data gleaned from one person would not allow interpreting the neural signals of any other person. Each person’s neural code is unique.
For good or ill, our minds will likely always remain partially hidden from technologies like brain scanning or decoding neural signals. There are limits to how precisely neuroscience will enable reading people’s thoughts without their consent.

The author believes in the existence of an external reality independent of her own mind, even though she cannot definitively prove it. She believes the laws of physics can be reasoned back to the origins of the universe, just as we can reason about the laws governing a cup of coffee. However, she acknowledges there is still an element of belief involved since we ultimately rely on our perceptions and empirical experience, which could conceivably be an illusion.

The author considers solipsism - the idea that only one’s own mind exists - to be arrogant. She believes that other people’s minds exist outside of her own, even though she has no way to definitively prove this. She argues that if solipsism is true, then all of science, culture and other minds are just fabrications of her own mind - a possibility she rejects.

In summary, the author believes in an external reality and other minds, based on experience, empirical evidence and a rejection of solipsism. But there is still an element of belief, since she cannot provide absolute proof against the possibility that reality is an illusion constructed by her own mind. Her belief aligns with a scientific understanding of the world, even though it remains ultimately unprovable.

Here is a summary of the key points made by Charles Simonyi and Alan Kay regarding artificial intelligence and the intellectual impact of computers:

Charles Simonyi

Software complexity has grown much faster than hardware capability, bottlenecking progress. The “encryption” of translating problems into code makes software hard to understand and modify.
Generative programming, where programmers write generators to combine domain knowledge with implementation details, can help separate problem specification from programming. This will allow faster, cheaper and less error-prone software development.

Alan Kay

In science we model “mappings to languages”, not absolute truth. Computing proofs are rare - we rely more on architectures and heuristics.
Computers may advance civilization like writing and printing did, by changing thinking and argumentation. But this hypothesis lacks evidence so far.

Here is a summary of the key points made by Dennett:

Dennett believes, but cannot yet prove, that acquiring human language is a necessary precondition for strong consciousness with a sense of selfhood.
He argues that pre-linguistic children and nonhuman animals, while cognitively sophisticated and able to feel pain, lack an organized subjective “I”.
Dennett acknowledges this is controversial, but says it does not imply demoting moral status of animals/children. Suffering matters even if there is no clear subject experiencing it.
He lays out what evidence would be needed to prove or disprove his hypothesis: models of human consciousness showing importance of neural pathways enabled by language acquisition; evidence that animal cognition never requires such abilities; demonstration that key pathways for consciousness are present before language acquisition.
Dennett argues evolution shows advanced coordination is possible without unified meta-systems that distinguish “I” from “we”. Insects and animal brains are more disunified than we imagine.
He is not saying all human consciousness is inner speech, but language abilities enable reviewing, rehearsing, recollecting in ways that shape consciousness.

In summary, Dennett believes language enables key features of human self-consciousness, which likely emerges gradually in childhood as neural pathways are shaped by language acquisition. But this remains an empirical hypothesis to be further tested.

Alun Anderson believes that simple animals like cockroaches have some form of consciousness or subjective experience of the world, though not the same kind as humans. He bases this on his research into insect perception and sensory worlds.
Joseph LeDoux argues that it’s difficult to prove subjective experience in animals different from humans, since we can’t measure it directly and animal brains differ in key areas involved in human consciousness like the prefrontal cortex.
LeDoux suggests studying the neural processes that make consciousness possible in animals, rather than the specific content. He proposes that feelings arise when emotion systems activate brain areas capable of awareness.
The two perspectives differ on whether simple organisms can have subjective experience given their neural hardware differences from humans. But they agree it’s very difficult to definitively prove the existence and nature of consciousness in non-human animals.
Panksepp believes that ancient emotional circuits in the brainstem could underlie basic emotions shared across species like fear. However, the author is skeptical that behavioral similarities necessarily mean similar subjective experiences.
While neural similarities provide some evidence (rats and humans have similar brainstems unlike insects), it is still difficult to definitively prove that another species experiences emotions the same way humans do.
The author prefers to study emotional behaviors in rats that can be objectively measured and compared to humans, rather than make assumptions about subjective emotional experiences in rats that cannot be proven.
The author takes a “practical” approach focused on what can be studied and measured rather than speculation about animal consciousness that cannot be resolved. Overall, the author believes animals likely have emotional experiences but argues this cannot be conclusively proven based on current evidence.
Dehaene believes that we vastly underestimate the differences between the human brain and the brains of other primates.
While there are similarities in overall layout and some homologies between specific regions, there are dramatic quantitative differences. The higher cortical areas in humans are much larger, and there are differences in neuron types and connectivity.
Dehaene proposes that greater connectivity in the human brain enables flexible communication between distant areas. Humans may have similar specialized processors as other primates, but we can access and share information between them more fluidly.
This allows humans to have a more developed “conscious workspace” - a network of areas that can exchange signals and manipulate information.
The human conscious workspace has passed a threshold of internal connectivity and autonomy, making it less dependent on external signals and allowing near-constant reverberation of activity between areas.
This connectivity and autonomy may underlie uniquely human cognitive abilities, though the exact differences remain unclear. Dehaene believes we vastly underestimate these differences between the human brain and our primate relatives.

Here is a summary of the key points made by Alex Pentland:

Pentland speculates that human behavior may be substantially influenced by a “collective tribal mind” that operates through non-linguistic social signaling, analogous to the “wiggle dance” of bees.
His research group has built a system that measures non-linguistic social signals like engagement, mirroring, activity, and stress, and has found these signals can predict important behavioral outcomes like salary negotiations, dating decisions, hiring preferences, and social roles.
The social signaling seems more predictive of outcomes than factual context or linguistic content, even for rationally planned interactions like job negotiations.
Pentland speculates the social signals may have evolved for establishing tribal hierarchy and cohesion, with the “tribal mind” filtering ideas according to value for the group. The signals may form an independent communication channel reflecting unconscious collective assessment.
In sum, Pentland suspects human behavior may be influenced substantially by a “collective tribal mind” operating through non-linguistic social signaling, though he cannot yet prove this is the case. The social signaling seems to predict outcomes in important interactions.

Here are the key points:

Human talents are based on distinct patterns of brain connectivity that develop as we master activities and domains in our culture. While genetics plays a role, the neural connections that allow talents to emerge are shaped through practice and experience.
Language acquisition demonstrates this process. We are inherently talented at language, but the specific languages we learn depend on the culture. Similar neural specialization happens for other talents like music, math, chess, etc. based on the activities available in the culture.
Those with natural aptitudes will form the needed neural connections faster and with less effort. But others can still develop expertise through effective teaching and practice. Neuroimaging studies tracking brain changes with musical training can help test this theory.
Insomnia, creativity, emotion, and mind-wandering are linked to our brain shifting between focused and diffuse cognitive modes. Understanding this spectrum and how to manipulate it could enable treating insomnia, enhancing creativity, and advancing AI. The failure of AI stems from not replicating our dynamic mental states.
Nature and culture can be understood as one unified process, not two separate domains divided by something unique to humans like language, consciousness, or ethics.
Developments in biology and complexity theory suggest a conceptual foundation for unifying science and the humanities.
Organisms can be seen as participants in cultures with meaningful histories, expressed through their forms and behaviors. Species represent 3.7 billion years of adaptive evolution and embodied wisdom about effective, sustainable living.
There is potential for a holistic science unified with the arts and humanities, based on principles of a naturalistic ethic that includes qualities as well as quantities.
Empirical studies on how organisms achieve coherence and adaptability could inform the organic design of human artifacts and technologies.
Articulating this unified perspective will require work across disciplines to bridge science, technology, and the humanities. The goal is a foundation for a sustainable human culture inspired by nature’s wisdom.

Here are the key points:

Cars and factories should be integrated with natural processes to enhance the planet rather than degrade it. This requires rethinking evolution in terms of the intrinsic meaning and agency embodied in the life cycles of different species or natural cultures.
Integrating biology, culture and physics will be challenging but possible. Fractal patterns that arise during phase transitions in physical systems have similarities to patterns in organismic and cultural networks involved in generating order and meaning.
This unified vision of a creative, meaningful cosmic process could replace the mechanistic view of the meaningless mechanical cosmos that has dominated scientific thought.
Donald I. Williamson believes he can explain the Cambrian explosion around 500 million years ago, when a wide variety of animals appeared in a relatively short time.
He believes the Cambrian explosion was caused by hybridization - the interbreeding of distinct animal species. This produced “concurrent chimeras” made up of body parts from different species.
Early metazoans (multicellular animals) arose from hybridization of colonial protists. Their eggs and sperm mixed freely in water, allowing interspecies fertilization.
Early animals had small genomes and spare gene capacity, enabling productive hybridization. The new hybrid animals also hybridized, producing an explosion of forms.
Later hybridizations led to acquisition of larvae, which are like the front ends of different animals.
Hybridization and symbiogenesis allow rapid evolution, unlike gradual Darwinian modification within a lineage.
Williamson cannot prove the early animals had spare capacity for hybridization, but believes it makes sense.

Here are the key points:

Despite increasing IQs, today’s children have declining social and emotional skills compared to previous generations. This may be due to economic and technological changes like busier working parents, less free time, more organized activities, and more screen time.
The brain circuitry for social/emotional skills develops last, so childhood experiences shape those connections. Current experiences may not foster skill building as well. Bringing social/emotional lessons into classrooms could help.
Modern life has paradoxically changed our sense of time. We live longer but think shorter due to more information, activities, measurements, and change crammed into each moment.
This focus on the immediate rather than long-term plans may be like a mental diabetes from too much instant, processed information and not enough imagination-stimulating play. We need to reverse this by helping kids develop in less rushed, information-dense environments.
Jean Paul Schmetz believes that most ideas taught in basic economics will eventually be proven false, because economics is not as rigorous as the hard sciences. Existing economic theories fail to accurately explain or predict economic realities. New hypotheses will emerge that better explain economic phenomena.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues that social sciences and humanities are prone to overestimating their knowledge, as they rely heavily on fitting explanatory narratives to past data rather than experimental verification. Reading history books or news analysis does not necessarily grant real understanding. Wise people know the limits of predicting the future based on the past.
Simon Baron-Cohen outlines his theory that a key cause of autism is assortative mating between two hyper-systemizers, meaning people focused on analyzing systems and patterns. He has preliminary evidence supporting parts of this theory, though it remains to be definitively proven or disproven. He is open to abandoning the theory if future evidence disconfirms it.

In summary, all three contend that many existing ideas in their fields will eventually be superseded by better theories and evidence, illustrating the nature of scientific progress. They value falsifiability and are willing to change their views based on empirical data, rather than holding onto wrong ideas.

Steven Giddings believes that black holes do not destroy information, contrary to Stephen Hawking’s early arguments. This would resolve the “black hole information paradox.”
Many string theorists now agree that black holes don’t destroy information, though Hawking himself has conceded this point without publishing specifics on where his original logic failed.
There is disagreement on where exactly Hawking’s calculation went wrong after over 30 years of physicists struggling with this paradox.
If black holes emit information instead of destroying it, this likely comes from a breakdown of locality - the notion that distant phenomena can’t instantly influence each other.
Some have proposed mechanisms for this locality violation, like formation of long strings near the black hole horizon. Others argue the singularity at the center must be a unique state, contradicting locality.
Giddings believes the strong gravitational effects of black holes undermine the independence of degrees of freedom inside and outside the black hole. This contradicts locality.
However, Giddings has not yet proven this point thoroughly enough to convince many colleagues. The exact mechanism for how black holes preserve information remains an open question.
Alexander Vilenkin believes the universe is likely infinite, containing an infinite number of regions the same size as our observable universe. Based on quantum mechanics, there are a finite number of possible histories that could play out in each of these regions. Therefore, every possible history likely occurs in an infinite number of regions, including an infinite number of regions identical to ours.
Vilenkin finds this idea depressing, as it robs human civilization of any claim to uniqueness.
He also believes, but cannot prove, that our part of the universe will eventually stop expanding and collapse in a ‘Big Crunch’, but not for at least 20 billion years.
Lawrence M. Krauss believes our universe is likely not unique - there are plausibly many other universes out there, some experiencing their own Big Bangs. This fits with modern cosmological theories.
Philosophically, a ‘multiverse’ may help explain why our universe has certain unexpected features - it is just one of many different possible universes.
John D. Barrow believes the universe is infinite, finite in age, and one of many, but these statements are ultimately unprovable.
Paul J. Steinhardt rejects the anthropic principle - the idea that our universe’s properties are accidental. He sees this as unscientific, since it makes untestable assumptions about other universes we cannot observe.
Steinhardt believes there are scientific reasons our universe is not accidental, though he cannot yet prove this. He thinks desperation has led some physicists to unsupported anthropic ideas.
Gregory Benford believes there is likely an underlying principle or mechanism that gives rise to scientific laws, but we don’t yet understand what it is.
One possibility he raises is some kind of evolutionary selection process, analogous to natural selection in biology. In this view, universes with laws conducive to the development of intelligence and life are more likely to reproduce or spawn new universes.
Our universe may have arisen this way, from a prior “Ur-universe” that had intelligence and was able to create new universes with slight variations.
If this is true, it could explain why our universe has laws that allow for stable conditions and the development of complexity and life. We are a consequence of the laws being “just right”.
This is different from the “multiverse” view where infinite universes exist with all possible laws, which Benford sees as less likely.
If universe evolution is true, there may be observable evidence, like signs of intelligence in a previous universe. But currently it remains an interesting idea without proof.

Here are a few key points in response:

I agree that developing a better framework for understanding human cooperation would be valuable. Competition and self-interest are important drivers, but cooperation, interdependence, and collective action also play key roles in human progress and civilization.
However, any such framework needs to account for the complex, adaptive nature of human behavior and culture. There are likely limits, similar to those found in physics and mathematics, to how precisely human social dynamics can be modeled or predicted.
Overcoming institutional and conceptual barriers will be challenging. Specialization in academia and industry makes interdisciplinary efforts difficult. New ways of thinking often face resistance from entrenched older paradigms.
Historical examples like Doug Engelbart’s early computing work highlight how hard it can be to convince others of the potential of new conceptual frameworks. Even useful ideas may struggle to gain traction at first.
But the potential benefits of better understanding cooperation for economic and political policies are significant. With more knowledge and an insightful non-reductive framework, it may be possible to design better institutions and policies. Though difficult, working to develop such an understanding is a worthy endeavor.
Marti Hearst believes the search problem is solvable through advances in computational linguistics and user interface design. Large text collections allow for statistical analysis that can improve language translation and spelling correction. Ontologies and reasoning systems can help find answers not explicitly present.
User interface design needs to advance beyond just typing words into a search box. Natural language processing developments can enable more intuitive search interfaces.
Recent progress in computational linguistics, statistical analysis of large text collections, manual and automated ontology construction, and increasing behavioral data gives Hearst optimism that continuing advances will eventually enable people to find answers to any question encoded in textual form.
The author believes in moral progress - that humanity is gradually becoming more empathetic, altruistic, thoughtful, and caring over the long term, despite setbacks. He believes we are in a transitional stage from animals to “true humans.”
He believes human nature has both positive and negative traits selected by evolution. Virtue and nobility are just as basic to human nature as selfishness and corruption.
He rejects the “rotten-to-the-core” view that human virtue is merely a compensation for our fundamentally evil nature. There is no evidence for this view.
A more plausible view is that evolution has selected for both positive and negative traits and motivations. Both are part of our innate human nature.
The author cannot prove his belief in moral progress, but believes it provides a more constructive view of human potential than the “rotten-to-the-core” assumption. He believes this view will lead to a better future.
The author reflects on what he believes but cannot prove. He notes that many beliefs, like the existence of quarks or the Big Bang, are accepted on faith in the scientific community.
He realizes others interpreted the question as asking what “one” believes rather than “you”, indicating a merging of self with a collective.
The author doesn’t have much he believes that no one else can prove. He trusts ancient beliefs about good/bad and sacred/profane because they’ve been selected over time.
For the future, he hopes for positive developments but also sees concerning trends. He hopes we have time to understand which policies lead where, and the motivation to choose the best path.
Overall, the author puts faith in the scientific community’s accepted knowledge, trusts beliefs proven by time, but remains cautiously optimistic about the future direction of society and humanity.

#book-summary

What We Believe but Cannot Prove Today's Leading Thinkers On Science in the Age of Certainty - John Brockman