 |
| Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT |
A Study of Cosmogeny - The Universe's Origins, Teleology and Reflective Futures (2)
A Cosmic Ontology - A Universe of Life, Character and Value (3)
The Universe as Divine Process - From a Universe of Value to Its Theology (4)
Stephen Meyer is the author of Return of the God Hypothesis and the director of the Discovery Institute. James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist and professor at Rice University, renowned for his work in nanotechnology and his skepticism toward the current scientific models explaining the origin of life.In this wide-ranging conversation, Meyer and Tour contrast biological evolution with the more complex challenge of chemical evolution, where modern science still struggles to explain how nonliving chemicals could give rise to life. They critique early experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment, emphasizing that producing basic molecules is far from creating life itself. Meyer and Tour also argue that as scientific understanding deepens, the complexity of life's origins becomes more daunting, raising both scientific and philosophical questions about the adequacy of the current mainstream scientific explanations and theories for the origin of life.
Preface
Across a wide range of physical theories, it has been observed that the fundamental constants and conditions of the universe appear to fall within a narrow range that permits the emergence of complex structures - stars, chemistry, life, and, eventually, consciousness. Even slight deviations in these values would render such developments unlikely or impossible.
From this observation, a familiar set of explanatory options has emerged:
Chance, Necessity, or Intelligent Design.
The scientific response has generally sought to preserve explanatory sufficiency within a physical framework. Appeals to theories of anthropic reasoning, multiverse models, and underlying physical necessity aim to account for the observed conditions without invoking purpose or intelligence.
In contrast, the theistic response interprets the cosmic precision found in the universe as evidence of intentionality. The universe appears, on this view, not merely structured, but purposively ordered - suggesting the activity of an intelligent cause.
These positions are often presented as mutually exclusive.
Yet both, in different ways, remain incomplete.
The scientific account is powerful in its description of structure and relation, but often refrains from addressing questions of interiority, value, and direction. It explains how the universe behaves, but not why such behavior gives rise to life and consciousness (mind, interiority, intelligence, etc).
The theistic account restores purpose and meaning, but frequently does so by introducing them as external explanations - grounded in theological or philosophical commitments that are not intrinsically connected to the structure of the cosmos itself.
Thus, both approaches tend to treat the emergence of life, consciousness, and meaning as problems to be explained after the fact, rather than as developments that may be rooted in the nature of reality from the beginning.
This essay proposes a different approach.
Rather than asking whether the universe is the product of chance, necessity, or design, we ask a prior question:
"What must reality be like such that life, mind, and meaning are not anomalies, but natural expressions of its structure?"
This shift moves the discussion from explanation to ontology.
Drawing on the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and extending it through what we have described as Embodied Process Realism (EPR), we explore the possibility that reality is fundamentally relational, integrative, and capable of generating increasing levels of complexity and inwardness.
On such a view, the emergence of life and consciousness does not require external fine-tuning. But reflects the way reality holds together as itself.
Introduction
The fine-tuning of the universe has become a central point of discussion across cosmology, philosophy, and theology.
In its most basic form, the claim is straightforward:
The fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe appear to lie within a narrow range that permits the emergence of complex structures - stars, chemistry, life, and ultimately, conscious observers. Small variations in these parameters would result in a universe incapable of sustaining such developments.
Within the scientific community, this observation has led to a range of explanatory strategies. Some appeal to the anthropic principle, noting that only a life-permitting universe can be observed. Others propose multiverse models, in which many universes exist with varying constants, making our own statistically unsurprising. Still others suggest that deeper physical laws may eventually explain why the constants must take the values they do.
In philosophical and theological contexts, however, fine-tuning is often interpreted differently. The apparent precision of the universe is taken as evidence of intentional calibration - suggesting that the cosmos has been structured by an intelligent or purposive cause.
These differing interpretations reflect more than disagreement over evidence.
They reflect differing assumptions about the nature of reality itself.
Scientific explanations tend to remain within a framework that prioritizes structure, law, and external relation. Theological interpretations introduce purpose, value, and intention, often as explanatory principles that stand outside the physical system being described.
Both approaches are legitimate within their respective domains.
Yet both raise a deeper question:
What kind of ontology is required to make sense of a universe that gives rise to life, mind, and meaning?
This question does not replace scientific or theological inquiry. It precedes them.
Before we can ask whether the universe is explained by chance, necessity, or design, we must ask:
What must reality be like for such explanations to be meaningful at all?
It is at this level - beneath explanation - at the level of ontology, that the present essay is situated.
Section I - Chance, Necessity, and Design
Chance, Necessity, or Intelligent Design.
Each seeks to account for the apparent precision of the cosmos—the fact that the conditions of the universe permit the emergence of life, mind, and complexity.
The appeal to chance is often developed through probabilistic reasoning.
On this view, the universe we observe is one among many possible configurations. Its life-permitting conditions, while seemingly improbable, are not unexpected if a sufficiently large number of possibilities exist. This reasoning is frequently supported by:
- anthropic arguments
- multiverse hypotheses
- statistical interpretations of cosmological variation
The strength of this approach lies in its consistency with scientific method. It avoids invoking purpose or intention, and it seeks explanation within a framework of measurable and repeatable processes.
Yet its limitation is equally clear.
Chance explains occurrence, but not capacity.
It may account for why a particular configuration appears, but it does not address why the structure of reality is such that configurations capable of supporting life and consciousness are possible at all.
The appeal to necessity suggests that the constants and laws of the universe could not have been otherwise.
On this view, what appears as fine-tuning is simply the expression of deeper physical principles. The universe is not one possibility among many—it is the only coherent or stable outcome of the underlying structure of reality.
This approach has the advantage of seeking a more unified and deterministic explanation. It does not rely on probability or multiplicity, but on the coherence of physical law itself.
However, it faces a similar difficulty.
Necessity may explain why the universe is as it is, but it does not explain why such necessity yields a universe capable of:
- complexity
- life
- interiority
- and consciousness
It explains constraint, but not direction.
The appeal to intelligent design offers a different resolution.
Here, the precision of the universe is interpreted as evidence of intentional calibration. The conditions of the cosmos are not merely given—they are selected, arranged in such a way as to permit life and mind.
This view restores what the previous accounts tend to exclude:
- purpose
- value
- directionality
It affirms that the universe is not indifferent, but ordered in a meaningful way.
Yet it does so by introducing intelligence as an external explanatory principle.
In many of its classical forms, design is understood as something imposed upon the universe rather than arising from within it. The structure of reality and the source of its meaning remain conceptually distinct.
As a result, the explanation risks remaining extrinsic.
It tells us that the universe is designed, but not how the structure of reality itself gives rise to the conditions that make life, mind, and meaning possible.
Despite their differences, these three approaches share a common feature.
Each treats fine-tuning as a problem to be explained after the fact.
- Chance explains it statistically
- Necessity explains it structurally
- Design explains it intentionally
But none fully addresses a prior question:
Why is reality itself capable of giving rise to life, interiority, and meaning?
This question cannot be resolved by appealing solely to probability, law, or external intention.
It requires a deeper account of the nature of reality itself.
If the universe is such that life and consciousness emerge within it, then the issue is not merely how these arise, but what this reveals about the structure of reality.
The question is no longer:
Which explanation best accounts for fine-tuning?
It becomes:
What kind of reality makes fine-tuning intelligible in the first place?
It is to this question that we now turn.
Section II - The Limits of Scientific and Theistic Explanation
If the fine-tuning of the universe is approached through the categories of chance, necessity, and design, each offers a partial account. Each captures something important. Yet each also reveals a limitation that becomes visible when the question is pressed further.
The issue is not that these explanations are incorrect.
It is that they are incomplete.
1. The Limits of Scientific Explanation
Scientific approaches to fine-tuning are grounded in the description of structure.
They seek to explain:
- how physical constants operate
- how systems evolve
- how complexity emerges
In doing so, they have achieved remarkable success. The universe is described with increasing precision, and the processes by which matter organizes into increasingly complex forms are well documented.
Yet this mode of explanation remains largely external.
It describes:
- relations between entities
- measurable interactions
- formal structures and laws
But it does not directly address:
- interiority
- experience
- value
- or direction
These are not rejected outright. They are often set aside as secondary or derivative, to be explained later or at a different level of analysis.
As a result, scientific explanation can describe the conditions under which life appears, but it does not fully account for why those conditions give rise to:
- lived experience
- meaningful differentiation
- or the capacity for reflection
It explains how the universe behaves.
It does not fully explain how the universe becomes inwardly expressive of itself.
2. The Limits of Theistic Explanation
Theistic interpretations move in a different direction.
They recognize that the universe is not merely structured, but appears to be meaningful and purposive. The fine-tuning of the cosmos is taken as evidence that its conditions have been intentionally arranged.
In doing so, the theistic approach restores what scientific accounts tend to omit:
- purpose
- value
- directionality
However, this restoration often comes through an appeal to external agency.
God is introduced as the source of order, meaning, and design, standing in relation to the universe as its creator or architect. While this provides an explanation for why the universe is as it is, it can leave unresolved how:
- the structure of reality itself supports life and consciousness
- value arises within the world rather than being imposed upon it
- interiority develops as a feature of the cosmos rather than as an isolated gift
In this way, theistic explanation can become extrinsic.
It affirms that the universe is meaningful, but may not fully articulate how meaning is grounded within the nature of reality itself.
3. A Shared Externality
Despite their differences, both approaches share a common orientation.
They explain from the outside.
- Scientific accounts describe the external relations of structure
- Theistic accounts introduce purpose from beyond the system
In both cases, the emergence of life, mind, and meaning is treated as something that must be accounted for in addition to the structure of reality.
What remains insufficiently addressed is the possibility that:
the capacity for life, interiority, and meaning may be intrinsic to the structure of reality itself
4. The Need for an Ontological Shift
This recognition marks a turning point.
If neither chance, necessity, nor external design fully accounts for the emergence of life and consciousness, then the issue lies deeper than explanation.
It lies in ontology.
The question is not simply:
- What caused the universe to be this way?
But:
- What kind of reality is capable of becoming this way?
To answer this, we must move beyond frameworks that treat structure, life, and meaning as separate domains.
We must consider the possibility that:
- structure gives rise to continuity
- continuity gives rise to integration
- integration gives rise to interiority
- interiority gives rise to value and meaning
This is not a sequence imposed upon reality.
It is a development within it.
5. Transition
At this point, the direction becomes clear.
If the emergence of life and consciousness is not an anomaly, but a development of the structure of reality itself, then we require a framework capable of describing this development.
It is here that the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead becomes especially significant—and where its contemporary extension, Embodied Process Realism, begins to take form.
Section III - A Processual Reframing of Reality
If the limits of both scientific and theistic explanations arise from their external orientation, then the path forward requires a shift in perspective.
Rather than asking how life, consciousness, and meaning are added to an otherwise neutral universe, we must ask:
whether the structure of reality itself is such that these developments arise from within it.
This shift directs us toward a processual understanding of the real.
1. From Substance to Process
Classical frameworks - whether scientific or theological - have often assumed that reality is composed of things.
These things may be particles, fields, or created entities, but they are generally understood as possessing identity in themselves, prior to their relations. Structure is then built upon these foundational units.
Process philosophy proposes a different starting point.
As developed by Alfred North Whitehead, reality is not fundamentally composed of static entities, but of events of becoming. What appears as a “thing” is, more accurately, a stabilized pattern within an ongoing process.
In this view:
- relation is primary
- structure emerges from interaction
- identity is achieved through continuity
Reality is not made of substances that persist unchanged.
It is composed of processes that hold together across change.
2. Events, Relation, and Integration
Whitehead described the basic units of reality as actual occasions - not objects, but events.
Each occasion arises through relation:
- it receives from its past
- integrates what it receives
- and becomes a new unity
This process, often described as prehension and concrescence, need not be understood technically to grasp its significance.
What matters is the insight:
each event is a moment of integration
It is not merely acted upon. It takes up its relations and becomes a unified expression of them.
Here, the distinction between the external and the internal begins to soften.
Relation is no longer only between things.
It becomes constitutive of what a thing is.
3. The Emergence of Inwardness
If each event involves integration, then a further implication follows.
Integration is not merely external coordination. It involves a form of internal unification - a bringing together of what is received into a coherent whole.
At its most minimal level, this does not imply consciousness in any developed sense. It does not require awareness or reflection.
But it does introduce a crucial possibility:
that reality is capable of inwardness, however faintly.
What we earlier described as interiority now finds its ontological grounding.
It is not an addition to reality.
It is a development of the way events come into being.
4. Continuity, Identity, and Development
From this processual standpoint, identity is no longer a fixed attribute.
It is the result of continuity across successive events.
Patterns stabilize. Configurations persist. Systems emerge that maintain coherence through ongoing integration.
This gives rise to:
- enduring forms
- organized systems
- increasingly complex structures
And within these developments, the potential for interiority deepens.
The emergence of life, then, is not an anomaly.
It is a further intensification of relational integration.
Likewise, consciousness is not an inexplicable leap.
It is a higher-order development of inwardly organized continuity.
5. Toward Embodied Process Realism
While Whitehead’s framework provides the philosophical foundation, the contemporary task is to articulate this vision in a way that speaks to current scientific and philosophical language.
This is the aim of Embodied Process Realism (EPR).
In this framework:
reality is understood as a relational field of coherence within which processes stabilize, integrate, and develop across scale.
Within such a field:
- identity arises as patterned continuity
- interiority arises as integrated continuity
- value emerges as directional continuity
- consciousness arises as reflexive integration
These are not separate domains.
They are progressive intensifications of a single structure.
6. Reframing Fine-Tuning
From this perspective, the fine-tuning of the universe appears in a new light.
Rather than asking whether the universe has been tuned by chance, necessity, or external design, we ask:
whether the structure of reality is such that coherence naturally gives rise to life, mind, and meaning.
If reality is inherently relational and integrative, then the emergence of complexity is not surprising.
If integration can deepen into inwardness, then the emergence of life is not anomalous.
If inwardness can become structured and reflexive, then consciousness is not inexplicable.
What appears as fine-tuning may instead reflect the fact that reality is capable of becoming increasingly coherent with itself.
Closing Movement
The implications of this shift are profound.
The universe does not need to be externally adjusted in order to produce life.
It must be such that:
its very structure tends toward the emergence of increasingly integrated and inwardly organized forms.
Transition
If this is so, then the question of intelligence and design must be reconsidered.
For what appears as design may not be imposed from beyond, but may arise from the depth and coherence of reality itself.
Section IV - Intelligence, Life, and the Structure of Reality
For what appears, from one perspective, as improbability or design may instead reflect the depth of the structure from which such developments arise.
1. The Appearance of Design
The fine-tuning argument rests on a compelling observation:
the conditions of the universe appear remarkably suited for the emergence of life.
From the stability of physical constants to the formation of stars and the complexity of chemical systems, the cosmos exhibits an order that, to many, suggests intentional arrangement.
This has led to the conclusion that:
the universe appears designed because it is the product of intelligence.
Such a conclusion is understandable.
Where structure exhibits coherence, and where coherence gives rise to life and mind, it is natural to infer purpose.
Yet the inference moves quickly.
It moves from appearance to explanation, without first examining whether the appearance itself may arise from the nature of reality.
2. Intelligence as Emergent, Not Imposed
Within a processual framework, intelligence is not introduced as an external cause.
It is understood as an emergent intensification of relational coherence.
Life arises where systems achieve sufficient integration to maintain themselves.
Intelligence arises where such systems:
- coordinate across multiple levels
- anticipate and respond
- and, eventually, reflect upon their own processes
From this perspective, intelligence is not foreign to the universe.
It is a development within it.
This does not diminish its significance.
It deepens it.
For intelligence is no longer something imposed upon reality.
It is something reality becomes capable of expressing.
3. Reinterpreting Design
If intelligence emerges within the structure of reality, then the concept of design must be reconsidered.
Rather than viewing design as an external imposition upon a neutral system, we may understand it as:
the appearance of order arising from the depth of relational coherence.
What we call “design” is, in this sense, the recognition of:
- structured integration
- sustained complexity
- and the capacity for meaningful organization
It is not that the universe has been arranged from the outside.
It is that the universe is such that order, life, and intelligence can arise from within it.
4. The Limits of External Explanation
This reinterpretation clarifies the limitation of classical design arguments.
By positing an external intelligence as the primary cause of order, they risk:
- separating meaning from structure
- treating life and consciousness as imposed features
- and leaving unexplained how the universe itself supports such developments
In doing so, they provide an answer, but not a fully integrated one.
The question remains:
why is the structure of reality such that it can be designed at all?
5. Toward an Internal Account of Meaning
A processual ontology offers a different approach.
Meaning, value, and intelligence are not introduced from beyond the system.
They arise as progressive developments of relational integration.
- structure gives rise to continuity
- continuity to interiority
- interiority to value
- value to reflection
- and reflection to intelligence
Within such a framework, the universe does not need to be externally directed in order to produce meaningful forms.
It must instead be understood as:
intrinsically capable of generating increasing levels of coherence, life, and inwardness
6. The Fine-Tuning Question Revisited
The fine-tuning of the universe now appears in a different light.
It is no longer primarily a question of:
- improbable coincidence
- necessary law
- or external design
It becomes a question of ontological capacity.
What kind of reality is capable of becoming life-bearing, mind-bearing, and meaning-bearing?
If reality is fundamentally relational and processual, then the emergence of such forms is not unexpected.
It is a natural expression of its structure.
Closing Movement
The appearance of design does not disappear.
It is reinterpreted.
What appears as intentional arrangement may instead reflect the fact that:
reality, in its deepest structure, tends toward coherence, integration, and the emergence of life and intelligence
Transition
At this point, the distinction between scientific and theistic explanation begins to soften.
For both are responding to a real feature of the universe:
that it is not only structured, but capable of meaning.
To understand this more fully, we must consider how these insights bear upon the question of God.
Section V - God, Reality, and the Depth of Coherence
For in both scientific and theistic accounts, God has often been positioned in relation to the structure of the universe:
- either excluded in favor of explanatory sufficiency
- or introduced as an external cause of order and design
Yet both approaches, in different ways, leave unresolved the deeper issue:
how the structure of reality itself relates to the emergence of meaning, value, and consciousness.
1. Beyond External Design
Classical theistic arguments often portray God as an intelligent agent who arranges the universe from beyond it.
While this provides a clear explanatory model, it risks establishing a separation between:
- the structure of the world
- and the source of its meaning
In such a framework, the universe becomes a product, and God its designer.
But if the preceding analysis is correct - if life, mind, and value arise from within the structure of reality itself - then this separation becomes less necessary.
The question shifts.
God need not be understood as one who intervenes in the structure of reality.
Instead, we may ask:
whether God is related to the very depth of that structure.
2. God and the Relational Field of Reality
Within a processual framework, reality is not a static system but an ongoing field of becoming - one in which events arise, integrate, and give rise to increasingly complex forms.
In this context, the language of God may be reconsidered.
Not as an external force acting upon reality, but as that which is intimately related to:
- the coherence of relations
- the integration of processes
- and the emergence of value and meaning
This does not reduce God to the universe.
Nor does it separate God from it.
It suggests a relationship of deep participation.
3. A Process-Relational Understanding
Here, the insights of Alfred North Whitehead again become significant.
In process thought, God is not primarily understood as a distant creator imposing order from without, but as participating in the ongoing development of reality.
God is related to:
- the ordering of possibility
- the valuation of experience
- and the lure toward greater coherence and integration
Such a view does not deny divine agency.
It reinterprets it.
Agency is not expressed as interruption, but as persuasion, relation, and participation within the unfolding of the world.
4. Meaning from Within
If reality is capable of generating interiority, value, and consciousness, then meaning is not an addition to the world.
It is a development within it.
From this perspective, theological language becomes intelligible not because it explains what science cannot, but because it articulates what emerges when reality is understood at sufficient depth.
- coherence becomes meaningful
- value becomes expressive
- intelligence becomes participatory
And within this unfolding, the language of God becomes a way of speaking about:
the depth dimension of reality’s own becoming
5. Reframing the Theistic Insight
The theistic intuition - that the universe is meaningful, ordered, and purposive - is not dismissed.
It is reframed.
Rather than pointing to an external designer, it may reflect an awareness that:
Reality is structured in such a way that meaning, value, and intelligence are not accidental.
They belong to it.
They arise from it.
And they deepen within it.
6. Toward a Unified Understanding
At this point, the opposition between scientific and theistic explanation begins to dissolve.
Science describes the structure of the world.
Theology seeks to interpret its meaning.
A processual ontology provides the ground upon which both can be understood together.
Within such a framework:
- the universe is not merely structured
- it is capable of life
- capable of inwardness
- capable of value
- and capable of reflecting upon itself
This does not resolve all questions.
But it changes how they are asked.
Closing Movement
The fine-tuning of the universe, the emergence of life, and the development of consciousness no longer require separate explanations.
They are understood as expressions of a single, coherent process.
And within this process, the question of God is not one of external intervention, but of:
the depth, coherence, and meaning of reality itself
Transition to Coda
What began as a question of chance, necessity, or design has led to a deeper recognition.
The universe is not merely arranged.
It is becoming.
Coda - From Structure to Voice
The apparent precision of the universe - its capacity to sustain life, mind, and meaning - has often been explained through the categories of chance, necessity, or intelligent design. Each offers insight. Each captures an aspect of the problem.
Yet none fully accounts for the deeper question:
why reality is capable of giving rise to such developments at all.
In following this question, the discussion has moved beneath explanation to ontology.
1. The Reframing of the Problem
The fine-tuning of the universe is no longer understood as a puzzle requiring resolution from outside the system.
It becomes an indicator.
It points toward the possibility that reality is structured in such a way that:
- continuity can stabilize
- integration can deepen
- interiority can emerge
- value can orient
- and consciousness can arise
What appears as improbability may instead reflect ontological capacity.
2. The Continuity of Development
Across this essay, a single trajectory has taken shape:
- Identity as patterned continuity
- Interiority as integrated continuity
- Value as directional continuity
- Meaning as continuity extended across time
- Consciousness as reflexive continuity
- Agency as participatory continuity
Each stage does not interrupt the previous.
It intensifies it.
Reality does not shift from matter to life to mind as separate domains.
It develops through increasingly integrated forms of coherence.
3. The Role of Philosophy
Such a view cannot be sustained without philosophical grounding.
Without a language of ontology, metaphysics, and cosmology, concepts such as value, meaning, and consciousness appear as additions—imposed upon a reality that does not support them.
Philosophy provides the necessary framework.
It allows us to understand reality not merely as structured, but as:
capable of becoming inwardly organized, meaningful, and participatory
4. The Place of Theology
Within this framework, the language of theology is neither dismissed nor imposed.
It is re-situated.
God is not introduced as an external solution to a cosmological problem.
Rather, theological language becomes a way of articulating the depth dimension of a reality already understood as:
- relational
- integrative
- and capable of value and meaning
In this way, the intuition that the universe is meaningful is preserved.
But it is no longer grounded in external design.
It arises from the nature of reality itself.
5. Final Orientation
The shift that has taken place across this essay is subtle, but decisive.
We are no longer asking:
What is the universe made of?
We are asking:
How does reality hold together as itself - and in doing so, become capable of life, mind, and meaning?
Closing Reflection
If reality is such that it gives rise to increasing coherence, inwardness, and participation, then the emergence of life and consciousness is not accidental.
It is expressive.
And in that expression, something further becomes possible.
reality comes to voice within itself.
This is the question then that remains:
How does reality begin to live as itself?
Barbour, Julian. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Carroll, Sean M. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. New York: Dutton, 2016.
Chalmers, David J. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Clayton, Philip. Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006.
Deacon, Terrence W. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.
Ellis, George F. R. How Can Physics Underlie the Mind? Top-Down Causation in the Human Context. Berlin: Springer, 2016.
Goff, Philip. Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. New York: Pantheon Books, 2019.
Haldane, J. B. S. Possible Worlds and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1927.
Kauffman, Stuart. At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Laughlin, Robert B. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. New York: Basic Books, 2005.
Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
Rees, Martin. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Rovelli, Carlo. Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. New York: Riverhead Books, 2017.
Simondon, Gilbert. Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information. Translated by Taylor Adkins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2020.
Strawson, Galen. “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, no. 10–11 (2006): 3–31.
Strawson, Galen. Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006.
Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free Press, 1933.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. Corrected Edition. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1925.
Whitehead, Alfred North. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920.
Wheeler, John Archibald. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, edited by Wojciech H. Zurek, 3–28. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.
No comments:
Post a Comment