What got into Hoyle?

After winning the Templeton Prize’
Home – Physics World
John Polkinghorne
Spoke at Cornell
Home | Cornell Chronicle
Home | Cornell Chronicle
in 2004 and I attended.He spoke about Hoyle.I can not recount the exact tempo of the presentation but I may be able to find my micro tape recording.What John said was, that based on what the standard secular viewpoint was, that Hoyle, reasoning we were carbon beings(nothing having to do with religious bias nor secular slanting), required there to be some particular carbon value IN some particular database in a California physics databank. Polkinghorne described a telephone call that Hoyle made (to Cal Tech? I cant quite remember) and TOLD them what data should be there.The Americans apparently replied that it WAS NOT THERE. Eventually it was found that Hoyle was correct, or so said Polkinghorne, and thus with this event as story goes . , Hoyle was confident that the secular world did not possess the correct database of the world, or so I paraphrase in my own lingo. I think he found this out before he made the calculations Hoot was referencing.Edited by Brad McFall, : year

Thanks for clearing up my recollection process.In the context of questioning Hoyle's reasoning process, I should say that while Polkinghorne spoke with clear tonal differences among creation and evolution broadly speaking while maintaining that both could be combined he seemed to only speak about Hoyle in the way you represented it, "Hoyle reasoned that for us to exist the universe had to provide a way for carbon to be formed, and since we exist, there was a way" wich gave me renewed interest in Hoyle as I had always been "skeptical" of his ideas otherwise than on this point.I am fairly sure Polkinghorne said "five nucleon problem" (John narrated from Dirac beauty in equations and the three body problem to this nucleon issue I think) and now that you named it, that does seem familiar to my memory. I guess I was so focused on the "carbon" part and his ossilating between what for me was clearly "creation" or "evolution" that I did not remember that the data was in helium instead.

OK then it was in carbon after all.Perhaps a physics person can verify this. I wonder now if it was 7.82 carbon value that was asked of Folwer.Polikinghorne had me worried because these three heliums could not be narrated differently than a Bosochovichs'
Roger Joseph Boscovich - Wikipedia
biology of the three body problem re-historicized(so says I), but regardless Hoyle's thought process only required Humans being carbon beings and a universe existing and then thinking with the likes best physicists (Salpeter was a Cornell Prof I saw a couple of times).I do not know of Hoyle's later ideas and the quote about IDinter thread alia seems interesting. It seems to me that Hoyle could/ may be generalizing from a CARBON UNIVERSE to ID but if that is what is being questioned in this thread then I would like to know how one is going to enforce questioning any physicst who wants to reason from THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION to MAN IS A MACHINE. Without obvious connections between levels of physical reality (quarks, nucleons, atoms, macromolecules) and biology (cell, organism, population, species) either direction of thought seems suspect to me. That is why I only hold out the topology of phenomenological thermodynamics as Gladsyhev has qualified it as the only way to get a more determinatve science. It seems to me that the ideas of evolutionary dynamics as pursued at Harvard may supply the angle to address this but I have yet to master all of the possible linkable equalities.Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.