Hawking - Grand Design - Commentary

[utunumsint]

Hi,

I have been reading Ed Feser’s books, and following some of the threads on this forum recently, and I figured I needed to check out the opposition that Ed ridicules so much so see if his criticisms are fair. To that end, I have bought Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design.

I am at the first chapter, and I have to pause to capture some of the things he says there and offer some criticisms:

1. 
   *]He claims Philosophy is dead because it has not kept up with modern science, and physics in particular.
   *]He then proceed to postulate a theory that he will use throughout the book called Model Dependent Realism. It is the idea that brain interprets the (name removed by moderator)ut from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, and the elements and properties that constitute it, we attribute to it the notion of reality or absolute truth. But because there may be many different ways of modeling reality, each of them being equality predictive as the other, then we cannot say that one is more true than the other. Rather, we are free to choose whichever model is more convenient to us.
   
   His main example of Model Dependent Realism is the idea that Plato’s theories were supplanted by Newton, then by quantum theories. He then claims he has found an ultimate theory that will eventually explain everything called M-Theory which he defines as multiple overlapping theories that describe that there are multiple universes all being created from nothing and do not require the intervention of a divine creator being, but arise from physical law.
   
   Criticism 1 - He bashes philosophy as being dead, but then presents a clearly non-physics based philosophical theory about how our minds process sensory information.
   
   Criticism 2 - He claims the multi-verses routinely come into existence from nothing, but in the same paragraph says they arise from physical laws. Which one is it then? Nothing, or something (or some version of nothing that has physical laws and is therefore clearly not nothing)?
   
   I will post again as I read through the book. If any of you have read the book, please let me know if you think I am being unfair in my criticism. I also want to see if I can work out how his ideas might relate to Thomistic philosophy.
   
   Because I am not a physicist, I will be sticking to what is explained in the text. The book is, after-all, directed to a popular audience, so I feel I have the right to give my opinion.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[empther]

Model Dependent Realism. It is the idea that brain interprets the (name removed by moderator)ut from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, and the elements and properties that constitute it, we attribute to it the notion of reality or absolute truth. But because there may be many different ways of modeling reality, each of them being equality predictive as the other, then we cannot say that one is more true than the other. Rather, we are free to choose whichever model is more convenient to us.

The problem with this nonsense is that the human mind, not just a brain made of matter alone, can conceive ideas beyond and outside our sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

So the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans conceived of a whole pantheon of “gods”, each with particular powers and characteristics reflecting human characteristics and not just sensory (name removed by moderator)ut experiences.

So there was a goddess of wisdom, a goddess of love and so on.

Likewise, we can conceive of a God who is absolutely necessary, eternal, immutable, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and all the rest.
And we can see that this is the ultimate “theory of everything” ( phrase used by scientists for the Holy Grail of science, the unified field theory ).

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Hi,
Model Dependent Realism. It is the idea that brain interprets the (name removed by moderator)ut from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, and the elements and properties that constitute it, we attribute to it the notion of reality or absolute truth. But because there may be many different ways of modeling reality, each of them being equality predictive as the other, then we cannot say that one is more true than the other. Rather, we are free to choose whichever model is more convenient to us.

This is just more relativistic nonsense. No matter how he may try to phrase it, this theory essentially boils down to him trying to deny the law of non-contradiction. A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time, something is either true, or it is false, period.

People like Hawking refuse to accept this, despite all the logical and scientific proof in favor of the notion, and as such, they deny truths that are right in front of their faces.

Your other criticisms are quite valid. Metaphysics will never be touched by science and so philosophy will always have a place in the world. As for your other criticism, if he actually said that it shows just how far he’s willing to go to live in his little fantasy world.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi,

I have been reading Ed Feser’s books, and following some of the threads on this forum recently, and I figured I needed to check out the opposition that Ed ridicules so much so see if his criticisms are fair. To that end, I have bought Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design.

I am at the first chapter, and I have to pause to capture some of the things he says there and offer some criticisms:

1. 
   *]He claims Philosophy is dead because it has not kept up with modern science, and physics in particular.
   *]He then proceed to postulate a theory that he will use throughout the book called Model Dependent Realism. It is the idea that brain interprets the (name removed by moderator)ut from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, and the elements and properties that constitute it, we attribute to it the notion of reality or absolute truth. But because there may be many different ways of modeling reality, each of them being equality predictive as the other, then we cannot say that one is more true than the other. Rather, we are free to choose whichever model is more convenient to us.
   
   His main example of Model Dependent Realism is the idea that Plato’s theories were supplanted by Newton, then by quantum theories. He then claims he has found an ultimate theory that will eventually explain everything called M-Theory which he defines as multiple overlapping theories that describe that there are multiple universes all being created from nothing and do not require the intervention of a divine creator being, but arise from physical law.
   
   Criticism 1 - He bashes philosophy as being dead, but then presents a clearly non-physics based philosophical theory about how our minds process sensory information.
   
   Criticism 2 - He claims the multi-verses routinely come into existence from nothing, but in the same paragraph says they arise from physical laws. Which one is it then? Nothing, or something (or some version of nothing that has physical laws and is therefore clearly not nothing)?
   
   I will post again as I read through the book. If any of you have read the book, please let me know if you think I am being unfair in my criticism. I also want to see if I can work out how his ideas might relate to Thomistic philosophy.
   
   Because I am not a physicist, I will be sticking to what is explained in the text. The book is, after-all, directed to a popular audience, so I feel I have the right to give my opinion.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

1. 
   Go ahead Ut. His first error is his arbitrary rejection of philosophy due to his misconception that it has not kept up with science, especially physics. This argument is misplaced because philosophy has never been in competetition with science. Philosophy studies the underlying ultimate causes of reality, science studies the physical structure of the same reality with a view of explaining the physical relationships of the physical composition with a view to understanding these interrelationships throughout the universe.
   
   His second error is his " model " system of truth.
   His next is the assumption that " multiverses " exist, and that they caused themselves, created themselves
   His next is that they began with " physical laws. " This is self contradictory, how can you have laws with something real which laws apply to ?
   
   Linus2nd

 

[EasterBeagle]

"The Bible is the only book that explains how everything in the Universe came into being from nothing. The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name). His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01) (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm).

 

[utunumsint]

The problem with this nonsense is that the human mind, not just a brain made of matter alone, can conceive ideas beyond and outside our sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

So the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans conceived of a whole pantheon of “gods”, each with particular powers and characteristics reflecting human characteristics and not just sensory (name removed by moderator)ut experiences.

So there was a goddess of wisdom, a goddess of love and so on.

Likewise, we can conceive of a God who is absolutely necessary, eternal, immutable, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and all the rest.
And we can see that this is the ultimate “theory of everything” ( phrase used by scientists for the Holy Grail of science, the unified field theory ).

Yes - he certainly white washes a massive field of philosophical debate with this one overarching assertion. It will be interesting to see if he ever comes back to justify this claim in any way, and if he uses physics to do it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hawking can “conveniently” imagine a universe that created itself, but cannot “conveniently” imagine an uncreated God.

Why is a universe that created itself more logical than an uncreated God?

And why is a universe that created itself a simpler or more convenient explanation than a God that created the universe?

The man has no idea what philosophy is, which is why he is so dismissive.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Albert Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

 

[utunumsint]

This is just more relativistic nonsense. No matter how he may try to phrase it, this theory essentially boils down to him trying to deny the law of non-contradiction. A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time, something is either true, or it is false, period.

People like Hawking refuse to accept this, despite all the logical and scientific proof in favor of the notion, and as such, they deny truths that are right in front of their faces.

Your other criticisms are quite valid. Metaphysics will never be touched by science and so philosophy will always have a place in the world. As for your other criticism, if he actually said that it shows just how far he’s willing to go to live in his little fantasy world.

Thanks for your reply. I am hoping the book will get better as I go along as he starts to get into the science.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Go ahead Ut. His first error is his arbitrary rejection of philosophy due to his misconception that it has not kept up with science, especially physics. This argument is misplaced because philosophy has never been in competition with science. Philosophy studies the underlying ultimate causes of reality, science studies the physical structure of the same reality with a view of explaining the physical relationships of the physical composition with a view to understanding these interrelationships throughout the universe.

His second error is his " model " system of truth.
His next is the assumption that " multiverses " exist, and that they caused themselves, created themselves
His next is that they began with " physical laws. " This is self contradictory, how can you have laws with something real which laws apply to ?

Linus2nd

LOL - Right - and all that within the first two or three pages of the book! My hope is that I will be able to sift through the book and point out conclusions that go beyond the evidence presented, while affirming those that make sense.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

"The Bible is the only book that explains how everything in the Universe came into being from nothing. The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name). His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01) (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm).

Thank you for the post. It is amazing to see how well our inspired literature can be read in the light of scientific discoveries.

I have been recently looking at Pope John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio again, and I am reminded how wonderfully the church presents the relation between the truths of revelation and those discoverable by science. The idea that truth cannot contradict itself is a central assertion in the Catholic faith. And it certainly gives us Catholics a motive to discover this world around us to see what great things God has done.

God bless,
Ut

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thanks for your reply. I am hoping the book will get better as I go along as he starts to get into the science.

God bless,
Ut

I wish it would as well. When Hawking sticks to pure science, he can’t be beat. The problem is that he tries to mix science and the philosophy he denounces and then tries to use it as though it can make a statement on the metaphysical and supernatural, which is entirely outside of the bounds of science. It really is too bad, if he would stick to pure science, there’s probably a lot more he could offer the world. Instead, he now seems to want to champion atheism with science, which is moronic, to say the least.

 

[utunumsint]

Wow. Chapter 2 is a whopper.

The origin of religion is human guilt. Our ancient ancestors wanted to explain the cause for natural calamities in their own sinfulness against the gods. Science comes to save us by revealing the impersonal natural laws that govern nature.

The Ionian Greeks were heroes and champions of impersonal laws, starting with Thales, then Pythagoras, followed by Archenemies, then Democritus, and finally Aristarchus.

But they were opposed by the other schools of philosophy, specifically that dastardly Aristotle who taught (get this) that all inanimate matter actually has senses, and intentionally chooses how they behave! What a terrible depiction of final causality! I mean both Aristotle and Aquinas both make it clear that final causality does not mean conscious intentionality! It only means that in humanity. Hawking simplistically asserts that Aristotle rejected Democritus’ atomism because he could not believe that human beings were composed of souless inanimate objects! What a distortion!

He then makes the very strange assertion that Aristotle and Aquinas were against laws of nature as understood in modern terms. He claims that this idea pervaded medieval Europe, and there was even a edict condemning the idea that there could be natural laws issued by Etienne Tempier in 1277. A quick look up shows that this was in fact part of a fierce debate between Thomism and the prevailing Augustinian theologians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Tempier The condemnation against laws of nature was against Thomas and Aristotle themselves!

What irritates me about this entire chapter is that had I not read Feser’s The Last Superstition, I could not have detected how shallow and unsupportable were Hawking’s claims,

William of Ockham and others did reject Aristotelian essentialism in favor of voluntarism, but that was a departure from Aquinas and Aristotle. It does not in any way represent them.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Wow. Chapter 2 is a whopper.

The origin of religion is human guilt. Our ancient ancestors wanted to explain the cause for natural calamities in their own sinfulness against the gods. Science comes to save us by revealing the impersonal natural laws that govern nature.

The Ionian Greeks were heroes and champions of impersonal laws, starting with Thales, then Pythagoras, followed by Archenemies, then Democritus, and finally Aristarchus.

But they were opposed by the other schools of philosophy, specifically that dastardly Aristotle who taught (get this) that all inanimate matter actually has senses, and intentionally chooses how they behave! What a terrible depiction of final causality! I mean both Aristotle and Aquinas both make it clear that final causality does not mean conscious intentionality! It only means that in humanity. Hawking simplistically asserts that Aristotle rejected Democritus’ atomism because he could not believe that human beings were composed of souless inanimate objects! What a distortion!

He then makes the very strange assertion that Aristotle and Aquinas were against laws of nature as understood in modern terms. He claims that this idea pervaded medieval Europe, and there was even a edict condemning the idea that there could be natural laws issued by Etienne Tempier in 1277. A quick look up shows that this was in fact part of a fierce debate between Thomism and the prevailing Augustinian theologians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Tempier The condemnation against laws of nature was against Thomas and Aristotle themselves!

What irritates me about this entire chapter is that had I not read Feser’s The Last Superstition, I could not have detected how shallow and unsupportable were Hawking’s claims,

William of Ockham and others did reject Aristotelian essentialism in favor of voluntarism, but that was a departure from Aquinas and Aristotle. It does not in any way represent them.

God bless,
Ut

I wonder where Hawkings got his information, since most of our information on the early Greek philosophers come from Aristotle! And Aristotle was the one who first spoke of the nature of all natural substances. He said nature was the cause of motion ( broadly speaking to mean all change ) and rest in those things in which a nature existed. He futher explained that nature was a self evident fact that could not be demonstrated or proven. Of course had he bothered to read the Commentaries of Thomas on the Physics of Aristotle.

And he certainly never read Aristotle himself, that is obvious. He got it all wrong.

And the Catholic Church " invented " its religion, wow!

It is pretty clear Hawkings is getting his info second or third hand from biased authors. And now he is going to teach us how the universe began

Its about time for Dr. Tufy and Wanstorian to come tripping in

Linus2nd

 

[KingCoil]

The man is not that naive at all.

He wrote the book in order to get the market of atheists who love to read ridiculous thoughts as long as they are against the existence of God and thereby also against Christianity.

And he has succeeded because atheists are buying that book as to earn for Hawking a lot of cash, and that is what humanly even without any model of reality, he is after.

That is why folks who know what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and reality will at once after some pages come to the fact that the man is talking gibberish, but for his earned reputation of being a physicist-cosmologist in the past, not even his atheist fans will touch that book if it were for free distribution, i.e. under an anonymous name.

About his idea of everyone is doing his own modeling of reality, that is experientially unrealistic, because even just the nose in our face, no one can just model his reality with keeping in his mind and conducting himself thus that there is no nose in his face and anyone can just try to prune it off with a pair of garden pruning shears* and it would not do him any harm whatever.

Don’t you guys notice that the man wants to talk but without anyone rebutting him?

Challenge him to a public debate on his everyone modeling of reality, and you keep to his nose and to his experiences in life, and see whether any amount of his modeling of his life will dispense him from the fact, that he has a nose in his face and he is going about life with his regrettably crippled condition – of course everyone should empathize with him, and that is no modeling of reality either.

The way to rebut all nonsense as with Hawking in his Grand Design is to bring up experiences of existence and life, and to stick to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

*Garden pruning shears

 

[Aloysium]

Apparently a new Theory of Universal Relativity.
no truth - philosophy is dead
no reality - Model Dependent Realism: there may be many different ways of modeling reality, each of them being equality predictive as the other, then we cannot say that one is more true than the other
no morality - impersonal laws; irrational guilt
yep, that book will sell:

• everyone’s ideas of reality, truth and goodness are just as valid as the next;
• no need to think, just doubt everything because none of it means anything other than what the person prefers - a simple end to all debates.
  The average IQ has apparently been dropping at a rate of 1 point/decade for the last 140 years. I am wondering if it is accelerating. Understanding and knowledge being gifts of the Holy Spirit, if you don’t use them, you will lose them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think it’s true to a degree that Stephen Hawking, because of his condition, gets a pass from most people for failing to be as logical as he should be.

Regrettably, he gets a pass from himself most of all. It must be difficult to live in the condition he is in and not profoundly hate the God who made him thus. I think it is this pain that God is challenging him to think through and work off that really matters, not the origin or destiny of the universe, mysteries that neither Hawking nor anyone else will ever solve with science.

 

[utunumsint]

It is getting a bit more interesting.

**Law of nature **: The idea of a law of nature was invented by Descartes in the 17th century. All reality is governed by the collisions of moving masses, that are governed by three laws valid in all places and in all times (his version was replaced by Newton’s but the principle still stands). Obedience to these laws does not imply that these moving bodies have minds.

Initial conditions: Initial conditions are those that describe the initial state of a system at the beginning of whatever interval of time one seeks to make predictions about. Given an initial set of conditions, the laws of nature determine how a given system will evolve over time. Without these initial set of conditions, we cannot specify how a system will evolve over time. In order to apply the laws of physics, one needs to know the initial conditions at some specified time. One can also use the laws to follow a system back in time.

This leads to Deism. God = laws of nature, because God could not, according to Descartes, have created the universe otherwise. They are the only possible laws. This would seem to impinge on God’s authority, but Descartes gets around it by saying these laws reflect God’s intrinsic nature. Once God created the universe he let it entirely alone. Newton was also a deist who discovered the laws of motion and gravity, from which we have derived so much of our modern physics.

Laws of nature in modern science are usually phrased in mathematics and should hold without exception or at least under a specific set of conditions. Newton’s laws do not apply when approaching speeds close to the speed of light, but they still apply to most other conditions where speeds are typically far below the speed of light.

If nature is governed by laws, there questions arise:

1. 
   *]What is the origin of these laws.
   *]Are there any exceptions (miracles)?
   *]Is there only one set of possible laws?
   
   For 1, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all believed that the laws were the work of God. Hawking dismisses this as a statement equating the laws of nature with God. God is the embodiment of the laws of nature. This merely substitutes one mystery with another.
   
   For 2, he says that Plato and Aristotle held that there could be no miracles. But if one takes a Biblical view, then God not only created the laws, but could be appealed to for miracles. Even Newton believed in miracles. Laplace believed in scientific determinism. He is the first to clearly postulate that given the state of the universe in one time, a complete set of laws will determine both the future and the past. This excludes miracles or any active role for God. Hawking claims that this scientific determinism is the modern scientist’s answer to question 2, contra the Christian view, but aligning with Plato and Aristotle. (side note - in my previous post, I assumed Hawking was including Aristotle and Aquinas in his comment about the 1277 condemnation of laws of nature. It appears he was not including them).
   
   Scientific determinism is the foundation of science itself.
   
   It holds for people as well, and so there is no free will. Contra Descartes, there is no dualism of body and soul. Hawking appeals to neuroscience to show that mind is also governed by physical laws, but given the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that would have to be analyzed, we would never be able to get to the initial conditions from which to apply the physical laws in order to make predictions about what one would choose. Hawking get around this by bringing in the idea of an effective theory. A framework that models a specific phenomena without getting into the specifics of every single event underlying that phenomena. Physics describes things in terms of a few numbers, but not detailed. Chemistry describes molecule and atoms and how they interact, but not in detail about every action. The study of our behavior is psychology. Finally economics studies human economic behavior. He says these last two are not very successful because human beings do not always behave rationally.
   
   For 3, he basically contrasts the laws developed by Aristotle with modern physic, stating that Aristotle’s focus on abstract reasoning lead him to develop laws that focused primarily on qualitative features of reality as opposed to modern physics that focuses on quantitative features of reality.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[Faith1960]

"The Bible is the only book that explains how everything in the Universe came into being from nothing. The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name). His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size.

When is the Big Crunch supposed to happen?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It holds for people as well, and so there is no free will. Contra Descartes, there is no dualism of body and soul. Hawking appeals to neuroscience to show that mind is also governed by physical laws, but given the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that would have to be analyzed, we would never be able to get to the initial conditions from which to apply the physical laws in order to make predictions about what one would choose. Hawking get around this by bringing in the idea of an effective theory. A framework that models a specific phenomena without getting into the specifics of every single event underlying that phenomena. Physics describes things in terms of a few numbers, but not detailed. Chemistry describes molecule and atoms and how they interact, but not in detail about every action. The study of our behavior is psychology. Finally economics studies human economic behavior. He says these last two are not very successful because human beings do not always behave rationally. . . .

No free will, but very difficult to predict - a possible contradiction.

I imagine him juggling formulae, models of matter, trying to put it together a physical explanation of mind within the “the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions”, coming up with the unprovable hypothesis that they could predict behaviour.

Expressing words that have meaning, trying to convey a vision of his reality to the rest of humanity, he appears blind to what he is actually doing.

One might describe what is going on right here and now in terms of what our nervous system is doing.
The meaning of these communications however would not be found within the explanation of those neurochemical processes.
They are only physical manifestations of our being here in this material world.

He does not appear, from your summary, to acknowledge the presence of mind as distinct from brain, which of course would throw his analysis out the window.

Human beings as body and spirit are a unity. It is difficult to find adequate analogies to something so wondrous.
When we act, we do so as a physical-spiritual being: there are material manifestations as there are social and psychological aspects to this reality, which ultimately rests on a foundation of infinite beauty, goodness and being itself, brought into existence by the eternal Godhead.

While his meagre world-view is not supported by science, that view alters how science is understood and communicated.

-*sigh *-

 

[utunumsint]

No free will, but very difficult to predict - a possible contradiction.

I imagine him juggling formulae, models of matter, trying to put it together a physical explanation of mind within the “the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions”, coming up with the unprovable hypothesis that they could predict behaviour.

Expressing words that have meaning, trying to convey a vision of his reality to the rest of humanity, he appears blind to what he is actually doing.

One might describe what is going on right here and now in terms of what our nervous system is doing.
The meaning of these communications however would not be found within the explanation of those neurochemical processes.
They are only physical manifestations of our being here in this material world.

He does not appear, from your summary, to acknowledge the presence of mind as distinct from brain, which of course would throw his analysis out the window.

Human beings as body and spirit are a unity. It is difficult to find adequate analogies to something so wondrous.
When we act, we do so as a physical-spiritual being: there are material manifestations as there are social and psychological aspects to this reality, which ultimately rests on a foundation of infinite beauty, goodness and being itself, brought into existence by the eternal Godhead.

While his meagre world-view is not supported by science, that view alters how science is understood and communicated.

-*sigh *-

Agreed. This is more like a manifesto of his philosophical beliefs that he tries to represent as obvious conclusions from science, when in reality, they are very contestable at every point. His status as a physicist does nothing to prove his contentions.

Still, I can see how his two principles explain the success of modern physics. It depends on the regularity we see in the universe. But then he moves from those principles to the unwarranted conclusion that scientific determinism is the foundation of science, and somehow miracles, and, I would imagine, anything else outside of the realm of physics, becomes impossible. Why can we not just say the regularities and patterns we see in the physical universe are the foundation of science? He simply has to cast his scientific principles as excluding anything and everything else that is non-quantifiable.

As you point out, his philosophy of mind and his theories about free will are highly problematic. Even among atheists, eliminative materialism is contested. One example is Thomas Nagel. Not to mention the fact that this topic is completely outside of his field of competence.

God bless,
Ut