Talk:Paul Davies

Paul Davies and his books

I really enjoy of all Paul Davies books. He really is the best science writer in my opinion i am a layman and he explains science in easy words, his books are not boring he really does a have a great writing style. I am currently reading his book "the matter myth". Great stuff!! Paul davies is a legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure why "Forces of Nature" is not listed as one of his books (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/forces-of-nature-paul-c-w-davies/1100954400 , https://www.amazon.com/Forces-Nature-P-C-Davies/dp/0521313929 , https://books.google.com/books/about/Forces_of_Nature.html?id=oww5AAAAIAAJ). Tara Li 69.63.169.1 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Erdos Number?

Davies' Erdos number is listed as 3 in the article, but the link at the bottom of the page says he has Erdos number 4. Can somebody provide a source for this? Dkostic 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How is his Erdos Number (4) relevant? Harry.Erwin 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I received email from Jerry Grossman, Director of the Erdos Project, which confirms that his Erdos number is three. I have inserted a footnote with the path that Jerry supplied to me documenting this fact.

Whether or not it is relevant is another question. Bill Jefferys (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Linda Christas

What editor out there has a problem with listing Dr. Davies acceptance of a Chair for science and philosophy at our school. Every time a student adds the information, an editor (could only be from a rival school already on Wikipedia) deletes the information. For Pete sake, Wikipedia won't even allow our school a listing. What kind of prejudice are we experiencing here? What, you don't like high schools or what? Somebody at Wikipedia is wearing a hair shirt for Linda Christas Academy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.227.237 (talk • contribs)

I'm not the editor that has done the removals, but I support them whole heartedly. Why? Because when I spoke with one of the then current members of the board several months ago I found that her involvement with Linda Christas had consisted of the following conversation: "Do you want to be listed as a board member of our school?" "Sure, why not". Total length of involvement: 2 minutes, tops. I can only assume that the other "board members" are listed for similar exchanges. A casual conversation on that level hardly rates any sort of focus on a Wikipedia bio. If what I said doesn't apply to other board members, then let me know and I'll contact them for verification as well. - Richfife 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins quote

I don't see how it belongs here. Dawkins - not a physician - makes an attack on Davies' philosophical leanings, not his scientific work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.223.162 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

C'mon man, this is Wikipedia we're talking about here! You know...that website "encyclopedia" whose editing population contains 4x as many atheists/agnostics/anti-religious/skeptics as the rest of the country. You're holding Wikipedia with too high standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.170.73 (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'll remove the entire "criticism" section while I'm at it. Last time I checked, an encyclopedia isn't supposed to have criticism sections in it. Of course, Richard Dawkins doesn't have such a section in his article...go figure. I guess Wikipedia maintains some amount dignity when it has to.

Since Davies is famous for his popular writing on philosophical topics, some response from his peers is entirely appropriate. I re-added this material under the heading of Deism.

Dawkins has no authority to be holding forth as an authority on another scientist's philosophical opinions, and as a zoologist by training, is hardly one of Davies's 'peers'. I have deleted the 'criticisms' section of this article, as it implies that Dawkins represents a consensus opinion in the scientific or philosophic community, which he certainly does not. That he has published a popular polemic is immaterial.

Oh he most certainly does represent a consensus in the scientific AND the philosophic community (but of course, not a consensus in the American political community or general public, which has been accelerating in the opposite direction since the Boomers "found God" (Bible) and everybody younger keeps on getting stupider and stupider).

He does not represent a consensus in the scientific and the philosophy community. In the words of Mr. Karl Popper, there is no possible evidence to confirm that all swans are white, but the appearance of one black swan is enough to refute that conclusion. Mr. Dawkins is a biologist, he is NOT a physicist, and because he happens to be in the profession of science, it does not follow that he's a representation of ALL scientific disciplines and their practitioners. That's like saying the Dala Lamai represents a consensus of the philosophic and theological community. That's absurd; it disregards distinctions in favor of some quasi-political collective. Until he acquires the credentials and field work of a physicist, his opinions concerning the philosophy and art of professional physics is irrelevant; he himself confirmed this in a recent interview on Charles Darwin's birthday, when asked what came before the big bang and Mr. Dawkins response was I am a biologist, that is a question for a physicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One needs not be a physicist to understand that Davies' arguments are poor. The comparison with religious leaders is bunk, because in that they all start with flawed premises, and their arguments are all equally meritless. In the case Dawkins vs Davies, one argues from reality and epistemological grounds, the other on religious (and thus unscientific) premises. Scientists can be religious, but the moment they start doing religion is the moment they stop being scientific. Dawkins criticism of Davies is reflective of what the larger scientific consensus is on this issue, and Davies winning a Templeton Prize pretty much is all you need as proof that his arguments are about as resilient to criticism as a castle build of cards in a tornado. If anything the section give undue credit to Dawkins, as he is not the only one to have trashed Davies on this issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Dawkin's criticism is relevant (I have just restored it), but I don't think Davies' opinions are as simplistic as you seem to think. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course they aren't. And I wasn't under the impression that Davies was religious. (The comment is meant for the Headbomb guy) 64.234.0.101 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

From the tenor of his comments I don't think you'll get very far having that discussion with him, as he plainly has no respect for any opinions contrary to his own. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My edits

Stuart.allie, you reverted my edit and commented:

“ You reverted my edits to the page about Paul Davies with the comment "not a soapbox, duh", which I presume to mean that you thought my edits were in some way inaccurate. However, the article was inaccurate in referring to Davies as a physicist. He has not worked in physics for more than 20 years. He was a physicist, but he is not one now, hence my correction to the article. He has not published articles in peer-reviewed physics journals relating to new research in physics since the mid 80's. If you check Davies own bibliography you will find this to be true. Please do not change my edits without evidence to support your actions. User:Stuart.Allie —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) ”

However, I have re-looked at this issue and at Davies' bibliography. I don't see how requiring that to be listed as "scientist" in this template, one must currently be publishing, is appropriate here. The template this text is placed in, infobox scientist, is also used for Albert Einstein, for example, and guess what? It says "Physicist". I suppose, by your logic, it should say "Dead". I am re-editting this to emphasize that he also writes. People want to know what field he writes about. I am also changing the language of the Scientific Research section back to what I'd put originally, with some changes, so as not to slant this article in anti-popular-writing sort of way, shall we say? If you want to point out that Davies's recent efforts have been writing and theorizing, rather than in doing actual fieldwork, fine.... put that in the intro. Or if you want to add dates to the research section, do that. It is irrelevant to ~what~ his research has been about.

I'm also editing the ridiculous statement in the first sentence "holds the position of College Professor..." ... almost missed that one! Friarslantern (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I've reworked the criticism section to make it a bit more evenhanded.

Original: "Davies' religiosity has been criticised by scientist and skeptic Richard Dawkins"

Updated: "Davies' sympathy towards religion's reliance on faith has been criticized by the prominent atheist Richard Dawkins"

Davies is by no means religious in any conventional sense, no more than Einstein was. Furthermore, he's only sympathetic towards one particular aspect of religion: namely, that it (like science, as he claims) is ultimately built upon a faith in something.

The updated line is more evenhanded since, as someone else mentioned, Dawkins is primarily a zoologist and not exactly a peer to Davies (Davies being a theoretical physicist)

Original: "Physicist Victor J Stenger pans Davies's "god of the gaps" arguments.[3] Davies' New York Times article "Taking Science on Faith" proved the final straw for the scientific community, which publicly distanced itself from his views. [4] Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, and Alan Sokal debunked his claims."

Updated: "A number of physicists and scientists from other areas of study have criticized Davies for his New York Times article, "Taking Science on Faith", for equating science too strongly with religion, or for creating that impression for the general public. Fellow theoretical physicists such as Lee Smolin criticized Davies while agreeing with his basic argument.

"Davies point is that if we just accept the laws and initial conditions of the whole universe as just given, with no further explanation, then we are reducing science to faith in the unexplained. He is right about this, but he doesn't emphasize that these questions are avoided in most domains of science" - Lee Smolin"

The original line was strange... Several of the physicists mentioned actually agreed with various parts of Davies' article. Many felt however that Davies' would be misunderstood by the general public, and/or that he was too eagerly relating science to religion. Davies' had ONE key similarity to draw between religion and science, he wasn't claiming that one was as good as the other or anything of the sort. This is actually noted by Lee Smolin, among others, so it's odd that the original line claims Smolin "debunked" Davies' claims:

"What becomes clear only towards the end of his essay is that he is advocating a way for science to avoid the equation with religion. This is to give up the belief in eternal, immutable laws in favor of a notion that "the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency." This is opposed to the notion of eternal immutable laws that Davies notes has common roots and logic with the Christian view of God.

To understand the problems that Davies is addressing-and to understand why they do not concern most of science—one has to appreciate that the questions he is dealing with arise only when we attempt to ask scientific questions about the universe as a whole. Only then do we have to address two key questions: "Why these laws?" and "Why these initial conditions for the universe?"

Davies point is that if we just accept the laws and initial conditions of the whole universe as just given, with no further explanation, then we are reducing science to faith in the unexplained. He is right about this, but he doesn't emphasize that these questions are avoided in most domains of science" - Lee Smolin

---

The criticism section is a bit weird as originally phrased. The initial quote by Dawkins and the wording of the line ("religiosity"), followed by a list of several prominent scientists "debunking [Davies'] claims" creates the impression that Davies is a religious man who tried to equate science with religion. This is a gross simplification of Davies' views but also of the many scientists who provided nuanced critiques. Finally, Davies' himself provided a rebuttal so I feel that (though I won't include it in the redo) it should at least be added if editors in the future feel the need to revert to the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.15.131 (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do biographies of living people usually have "criticism" sections? According to the Wikipedians on Dawkins' talk page, they aren't supposed to. Anyway, if this section is deemed notable at all, it should at least include some input from the many scientists and philosophers who would agree with Davies, or from his criticized article itself.0nullbinary0 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

--

I've removed the criticism section because, I think it's not hyperbolic to say, Richard Dawkins gets several orders of magnitude more criticism than Paul Davies ever will, and from diverse groups of people. Davies received brief, unsustained criticism from various scientists who felt that when communicating science to the public, one should be forceful and overt in criticizing religion and pointing out science's superiority.

I sympathize with both points of view, but, I simply feel that if Dawkins has no criticism section then a living scientist who gets overwhelmingly less criticism shouldn't have one either. 71.131.25.215 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if editors who orbit the Dawkins article (and refuse to add a criticism section to it) add criticisms to other articles. Anyways, it has a criticism section up... again. But this time it's pretty cheesy. It's a list of scientists who are critical of Davies. Okay. Perhaps we should go to the Richard Steele article and list writers who are critical of Steele, or to the Jim carrey article and list the actors critical of his acting skills. I'd remove it, but an edit war would probably begin. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Additonal Critic (KCFS): Davies work used by Youvan in Darwin Debate

Possible addition: I am a new editor and my first article is about Douglas Youvan. I found that Youvan (aka "Genesis" in a debate) used Davies work on The Arrow of Time from The Physics of Time Asymmetry to place fundamental physics under Darwinian Evolution: No equation in physics proves that time moves forward. The > 33,000 hit debate is here: http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=870&highlight=youvan in a Kansas_Citizens_for_Science forum. I think this is especially important because Kansas was host to the Monkey Trials and almost put ID into school books in 2004 - but for the arguments in favor of evolution as sponsored by KCFS. As a newcomer to wikipedia, I really don't want to be the editor that makes this proposed change to the Davies article. For one thing, I make a mess of referencing: some bot comes after me occasionally, and I have had to hand edit the "pipes" (|) in references to fix things! P.S. Please don't BITE me if this addition is not a good idea.

The single sentence to be added would say:

"In a debate on Darwinian evolution (referencing http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=870&highlight=youvan), Douglas Youvan argued that the Davies proposition of "no equation in physics proves time moves forward" undermined the forward in time assumption of Evolution."

Fellow editors: While this is serious and fundamental science, those of you that are not polarized into a Darwin or ID camp might find Youvan's use of the Davies work in Kansas as somewhat humorous, thus making this interesting reading for young minds who read things here. Bridgettttttte (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps better stated:

"Based on the Davies' work presented in The Physics of Time Asymmetry where he argues that no equation in physics proves that time moves forward, Youvan has further argued (http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=870&highlight=youvan) that Darwinian Evolution Theory is fundamentally invalid because it causally assumes a forward direction in The Arrow of Time. Bridgettttttte (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Youvan's argument is invalid. The arrow of time comes from the boundary or initial conditions, not from the equations of physics. There is no conflict between time-symmetric equations and the arrow of time.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your answer is more interesting than Youvan's comment! Is there an article on wikipedia that develops initial conditions into more physical phenomena? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgettttttte (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism revamp.

Alright, I'll admit that I don't like Paul Davies that much, and I'll admit that his theories are hard to follow (though somewhat funny), but this article keeps bugging me. I keep reading the criticism section and it just doesn't seem right that it is still here. The criticism section seems rushed and the person responsible for it's addition seems to have not read the so-called "critical" retorts to Davies' single paper, nor have they read Davies' paper. None of these besides (obviously) Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers, has said that Davies has a "theistic agenda." There are no sources and the second sentence isn't even a criticism. Nathan Myhvold wrote a paper on Davies' "Taking Science on Faith," saying he agreed with most of a the paper but found bits illogical. Which scientist named Sean Carroll does the article mean? I'm removing the section, as it seems the editors who already posted here also find it odd that this keeps popping up. Discuss its addition and the revamp here. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please tag the specific statements you want sourced. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't read his paragraph did you? Yeah, we IPs get kind of pissed at that. One of the sources given is a forum. They aren't notable. The ten responses weren't all critical of a "theistic objective" of Davies and it's horridly written. Whoever wrote it originally did not read the responses to the paper. And which Sean Carrol? The US evolutionary biologist or English theoretical physisist? Maybe this all seems to stem from the fact that I (and probably he IP) have read a lot of what Davies has wrote and the only real backlash came from "Taking Science on Faith," which he clearly didn't mean anything religious and was mislabeled a theistic propogandist. And I took out the Diest category, he hasn't idenified himself as such. And where did Davies' reply go? 64.234.0.101 (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

May I quote someone above? "I've removed the criticism section because, I think it's not hyperbolic to say, Richard Dawkins gets several orders of magnitude more criticism than Paul Davies ever will, and from diverse groups of people. Davies received brief, unsustained criticism from various scientists who felt that when communicating science to the public, one should be forceful and overt in criticizing religion and pointing out science's superiority. I sympathize with both points of view, but, I simply feel that if Dawkins has no criticism section then a living scientist who gets overwhelmingly less criticism shouldn't have one either." I think that summarizes our point (not to single Dawkins out as an example, but anyone of his popular nature would fit). 64.234.0.101 (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If Dawkins' article lacks a criticism section that is a failure of that article and has no relevance here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that they is plenty of criticism of Dawkins in his article, it just has been incorporated in the main paragraphs, rather than lumped into it's own dedicated section. 09:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We aren't saying the Dawkins page is wrong, we're saying it is RIGHT to not have a criticism section and that it is GOOD to have it within the page. Editors have tried that here, only to have it reverted. The criticism here is EXTREMELY minor and relevant to only one thing Davies published. If we did a criticism section for every bit of criticism someone has gotten, then every article would be filled with such nonsense. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not the situation. Davies' contribution to religious debates is a significant part of his works. He's not only known for being a physicist, but also for an advocate of a god of the gaps, having written several essays, letters, and sections of books on the topic. If he weren't known for his stance on science and religion, then he wouldn't have gotten a Templeton Prize for it. The criticism section is relevant, so it should stay. "Merging it" would also be a possibility, but this article is under-developed so there's nowhere to make the merge, unless a significant rewrite and expansion is done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, if he's known for that, why doesn't it say so in the article. It's a bizarre article that devotes space to attacking a man's views without bothering to describe what those views are. 86.175.56.189 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not finished. His books and the Templeton Prize are mentionned BTW. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The books and the Prize are 'listed'. No indication is given of what is being criticised. It is clear that criticising his views is seen as more important than bothering to describe what they are. That's irrational, and justifying this by saying 'well it's Wikipedia and it's imperfect/incomplete, so I can use it as a soapbox to attack anyone who diverges even slightly from my worldview' without even making a pretense towards balance is bizarre. 86.175.56.189 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Davies is a god of the gaps theist. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He's a "well there's something I consider mysterious, and I have limited imagination, so I'm gonna call it god" kind of theist. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read a lot of his stuff. IMO he's more of a "physics=how, god=why" type. It's not about a lack of imagination. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to spur another debate. I just think the criticism section is nonsense and not descriptive in any way shape or form. It doesn't add relvant information. Some guys criticise a paper he wrote because they don't agree with his views. Okay. In the words of Michael Shermer, "So what?" 64.234.0.101 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, and to add... so what if he's a theist? He's entitled to his beliefs. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and people are entitled to criticize them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism or controversy?

One could just as well rewrite the section the other way around, because it's essentially true that Davies's original article is itself a criticism of people like, well, Dawkins. It think it would be more accurate to strip the "criticism" heading off entirely and take a more narrative tack, beginning with what Davies wrote. I think there is also a notability issue in exactly how much this controversy has escaped into general notability, but that's just me. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the opening text of Davies' response? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, but largely because I think we could do better than just repeat the phrase. By all means, summarize the dispute further.Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

His words gave an excellent tenor of the "debate". --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So I stuck them in, as you could have yourself instead of edit-warring. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could have, but then you wouldn't have realised how annoying it is to see arduously compiled text deleted. :-) Anyway, thanks for the restoration. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctoral students

I don't see a need for a list of Davies' doctoral students in the info box, unless they are notable enough to have their own articles. Any thoughts on this? Van Speijk (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, keep. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, my reasons for suggesting removal of these names are that, by and large, the individuals are not notable (maybe keep a list of notables - if they have their own article), and the list will vary over time. Are we talking about current students, or any students that the person in question has supervised? The former would require maintenance. I can't see what the list of names adds to the Wikipedia. What are your reasons for wanting to keep the lists? Thanks, Van Speijk (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Alma Mater is incorrect

It is incorrect to list University of Cambridge as his alma mater. A postdoc (as stated in the article) at a particular institution is not normally considered part of one's education (no degree is granted and no formal qualifications are obtained), but is simply a temporary research job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.176.168 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Section on media work

Shouldn't the sub-section headed "Media work" mention, when referring to the John Templeton Foundation, point out that Davies won the Templeton Prize in 1995?Carltonio (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Physics and theology

I think it might improve this article if it were mentioned in the first two paragraphs that Davies is known for his writings on the relationship between theology and physics, as in his book "God and the New Physics".Vorbee (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607135118/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/CosmicBlueprint.htm to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/CosmicBlueprint.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405235715/http://www.astroseti.org/davieseng.php to http://www.astroseti.org/davieseng.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705110848/http://www.manningclark.org.au/events/stars/book_abstracts.pdf to http://www.manningclark.org.au/events/stars/book_abstracts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224205347/http://askabiologist.asu.edu/podcasts/index_all.html to http://askabiologist.asu.edu/podcasts/index_all.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100913062546/http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=NzkyZmZmNDc3ZDU4MzIyZmZmYzRmOWZmN2ExMmZiMzY= to http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=NzkyZmZmNDc3ZDU4MzIyZmZmYzRmOWZmN2ExMmZiMzY=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiverse theory

Multiverse theory to me exists sir. I have wrote several about it. Though I am a student of class 9. But I wrote about multiverse theory referring to whatever I know about it. I also wrote on digitality on human beings as per THE AKASHIC FIELD. I refer this to Sir H.G Gates Jr and sir Alfred Parsi Senate. Sir Gates wrote about it in an article while he was the professor of Maryland University in 2008.I want to know mote about it from you Jacob sarkar (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)