Design, but no designer?

[mgc1961]

A gen­er­a­tion or so ago, our uni­verse was thought by many sci­en­tists to be a closed sys­tem that had nei­ther begin­ning nor end. The exis­tence of the cos­mos was regarded as a “brute fact” and needed noth­ing to pro­duce it. The mod­ern and well-nigh uni­ver­sally accepted the­ory of the “big bang” changed all that.

If the uni­verse did have a begin­ning, though, it becomes not only rea­son­able but also unavoid­able that we would ask how that begin­ning was gen­er­ated. In ask­ing the ques­tion, we have left physics (i.e., how nature works) for meta-physics (i.e., why nature exists at all).

This is the point at which a the­ist might call atten­tion to a tra­di­tional and pow­er­ful Cos­mo­log­i­cal Argu­ment for God’s exis­tence. If the mate­r­ial uni­verse has not existed for­ever, the pos­si­bil­i­ties are limited.

Either it some­how called itself into being or was brought into being by an eter­nal Cre­ative God. From Plato to Aquinas to Dar­win to Davies, this very rea­son­able argu­ment — if not intu­itive insight — has been offered.


Finish the article at http://blogs.tennessean.com/opinion/2010/09/12/stephen-hawking-design-but-no-designer/

[ZombieHorde]

1. Seems like the author is trying to replace astronomy/astrophysics with philosophy.

I understand why, astronomy is hard; philosophy is easy. I personally enjoy both astronomy and philosophy, but I don't think one can replace the other. Astronomy and philosophy have different goals and methodologies.

[humblebum]

2. You would not have a scientific method without philosophy, not to mention

just about anything else in an ordered society.

[ZombieHorde]

6. I agree, but philosophy still makes a poor substitute for the scientific method.

I am not claiming philosophy is bad, but it is not MacGyver's duct tape and paper clip. Philosophy has its limitations.

[humblebum]

11. Every epistemology ever conceived is the result of a philosophy.

The modern scientific method comes directly from the philosophy of logical positivism or positivism.

[ZombieHorde]

13. What is your point? nt

[humblebum]

17. Another word for philosophy is logic. Kinda hard to accomplish

anything without it.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Although philosophy and logic often go together, they are two different categories of human thought.

Logic has more rules than philosophy.

[humblebum]

19. And those rules were developed using philosophy. nt

[ZombieHorde]

22. Do you believe the scientific process can be replaced with philosophy?

I really like philosophy, but I don't philosophy can replace the scientific method.

They are like a hammer and belt, you can use them both at the same time, but they perform different tasks.

[humblebum]

25. Some consider the SM to be a philosophy as well as

the product of it. It's about the "philosophy of science".

[ZombieHorde]

30. I don't think you answered the question.

Do you believe the scientific process can be replaced with philosophy?

[humblebum]

32. I don't think you can have a scientific process without philosophy and

i don't think philosophy will replace any scientific process. They will proceed side by side in the same direction. I don't even see how you can think philosophy will replace science. Philosophy also drives the methodologies of many diciplines.

[trotsky]

23. He's trying to equivocate on the word in a po-mo fashion.

So that science & rationality are simply "other philosophies" that are equally valid as religion, in particular HIS religion.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Must suck to feel the need to discredit the scientific method. nt

[trotsky]

26. Well, when it pretty much disproves everything one believes,

what choice does one have? (Apart from blaming atheists/atheism today for the crimes of Communists who lived nearly a century ago, that is.)

[laconicsax]

4. He's a preacher with a doctorate in philosophy.

What do you expect?

[Jim__]

5. I'm curious. What is the basis for your statement that philosophy is easy? - n/t

[ZombieHorde]

8. Your own personal philosophy is not intrinsically right or wrong.

There does not seem to be one true philosophy.

The philosophy of famous philosophers is mostly a matter of minor to moderate amounts of memorization, history, and vocabulary.

[Jim__]

10. The article is not making a personal philosophical point.

It is arguing about a general philosophical point - namely, why is there something rather than nothing. Hawking claims to address this in his book, but, based on what I've read of his book, he fails to address it in any scientific manner. Hawking ultimately bases the claims in his book on M-theory. Do you consider M-theory to be a scientific theory? If so, how do you think it differs from a philosophical argument?

IOW, how does Hawking's argument differ from a philosophical argument?

[ZombieHorde]

15. "Do you consider M-theory to be a scientific theory?"

Probably not, and least not yet, scientific theories should be testable.

IOW, how does Hawking's argument differ from a philosophical argument?

M-theory is based on math, philosophy generally isn't.

M-theory has no moral implications, philosophy generally does.

Rhetoric is important in philosophy, but not in M-theory.

Understand a little bit of history and culture usually helps one understand philosophy, but a little knowledge of history and culture will not help one to understand M-theory.

[humblebum]

20. Philosophies are apparent in any scientific theorizing because

the methods used to construct those theories are the result of philosophic conjecture and debate over generations on what and what not to include in the process of deduction and induction.

[Jim__]

27. A couple of thoughts.

With respect to:

M-theory is based on math, philosophy generally isn't.

M-theory has no moral implications, philosophy generally does.

You seem to be saying:

Some A is B.
C is B.
Therefore C is not A.

I removed the negatives from the premises to simplify it.

---

You say rhetoric is not important in M-theory. Probably not. But rhetoric is certainly important in Hawking's argument. For instance, from his book:

According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots.

Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.

Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.

It seems like his argument is based on more than M-theory, and a lot of that "more" is just rhetoric.

---

You say:

Understand a little bit of history and culture usually helps one understand philosophy, but a little knowledge of history and culture will not help one to understand M-theory.

But, here's a review of Hawking's book with a very different point of view:

Our scientific thinking has always tended to reflect its era. Some believe this is because we need a model or an idea emerging from our social and intellectual environment before we set about seeking the appropriate evidence. Science fiction, for instance, quite frequently "seeds" a notion into the scientific community before a physicist does the math and provides the evidence, though certain ideas, if born outside their time, might wait centuries before they are recognized.


Today, in a pluralistic age, it seems we need a number of overlapping theories with factors in common to describe what we are beginning to call the multiverse. In an environment that includes black holes, super black holes, dark matter, dark energy , string theory, M-theory, alternate pasts and alternate futures, we can no longer assume there is one universe or even a set of universes, with a single group of natural laws applicable to everything from the domain of atoms to that of astronomy.

The book's own statements that there is no such thing as a theory-independent concept of reality back up this review.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Why did Albert Einstien say, "E=mc^2," as opposed to "E=mc^3?"

Knowing who Einstein is, his background, religion, etc., is not required to answer the question. Knowledge of math is required to answer the question. If anyone else said, "E=mc^2," the saying would have the same meaning.

Why did Socrates say, "Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior"? Would this quote have a different meaning if it came from Margret Thatcher? I think so. We need to know something about Socrates and his culture to answer the question.

The book's own statements that there is no such thing as a theory-independent concept of reality back up this review.

I do not doubt philosophy may inspire scientific inquiry, but philosophy and the scientific method are still different. Even if someone says, "According to my philosophy, the scientific method is the best way to examine variables," their philosophy and the scientific method are two different things.

[Jim__]

31. I agree that philosophy and the scientific method are different.

The critical difference is that scientific claims have to be backed up by empirical tests. There are no empirical tests of m-theory. The author of the article cited in the OP is, generally, philosophising. When Hawking is citing m-theory in his book, so is he.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Why do you think m-theory is philosophy? How much formal training do you have in M-theory? nt

[Jim__]

34. M-theory is not testable.

I'm sure that the researching m-theory, specifically, searching for testable aspsects of it is legitimate science. However, to take an untested and untestable idea and use it to draw grand conclusions is not science. In Hawking's case, his method is not even solid philosophy. The criticism by the article cited in the OP is as valid as Hawking's claims.

[trotsky]

35. All Sol class stars are yellow.

Therefore since this grapefruit is yellow, it must be a Sol class star.

The logic is very strong with you, yes indeed. :eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

36. I would not call the conclustion, "grand." I would call the conclusion, "mundane."

To assume we know more than a brilliant scientist about his own field of study seems like a "grand" conclusion to me. I can't consider the scientific work of one of our greatest scientists to be on equal ground with a who is not a scientist.

To me, this would be the same as saying Bush's stance on global warming and evolution is on equal ground with the scientists who study global warming or evolution.

[tama]

37. It's not that complicated

It's not that hard to get - philosophically - the general idea of what is going on in contemporary theoretical physics without doctorate in physics and math. Stringy approaches have been developed and developed and so far some cool math but in terms of physical ToE - not even wrong. Which "not even wrong" is purely philosophical argument, Popperian philosophy of science, not a Word of God but still generally accepted as essential criterion of a well developed theory, namely falsifiability (and hence, testability).

Laymen like us don't need to drool and uncritically worship a certain "brilliant scientist" just because he's high up in the poking order of academic hierarchy. We can and do take into consideration also other brilliant people and their opinions, including peers of Hawking who don't think highly of M-theory and have concluded that stringy approaches are a dead end and something else is needed.

[ZombieHorde]

38. I am not advocating worshiping anyone other than Gary Gygax.

We can and do take into consideration also other brilliant people and their opinions,

Like the person in the article who has no known science background? I don't think so.

[tama]

43. The scientists Jim mentioned, for example

Hawking's new book is not getting an admiring response from the scientific community, but a very critical one.

If you really are interested in how and why the field of theoretical physics has come to the conclusion of growing more and more disappointed in the dead end of stringy approaches, you can study the subject more deeply, or just accept that in philosophy of science, falsifiability is still considered essential criterion of a well formed physical theory and that M-theory and other stringy approaches don't satisfy that criterion. Accepting that, you can draw your own conclusion, logically.

[Jim__]

39. You want the opinions of some other physicists?

Here's the opinion of theoretical physicist, Marcelo Gleiser, on Hawking's claim.

The theories that Hawking and Mlodinow use to base their arguments on have as much empirical evidence as God. It’s extremely misleading to promulgate highly speculative theories as the accepted word of the scientific community. Although I have enormous respect for Hawking’s work as a scientist — he’s one of the greatest of our generation without question — this sort of media hype is, to my mind, irresponsible.

Here's an opinion of another theoretical physicist, Peter Woit:

This isn’t exactly an air-tight argument…

The book begins in a more promising manner, with a general philosophical and historical discussion of fundamental physical theory. There’s this explanation of what makes a good physical model:

A model is a good model if it:

1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

The fact that “M-theory” satisfies none of these criteria is not remarked upon.

One more, than I'll stop. You can find lots more for yourself. Craig Callender is a philosopher of physiscs. Here's a little of what he has to say:

So I was surprised when the authors began to advocate M-theory. But it turns out they were unconventionally referring to the patchwork of string theories as "M-theory" too, in addition to the hypothetical ultimate theory about which they remain agnostic.

M-theory in either sense is far from complete. But that doesn't stop the authors from asserting that it explains the mysteries of existence: why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all. According to Hawking, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not needed to answer these questions. Instead, string theory points to the existence of a multiverse, and this multiverse coupled with anthropic reasoning will suffice. Personally, I am doubtful.

Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive "luck" warrant the postulation of God? No. Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? The authors and many others think so. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed - until we start watching universes come into being - to remain untested. The lesson isn't that we face a dilemma between God and the multiverse, but that we shouldn't go off the rails at the first sign of coincidences.

You can believe anything you want. However, if you're interested in the validity of what you believe, you owe it to yourself to do some research. I don't think you're going to find anyone who will claim that M-theory has any empirical validation. Without that validation, using an idea to jump to conclusions about the ultimate origin of the universe(s) is an over-reach.

Hawking's claims are unsubstantiated.

[ZombieHorde]

40. How do you think those men came to their conclusions? nt

[Jim__]

41. They're familiar with m-theory. They know it is not sufficient to reach these conclusions. - n/t

[ZombieHorde]

42. OK, now answer the question. How do you think those men came to those conclusions? nt

[Jim__]

44. I did answer the question. Need more than that M-theory is not sufficient to reach these conclusions

Did you read the full text at the links? They generally tell you exactly how they reached their conclusion.

Gleiser states very clearly that the nature of physics itself is to continue to learn from new data and there is nothing to indicate that we've reached the limits of this data:

In real terms, we have precious little: mostly ideas that have not, and some would say cannot, be verified, such as the notion of the multiverse or that there are infinitely many histories unfolding at the same time, each in a possible universe. So, if anything, such notions are very far from being tested or even from being testable at this point.

I claim that contemplating a final theory is inconsistent with the very essence of physics, an empirical science based on the gradual collection of data. Because we don’t have instruments capable of measuring all of Nature, we cannot ever be certain that we have a final theory. There’ll always be room for surprises, as the history of physics has shown again and again. In fact, I find it quite pretentious to imagine that we humans can achieve such a thing. As I argue in my book, it’s much more realistic to take science as a self-correcting narrative where new theories spring from the cracks of old ones. There is no indication whatsoever that such modus operandi is close to completion due to the advent of a final theory.

Woit gets his information directly from Hawking's book:

The book begins in a more promising manner, with a general philosophical and historical discussion of fundamental physical theory. There’s this explanation of what makes a good physical model:

A model is a good model if it:

1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

Based on those criteria, M-theory is not a good model. We should not be drawing dramatic conclusions from an untested theory.

And, a little more from Craig Callender:

This multiplicity of distinct theories prompts the authors to declare that the only way to understand reality is to employ a philosophy called "model-dependent realism". Having declared that "philosophy is dead", the authors unwittingly develop a theory familiar to philosophers since the 1980s, namely "perspectivalism". This radical theory holds that there doesn't exist, even in principle, a single comprehensive theory of the universe. Instead, science offers many incomplete windows onto a common reality, one no more "true" than another. In the authors' hands this position bleeds into an alarming anti-realism: not only does science fail to provide a single description of reality, they say, there is no theory-independent reality at all. If either stance is correct, one shouldn't expect to find a final unifying theory like M-theory - only a bunch of separate and sometimes overlapping windows.

According to Hawking's book, there is no theory-independent reality. So, if our knowledge of reality is theory-dependent, how can he give us a theory-independent cause for reality?

You may think that Hawking disagrees with the assertions of these people about the untested state of M-theory. My understanding of his book is that he doesn't. He acknowledges that these theories (he also talks about super-symmetry and super-gravity) have not been tested. He thinks some evidence may be forth-coming from the LHC.

[tama]

45. TOE or final theory

"I claim that contemplating a final theory is inconsistent with the very essence of physics, an empirical science based on the gradual collection of data. Because we don’t have instruments capable of measuring all of Nature, we cannot ever be certain that we have a final theory. There’ll always be room for surprises, as the history of physics has shown again and again. In fact, I find it quite pretentious to imagine that we humans can achieve such a thing. As I argue in my book, it’s much more realistic to take science as a self-correcting narrative where new theories spring from the cracks of old ones. There is no indication whatsoever that such modus operandi is close to completion due to the advent of a final theory."

So that leaves two possibilities that I can think of:
1) No TOE
2) A TOE that is not final and closed but constantly evolving and open

[ZombieHorde]

46. Oh shit. I now see the problem was not with your answer, the problem was with the wording of my

question. I should have asked, what discipline do you think those guys used to reach their conclusions? (math, philosophy, rhetoric, religion, linguistics, music, etc.) My question was annoying as is, I am sorry.

I was hoping you would answer "math," "calculations," or something similar.

I would then ask, how should a person determine if a philosophical claim was true or false? (math, philosophy, rhetoric, theology, linguistics, music, etc.)

For example, "It is not God's will merely that we should be happy, but that we should make ourselves happy." - Immanuel Kant

What discipline would you use to examine Kant's claim? I am guessing you would use theology, philosophy, and/or rhetoric.

This is the difference between m-theory and philosophy.

Again, sorry for the poor wording of my question.

[laconicsax]

3. I find this image appropriate:

Rev. Shelly rambles for a while about a subject he clearly doesn't understand and uses that ignorance as the basis of an argument from incredulity (argument from limited imagination) and then declares that Genesis 1:1 is as likely an explanation for the universe as any:

To say the least, the following statement remains both reasonable and defensible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

:eyes:

[dmallind]

7. I have never understood why the cosmologhical argument has any merit at all.

At the VERY most, with wild hypothesizing, it could lead someone to conclude that something outside of or prior to the universe was the proximal cause of its origins. But absolutely no further, and only that far if we assume that self-causation is a dead end, which Hawking et al say we should not.

What that actions was we can not even begin to guess, nor whether it had a sentient actor. It could be anything from a cyclical expansion and contraction cycle that IS a closed system to super-intelligent alien life conducting an interesting 15 billion year experiment to the sneeze of teh Great Green Arkleseizure, to yes indeed the amalgam of Edomite and Canaanite sky and war gods that morphed into the Biblegod. Why does it have to be brought into existence by an eternal Creative God? Even if in a fit of lunacy we concede that, why does it have to be a god who resembles in any way ANY current religious view of any gods? Humans have had gods for at least 75000 years. The oldest current religion is less than a tenth of that in age even by stretching the definition of its earliest roots. There is no reason at all to say that the universe as it is points to any theological doctrine being more or less likely tahn any other.

For all we know Odin is up there drinking and feasting and saying "Ya know what Loki, that was a hell of a cool trick you pulled hiding the great cow of the universe from these mortal fools".

[Flipper999]

9. I liked this line:

"The theory of multiple universes with different laws of nature and life forms (i.e., the “alien creatures” of science fiction) is altogether speculative and unevidenced."

Yet he somehow finds his anthropomorphic sky god's existence plausible. It's funny how many non-physicists/cosmologists have come out of the woodwork to tell Stephen freaking Hawking that he's wrong about his own field of expertise. He is better at understanding the physical workings of the universe than most of us will ever be at anything. It would be like if I told Kasparov that he needs to change his chess strategy.

[ZombieHorde]

16. Good point. nt

[humblebum]

21. the difference is that Kasparov's chess strategy is provable by his results

No one is doubting that Hawking is a brilliant man, but many of his theories are unproven or unprovable.

[struggle4progress]

12. I really don't understand the point of these "debates." When one is doing science,

one obviously considers only natural phenomena; there are not and there cannot be scientific appeals to deities. The (very good) reason for being interested in that approach is simply that it slowly refines our thinking by a rigorous discipline of "what-is" and so gives us increasing power over the material world, thus potentially increasing our freedom. Nevertheless, science reflects a division between human-as-creative-subject and world-as-predictable-object, in which human-as-scientists invents potential understandings and tests them carefully against quantitative observation: there is a different social aspect of our experience, involving the interaction of individual creative-subjects, and to treat these creative-subjects entirely and only as predictable-objects would be an alienating affront to human dignity and the natural human desire for freedom

There are philosophical problems associated with the differences between human-as-predictable-material-object and human-as-creative-subject-in-search-of-freedom: these philosophical problems lead easily to perplexing verbal contradictions, and so one begins to suspect that they cannot be resolved purely verbally. That philosophy could shed a clear and definitive light on anything seems doubtful, as one sees (for example) by wandering through the attempts of philosophers to give a good account of a subject like mathematics, which obviously does not really study material phenomena but which is nevertheless rigorously disciplined and often astonishingly useful. Perhaps the best one could hope of philosophy was simply that it helped us elucidate for ourselves the sloppy compromises we all allow in our own thinking

I'm completely unimpressed by arguments such as those linked by the OP. But it is my impression that such arguments usually reflect an attempt to protect something other than the issues which seem to be under discussion, and so it might be reasonable to ask, What is at stake here? I suspect that at stake psychologically are issues of human freedom and human alienation. The I-It relations, according to which most of us live our lives in the world, are not the I-Thou relations which the human heart requires: instead of recognizing that life involves both I-It relations and I-Thou relations, there is a possible psychological reaction that attempts to "rescue" I-Thou relations by rejecting I-It relations; but our modern society is heavily dependent on science, and since science necessarily proceeds from the I-It relation between scientific observer and the object of the observation, this naive attempt (to "rescue" I-Thou relations simply by rejecting I-It relations) takes the form of an emotional hostility to science, and this hostility is then draped in a philosophical and intellectual garb. Of course, the philosophical and intellectual dressing for the hostility is dishonest, in the sense that it is only polemics and not actually the careful dispassionate inquiry it pretends to be. On the other hand, the underlying alienation of humans is real, and the underlying need for genuine I-Thou relations is real, so the rebellion against against a world that defines itself purely in terms of I-It relations is a real and meaningful rebellion, even though the actual method here is clumsy and uninformed

[Jim__]

14. One of the issues of course is, when is one doing science?

This is a well-known problem, the problem of demarcation. Hawking and Mlodinow opened this debate in their book by declaring that philosophy is dead. Yet, they make no effort to differentiate their claims about M-theory from philosophy. Certainly M-theory, as it stands today, is both untested and untestable. If Hawking bases his claims on M-theory, what do his claims have to do with science?

[DeSwiss]

28. We waste all our fucking time worried about where we came from, instead of where we're going. n/t

[edhopper]

47. I think Dawkins

answers that pretty succinctly in The God Delusion.