Fred Hoyle Quotes

Space isn't remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight upwards.

Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics". To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.

When I was young, the old regarded me as an outrageous young fellow, and now that I'm old the young regard me as an outrageous old fellow.

British astronomer Fred Hoyle said something to this effect: That believing in Darwin's theoretical mechanisms of evolution was like believing that a hurricane could blow through a junkyard and build a Boeing 747

There is a coherent plan to the universe, though I don't know what it's a plan for.

It isn't the Universe that's following our logic, it's we that are constructed in accordance with the logic of the Universe. And that gives what I might call a definition of intelligent life: something that reflects the basic structure of the Universe.

Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.

Things are the way they are because they were the way they were.

New ideas, fragile as spring flowers, easily bruised by the tread of the multitude, may yet be cherished by the solitary wanderer.

Viewed from a wholly logical point of view the bearing and rearing of children is a thoroughly unattractive proposition. To a woman it means pain and endless worry. To a man it means extra work extending over many years to support his family. So, if we were wholly logical about sex, we should probably not bother to reproduce at all. Nature takes care of this by making us utterly and wholly irrational.

I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear war goes, I tell them not to worry.

As soon as I learned from my mother that there was a place called school that I must attend willy nilly --- a place where you were obliged to think about matters prescribed by a 'teacher,' not about matters decided by yourself---I was appalled.

ان الحياة لم تنشأ على الأرض، ولكنها جاءت مع سحب من الغبار الكوني من أعماق الكون، فالنشاط الحيوي في الكون لا بد أنه نشأ قبل نشأة الأرض

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate ... . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ... higher intelligences ... even to the limit of God ... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

the groundbreakers in many sciences were devout believers. Witness the accomplishments of Nicolaus Copernicus (a priest) in astronomy, Blaise Pascal (a lay apologist) in mathematics, Gregor Mendel (a monk) in genetics, Louis Pasteur in biology, Antoine Lavoisier in chemistry, John von Neumann in computer science, and Enrico Fermi and Erwin Schrodinger in physics. That’s a short list, and it includes only Roman Catholics; a long list could continue for pages. A roster that included other believers—Protestants, Jews, and unconventional theists like Albert Einstein, Fred Hoyle, and Paul Davies—could fill a book.

Fred Hoyle, były agnostyk, który później został zauroczony „aktem stworzenia”, był astronomem uniwersytetu w Cambridge, który ukuł termin „Big Bang” (Wielki Wybuch). (Ten dość głupawy zwrot przyszedł mu na myśl zupełnie przypadkowo, kiedy usiłował zdyskredytować to, co wiedział na temat zaaprobowanej już teorii pochodzenia wszechświata.

Once a photograph of the Earth, taken from the outside, is available... a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.

Damn queer," he announced. "But lots of things damn queer. Damn queer that Moon looks just same size as Sum. Damn queer that I'm here, isn't it so?

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. [Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co]

Proteins, in short, are complex entities. Hemoglobin is only 146 amino acids long, a runt by protein standards, yet even it offers 10190 possible amino acid combinations, which is why it took the Cambridge University chemist Max Perutz twenty-three years—a career, more or less—to unravel it. For random events to produce even a single protein would seem a stunning improbability—like a whirlwind spinning through a junkyard and leaving behind a fully assembled jumbo jet, in the colorful simile of the astronomer Fred Hoyle.

For random events to produce even a single protein would seem a stunning improbability—like a whirlwind spinning through a junkyard and leaving behind a fully assembled jumbo jet, in the colorful simile of the astronomer Fred Hoyle.

Space isn’t remote at all. It’s only an hour’s drive away if your car could go straight upwards. —Astronomer Fred Hoyle

Bütün Big Bangın bu açıq Zəfəri dəlillər nəzəriyyəsinin qəbul elm dünyasında Big qəti Bang bir Bang modeligörməsinə ; gətirib çıxardı. Big gəlməsi və başlanğıcı elmin, kainatın haqqında meydana çatdığı son illər nöqtə Sabit idi. Fred Vəziyyət Hoyl ilə birlikdə uzun müdafiə edən Dennis Sciamanəzəriyyəsini , ard-arda gələn qarşısında və Big içinə Bangı düşdükləri isbat edən bütün bu dəlillər Sabit Vəziyyət nəzəriyyəsini vəziyyəti müdafiə belə izah edənlərləedir: , onu test edən və məncə onu müşahidəçilər arasında, bir dövr çürütməyə çox sərt ümid edən vardı. Bu dövr içində mən də çəkişmə götürmüşdümdeyil, gerçək . Çünki olmasını həqiqətinə bir istədiyim inandığım rol boynuma üçün "Sabit üçün Nəzəriyyənin Vəziyyət" nəzəriyyəsini etibarsızlığını isbat müdafiə edən edirdimdəlillər . ortaya qarşılamada çıxmağa yanında lider başladıqca rol boynuna Fred götürmüşdüHoyl bu . dəlilləri Mən də cavab verilə iştirak biləcəyi etmişmövzusunda , bu düşməncə fikir dəlillərə icra edirdimnecə - 17 -

Fred Hoyle,

Human beings are simply pawns in the games of alien minds that control our every move.” - Dr. Fred Hoyle, renowned astrophysicist

The idea of an anthropic principle began with the remark that the laws of nature seem surprisingly well suited to the existence of life. A famous example is provided by the synthesis of the elements. According to modern ideas, this synthesis began when the universe was about three minutes old (before then it was too hot for protons and neutrons to stick together in atomic nuclei) and was later continued in stars. It had originally been though that the elements were formed by adding one nuclear particle at a time to atomic nuclei, starting with the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of just one particle (a proton). But, although there was no trouble in building up helium nuclei, which contain four nuclear particles (two protons and two neutrons), there is no stable nucleus with five nuclear particles and hence no way to take the next step. The solution found eventually by Edwin Salpeter in 1952 is that two helium nuclei can come together in stars to form the unstable nucleus of the isotope beryllium 8, which occasionally before it has a chance to fission into two helium nuclei absorbs yet another helium nucleus and forms a nucleus of carbon. However, as emphasized in 1954 by Fred Hoyke, in order for this process to account for the observed cosmic abundance of carbon, there must be a state of the carbon nucleus that has an energy that gives it an anomalously large probability of being formed in the collison of a helium nucleus and a nucleus of beryllium 8. (Precisely such a state was subsequently found by experimenters working with Hoyle.) Once carbon is formed in stars, there is no obstacle to building up all the heavier elements, including those like oxygen and nitrogen that are necessary for known forms of life. But in order for this to work, the energy of this state of the carbon nucleus must be very close to the energy of a nucleus of beryllium 8 plus the energy of a helium nucleus. If the energy of this state of the carbon nucleus were too large or too small, then little carbon or heavier elements would be formed in stars, and with only hydrogen and helium there would be no way that life could arise. The energies of nuclear states depend in a complicated way on all the constants of physics, such as the masses and electric charges of the different types of elementary particles. It seems at first sight remarkable that these constants should take just the values that are needed to make it possible for carbon to be formed in this way.

Hubble’s work confirmed his math—and refuted Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Furthermore, he deduced, if the universe was expanding equally in all directions, it must have initiated in a massive explosion from a single point. This meant that the universe is not infinitely old; it has a certain age, and that the moment of creation—which British astronomer Fred Hoyle later mockingly called the “big bang”—was analogous to God’s first command: Let there be light.

Damn queer," he announced. "But lots of things damn queer. Damn queer that Moon looks just same size as Sun. Damn queer that I'm here, isn't it so?

La probabilidad de que se forme la vida a partir de la materia inanimada es una en 1040.000... Es lo suficientemente grande como para sepultar a Darwin y toda la teoría de la evolución. No hubo un caldo primigenio, ni en este planeta ni en ningún otro, y si los inicios de la vida no fueron al azar, debieron haber sido el producto de la inteligencia con propósito”. Sir Fred Hoyle, profesor de astronomía de la Universidad de Cambridge.

Belief is a poor substitute for certain knowledge.

More radically, how can we be sure that the source of consciousness lies within our bodies at all? You might think that because a blow to the head renders one unconscious, the ‘seat of consciousness’ must lie within the skull. But there is no logical reason to conclude that. An enraged blow to my TV set during an unsettling news programme may render the screen blank, but that doesn’t mean the news reader is situated inside the television. A television is just a receiver: the real action is miles away in a studio. Could the brain be merely a receiver of ‘consciousness signals’ created somewhere else? In Antarctica, perhaps? (This isn’t a serious suggestion – I’m just trying to make a point.) In fact, the notion that somebody or something ‘out there’ may ‘put thoughts in our heads’ is a pervasive one; Descartes himself raised this possibility by envisaging a mischievous demon messing with our minds. Today, many people believe in telepathy. So the basic idea that minds are delocalized is actually not so far-fetched. In fact, some distinguished scientists have flirted with the idea that not all that pops up in our minds originates in our heads. A popular, if rather mystical, idea is that flashes of mathematical inspiration can occur by the mathematician’s mind somehow ‘breaking through’ into a Platonic realm of mathematical forms and relationships that not only lies beyond the brain but beyond space and time altogether. The cosmologist Fred Hoyle once entertained an even bolder hypothesis: that quantum effects in the brain leave open the possibility of external input into our thought processes and thus guide us towards useful scientific concepts. He proposed that this ‘external guide’ might be a superintelligence in the far cosmic future using a subtle but well-known backwards-in-time property of quantum mechanics in order to steer scientific progress.

More radically, how can we be sure that the source of consciousness lies within our bodies at all? You might think that because a blow to the head renders one unconscious, the ‘seat of consciousness’ must lie within the skull. But there is no logical reason to conclude that. An enraged blow to my TV set during an unsettling news programme may render the screen blank, but that doesn’t mean the news reader is situated inside the television. A television is just a receiver: the real action is miles away in a studio. Could the brain be merely a receiver of ‘consciousness signals’ created somewhere else? In Antarctica, perhaps? (This isn’t a serious suggestion – I’m just trying to make a point.) In fact, the notion that somebody or something ‘out there’ may ‘put thoughts in our heads’ is a pervasive one; Descartes himself raised this possibility by envisaging a mischievous demon messing with our minds. Today, many people believe in telepathy. So the basic idea that minds are delocalized is actually not so far-fetched. In fact, some distinguished scientists have flirted with the idea that not all that pops up in our minds originates in our heads. A popular, if rather mystical, idea is that flashes of mathematical inspiration can occur by the mathematician’s mind somehow ‘breaking through’ into a Platonic realm of mathematical forms and relationships that not only lies beyond the brain but beyond space and time altogether. The cosmologist Fred Hoyle once entertained an even bolder hypothesis: that quantum effects in the brain leave open the possibility of external input into our thought processes and thus guide us towards useful scientific concepts. He proposed that this ‘external guide’ might be a superintelligence in the far cosmic future using a subtle but well-known backwards-in-time property of quantum mechanics in order to steer scientific progress.

I am too lazy to chase down the exact quotation, but the British astronomer Fred Hoyle said something to this effect: That believing in Darwin’s theoretical mechanisms of evolution was like believing that a hurricane could blow through a junkyard and build a Boeing 747. No matter what is doing the creating, I have to say that the giraffe and the rhinoceros are ridiculous. And so is the human brain, capable, in cahoots with the more sensitive parts of the body, such as the ding-dong, of hating life while pretending to love it, and behaving accordingly: “Somebody shoot me while I’m happy!

Küçücük bir dünyada büyük insanlar olarak kalmak mı istiyoruz, yoksa uçsuz bucaksız bir dünyada küçük insanlar olmak mı?

Bu konuda bariz şekilde kötü görünmeyeceklerine katılıyorum tabii. Yaptıkları her şey için iyi sebepleri olacak. Sadece çok küçük bir insan grubunun kurtarılabileceği açığa çıktığında bu şanslı insanların topluma en yararlı olanlar olması gerektiği tartışılacak ve bu tartışma kaynatılıp damıtıldığında topluma en faydalı olanların meğer siyasi kardeşlik üyeleri, mareşaller, krallar, başpiskoposlar vs. olduğu ortaya çıkacak. Bunlardan daha önemli kim var ki zaten?

El Salmo 19:1 dice: “Los cielos cuentan la gloria de Dios, el firmamento proclama la obra de sus manos”39. A decir verdad, está escrito a través de los cielos tan vívidamente que cada vez más científicos que buscan las estrellas, se están volviendo cristianos. »El gran cosmólogo Allan Sandage, quien ganó la versión de astronomía del Premio Nobel, concluyó que Dios es “la explicación para los milagros de la existencia”40. Sir Fred Hoyle, inventor de la teoría cosmológica del estado estacionario del universo para evitar la existencia de Dios, finalmente se volvió un creyente en un Diseñador Inteligente del universo. »El astrofísico Hugh Ross, quien obtuvo su doctorado en astronomía en la Universidad de Toronto e hizo estudios en quásars y galaxias, dijo que la evidencia científica e histórica “enraizó profundamente mi confianza en la veracidad de la Biblia”41. Robert Jastrow, un reconocido agnóstico, director del observatorio del monte Wilson y fundador del Instituto del Espacio Goddard, concluyó que el Big Bang apunta hacia Dios. Y me gusta lo que el físico y matemático Robert Griffiths dijo: “Si necesitamos un ateo para un debate, voy al departamento de filosofía. El departamento de física no es de mucha utilidad” 42. Lee, la evidencia, es muy clara.

I like here to think of another Fred, the eminent British scientist Fred Hoyle, and his theory of the universe, in which matter is continuously being created, with the universe expanding but not dissipating. As island galaxies rush away from each other into eternity, new clouds of gas are condensing into new galaxies. As old stars die, new stars are being born. Mr. Melcher lived in this universe of continuous creation and expansion.

Incompetence was Kingley's béte noire, not incompetence performed in private but incompetence paraded in public

Society today is based in its technology on thinking in terms of numbers. In its social organization, on the other hand, it is based on thinking in terms of words. It's in here that the real clash lies, between the literary mind and the mathematical mind.