Hawking - Grand Design - Commentary

[Linusthe2nd]

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

1. 
   That is a huge bite. But I would point out what I have pointed out before, that Aristotle and modern science are looking at nature at different levels. The physical laws of nature deal with physical aspects, while philosophy deals with metaphysical aspects. Aristotle rightly points out that metaphysics trumphs the physical. While the interpreters of modern science claim that the usefulness of modern science proves philosophy is wrong, which is an unwarranted, unjustified, and highly prejudiced view.
   
   I really can’t judge the validity of modern science. I do know its interpretations have been challanged by reliable philosophers of nature. I would also point out that it was Aristotle who coined the concept of " nature " and that it is nature which is the principle of motion/change and rest in those things which have a nature of their own as opposed to those substances which are the result of art or " chance. "
   
   I would also point out that most of science is an abstraction from nature, especially in physics which is highly mathematical. This means that physics does not reflect the actual nature of reality but rather is an explanation that produces practical results, hopefully.
   
   Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

That is a huge bite. But I would point out what I have pointed out before, that Aristotle and modern science are looking at nature at different levels. The physical laws of nature deal with physical aspects, while philosophy deals with metaphysical aspects. Aristotle rightly points out that metaphysics trumphs the physical. While the interpreters of modern science claim that the usefulness of modern science proves philosophy is wrong, which is an unwarranted, unjustified, and highly prejudiced view.

Agreed, although I don`t think philosophy always deals with metaphysics. There is also such a thing as philosophy of science, or as you say below, philosophy of nature.

I really can’t judge the validity of modern science. I do know its interpretations have been challenged by reliable philosophers of nature. I would also point out that it was Aristotle who coined the concept of " nature " and that it is nature which is the principle of motion/change and rest in those things which have a nature of their own as opposed to those substances which are the result of art or " chance. "

Agreed. Modern science assumes the principles that underly Aristotle’s metaphysics, like act potency, change (motion), and so on. I believe that modern science is valid, but what I am trying to do here is see if I can identify the real science in Hawking, from the faulty natural philosophy and underlying metaphysics.

I would also point out that most of science is an abstraction from nature, especially in physics which is highly mathematical. This means that physics does not reflect the actual nature of reality but rather is an explanation that produces practical results, hopefully.

Linus2nd

Yes. Hawking believe, as Descartes and Galileo did, that science is in the business of only making quantitative observations about the natural world, which excludes any qualitative aspects. In fact, he criticizes Aristotle for being to focused on the qualitative. In some future posts, I hope to contrast how these two approaches.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agreed, although I don`t think philosophy always deals with metaphysics. There is also such a thing as philosophy of science, or as you say below, philosophy of nature.

Agreed. Modern science assumes the principles that underly Aristotle’s metaphysics, like act potency, change (motion), and so on. I believe that modern science is valid, but what I am trying to do here is see if I can identify the real science in Hawking, from the faulty natural philosophy and underlying metaphysics.

Yes. Hawking believe, as Descartes and Galileo did, that science is in the business of only making quantitative observations about the natural world, which excludes any qualitative aspects. In fact, he criticizes Aristotle for being to focused on the qualitative. In some future posts, I hope to contrast how these two approaches.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

When is the Big Crunch supposed to happen?

According to present day theories, it won’t.

Before the late 1990s there was a possibility that it would, but it was discovered that the universe was not only expanding, but that the expansion was accelerating. This led in 2003 to an idea called “the big rip”.

Prior to the late 1990s, there were thought to be three possible fates for the universe:

1. ]the big crunch: the universe has enough mass in it to pull itself back together after the big bang;]eternal expansion, but with continuous slow down until everything is moving at zero speed: the universe has exactly enough mass within itself to come to a halt at infinite time;*]eternal expansion, but without ever dropping below a final terminal velocity: the universe has less than the required mass to come to a halt at infinite time and thus expands forever and ever, but asymptotically approaches a fixed finite rate of expansion.
   
   What the late 1990s revealed (by way of type Ia supernova) was that the universe was being driven to expand ever faster, an accelerating universe. The driving force is something that has the name dark energy (which is not the same as dark matter: 26.8% of the mass-energy of the universe). It manifests itself as a pushing or accelerating force, and may account for as much as 68.3% of the mass-energy in the universe. The most likely candidate within Einstein’s field equations for dark energy is the cosmological constant, which was always thought to be zero but is now thought to have an exceedingly small but finite value.
   
   The mass-energy which we are familiar with (example: our bodies, the computer you are viewing and posting on, the light you see with, etc.) is thought to constitute only about 4.9% of the universe.
   
   There are still schemes for “rebirthing” the universe, even from an infinitely distended universe, but they are more complicated to describe and justify in ordinary prose than the big crunch was.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are still schemes for “rebirthing” the universe, even from an infinitely distended universe, but they are more complicated to describe and justify in ordinary prose than the big crunch was.

Put simply, the absolute origin and the absolute destiny of the universe is beyond physics.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Put simply, the absolute origin and the absolute destiny of the universe is beyond physics.

Well I certainly can’t prove that statement to be wrong.

I’m only at the level of taking the very simplest sort of model and running it back in time, or so I think.I haven’t actually had the time to do it yet though, too many other things to do.

I do play with differential equations associated with that sort of thing, but I’m usually chasing after some other mathematical will-o’-the-wisp.

I also don’t think I should take the time to try and explain what I have read either, because it’s been too long since I read about them. Anyway, regurgitating what I read isn’t proof of anything.

I will say in passing that I was rather fond of one by Roger Penrose that seemed to be almost purely mathematical in nature.

I won’t argue for it one way or another, since I can’t personally do anything with it. It’s up to time, history, the physics community, and God (but not necessarily in that order ) to deal with.

 

[utunumsint]

Some more thoughts on my post 17 that outlines Hawking’s philosophical ideas.

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.

From a Thomistic point of view, I think we can criticize this Cartesian idea of matter as simply the collision of moving masses that behave according to certain natural laws. Isn’t this too narrow a definition of matter? Every chunk of matter in the universe is composed of different elements, each of which displays different properties and powers inherent in their natures. These powers and properties exist in different elements on account of the chemical structures that informs that chunk of matter. Given a certain form then, that element will have a certain range of natural ends which it can conceivably produce given its properties and powers. This is final causality. And, contra Hawking and Descartes, having final causality does not mean that every chunk of matter in the universe consciously chooses its ends. Final causality stems from formal causality. At the very least, he has not made any case, apart from his appeal to Descartes, to justify removing teleology from his account of nature. Perhaps he will do more on this score in later chapters.

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.

Hawking makes a big deal of this, and uses this principle to justify scientific determinism as the foundation of modern science and eliminative materialism in terms of his philosophy of mind. I have made the point that this principle does not, in itself, justify determinism or eliminative materialism at all. That there are mindless patterns and regularities in nature does not imply that everything else must be explainable in the same way. The one huge problem area is the philosophy of mind. There are many, many arguments against Hawking on this score, even from fellow atheists, that he does not even attempt to address.

I think this satisfies me as some valid initial points against what he says in chapter 2. I wont bother responding to his theory of religion.

I’ll look at chapter 3 next. Hopefully he will be moving into science now.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

My hopes have been dashed. Chapter 3 is more on model dependent realism, with an attack on the physics of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and Newton, with props to Copernicus and Galileo for standing up to the evil Catholic church. He throws in some Hume and uses some examples from physics to justify his points. I’ll give a fuller summary tomorrow and see what answers can be made to them. For a guy who says philosophy is dead, he certainly refers to it a lot.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My hopes have been dashed. Chapter 3 is more on model dependent realism, with an attack on the physics of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and Newton, with props to Copernicus and Galileo for standing up to the evil Catholic church. He throws in some Hume and uses some examples from physics to justify his points. I’ll give a fuller summary tomorrow and see what answers can be made to them. For a guy who says philosophy is dead, he certainly refers to it a lot.

God bless,
Ut

So Hume is his authority, so much for any attempt at objectivity. I would say that the first three chapters proves that when he gets away from pure science, his veracity is none existent.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

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!

The irony is that the “laws of nature as understood in modern terms” are a mess. Moderns don’t have a coherent conception of or basis for laws of nature. It’s doubtful in what sense a modern is even entitled to calling them “laws.” Arguably materialists are considered to the “laws of nature” being brute facts, and brute facts are an awfully unparsimonious item to have in your ontology… because they are a sort of blank check.

 

[Aloysium]

. . .

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.

It is taken on faith, it is seen as obvious that:

• everything is but mindless particles bouncing around,
• they will do what they are doing unless something changes them.
• sorting out what the various factors that cause their behaviour within a system, we can determine what happened before and will happen later.
  The assumption is that things are determined as to what they are, what they do, have done and will do.
  If we are talking about what is universally true, I do not believe this is self-evident, and definitely as an assumption, it cannot be used to justify itself.
  It has not been revealed and Hawking does not have the authority to assert that everything is determined without providing proof (of which there can be none).

In addition to determinism, there is a belief that:

• The ground, the basis, the reality of everything is material - now explained in terms of quantum mechanics and relativity.
• That breaking things up into their constiuent parts reveals deeper truth about the nature of the universe.
• I would have added that the universe can be understood, but it seem that Hawking feels that we can only arrive at models which more-or-less fit the data; it is not a matter so much of truth but rather of validity based on the predictive value of the theory.

What if?:

• God lies at the centre of creation as its Source,
• it is the Word that brings all into existence,
• all, includes the reality of simple matter, life in its plant and animal forms, humanity as a unity of spirit and matter and heaven itself.
  Nothing really changes about the actual findings of science.
  The data fits the same.
  The difference is that now we can truly get a clear picture of ourselves in creation.

Often, it does appear that Atheists, Deists at least, have hijacked science, feeding back a grossly distorted view of the world.
If you are going to deny the reality of God, you have to present an alternative.
That alternative, what we are being asked to believe, is that only that which is measureable is real and that only scientific methadology can tell us about the true nature of the world and man.

 

[CarmelJerome]

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. 
   Proclaiming philosophy dead and then shifting nomenclature to hide philosophical materialism under the title “Model Dependent Realism” is the sort of thing one sadly expects from people who weren’t obliged to master philosophy before being given their Doctor of Philosophy degrees. It’s not different from the fundamentalist claim that they don’t have religion, they just believe in Jesus, or in the old logical positivist claims that they had gotten rid of metaphysics.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s not different from the fundamentalist claim that they don’t have religion, they just believe in Jesus, or in the old logical positivist claims that they had gotten rid of metaphysics.

As Einstein insisted, scientists need to study more philosophy.

“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.

I think Einstein probably came to this realization later in life, when he realized how futile it is for scientists to function without reference to the philosophical principles that should guide scientific inquiry…