Hawking: Philosophy is Dead and has been replaced by Physics. God Never existed and now we have M-theory

[Abba]

Thank you anonymous physics person for the pm explaining string theory and multi-verses etc… in layman’s terms. Yeah, it’s hard to grasp when one needs to understand all the areas independently and then how they could possibly come together, if at all, to provide some type of ehum, pure ‘speculation’ which is what Hawking is doing. He gets away a lot because most people do not understand the physics to defend themselves. I think is high time for some serious physicists to write popular counter books - but, I guess they just want to play nice.

I have a son who learns things I cannot understand then explains it to me in a language I can. I am honored to have him as a son. He is the smartest person I have ever met. Oh, I don’t think he got that from me, maybe from his distinguished physicist father. Was it Einstein who said that if you cannot explain it to a seven-year-old - you don’t understand it?

Thank you anonymous and yes, it was helpful.

 

[Aloysium]

@ Abba:

As to flatulence, I don’t think black holes have been observed to emit such complex molecules as hydrogen sulfide, and I’m not sure it is theoretically possible. As you observe, clearly that is not what is meant by the term Big Bang, which unIike the expulsion of gases produced by enteric bacteria, did not happen as a result of prexisting physical process but constitutes the earliest moments of creation.

I cannot leave this matter without protesting the gas-shaming of the elderly. While there may be a predilection to such events, likely due to a general slow-down in the bowels, I resent the implication, and in no uncertain terms would deny such noxious allegations that I was the cause.

 

[edwest2]

Isn’t Hawking claiming that it is instability that causes the multiverses? What do you think of that instability? I like the point Craigmile makes when he points out that Hawking is using philosophy, specifically metaphysics to make his non-scientific claims.

Creation according to Hawking:
https://i2.wp.com/nunolemos.com.pt/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Bolha-inflaccionária-no-mercado-da-acupuntura-e1458768417973.jpg?fit=404%2C300

Whatever thoughts pass through his mind, I can’t explain but it’s obvious to me that there are still old ideas being tossed out because of new evidence. Planet formation is back to being a puzzle after two planets were found in the “wrong” place in their solar system.

The multiverse holds no water. It cannot be studied. What do I think? The universe is a huge matter-energy, energy-matter pump. It should not be unstable but it is. Something blew up here which affected this and so on. Matter and antimatter annihilate each other except if one gets caught before collision, etc.

I follow such things but M-Theory? Maybe later when they have N-Theory…

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Usually the more absurd assertions are the more difficult they are to disprove but in this case it is obvious Hawking doesn’t know or rejects the fact that science is based on metascientific principles, i.e. the intelligibility of the universe and the validity of intelligence. Whatever his view** happens** to be his theory lacks a rational foundation. I use **happens **advisedly because he hasn’t explained how science can explain itself…

 

[edwest2]

Usually the more absurd assertions are the more difficult they are to disprove but in this case it is obvious Hawking doesn’t know or rejects the fact that science is based on metascientific principles, i.e. the intelligibility of the universe and the validity of intelligence. Whatever his view** happens** to be his theory lacks a rational foundation. I use **happens **advisedly because he hasn’t explained how science can explain itself…

Something I’ve known as far as its real world application is people have to use their imaginations - whatever that is. Before the first atomic bomb, a number of problems had to be solved. Creating the separation process (actually, more than one), and fusing. You don’t want to drop the thing and have it go off by accident, or be a dud. As late as March 1945, a letter was sent to the President stating that 2 billion dollars have been spent and “we still don’t have a guarantee of production.”

Years ago, a Japanese scientist went to his boss to request one million dollars to develop a practical LED of a certain color. His boss agreed. While reading the story, I came across his method: “If I had 100 ideas, I tried all 100.” He eventually succeeded by creating a simple but effective modification to a fabrication device that other researchers had abandoned as impractical. Cooler, newer machines were the thing. Anyway, his boss had exclusive rights, the process was patented, and so on.

Mr. Hawking is a human being that aside from his fascinations, is complex. I’m guessing here but if I had made important contributions to physics, I might have a slightly out of order view of myself.

Ed

 

[RCinMT]

Something I’ve known as far as its real world application is people have to use their imaginations - whatever that is. Before the first atomic bomb, a number of problems had to be solved. Creating the separation process (actually, more than one), and fusing. You don’t want to drop the thing and have it go off by accident, or be a dud. As late as March 1945, a letter was sent to the President stating that 2 billion dollars have been spent and “we still don’t have a guarantee of production.”

Years ago, a Japanese scientist went to his boss to request one million dollars to develop a practical LED of a certain color. His boss agreed. While reading the story, I came across his method: “If I had 100 ideas, I tried all 100.” He eventually succeeded by creating a simple but effective modification to a fabrication device that other researchers had abandoned as impractical. Cooler, newer machines were the thing. Anyway, his boss had exclusive rights, the process was patented, and so on.

Mr. Hawking is a human being that aside from his fascinations, is complex. I’m guessing here but if I had made important contributions to physics, I might have a slightly out of order view of myself.

Ed

Yet for the projects you mentioned there was reason to believe the possibilities existed and there were testable ways to obtain results (that’s science, yes?). What Dr. Hawking proposes is untestable, cannot therefore be proven and has no basis in anything observed at this point. Moreover he’s throwing up a Hail Godless Mother of Nature to explain away the extremely, absurdly low probability of a life sustaining universe. Moreover his way around the mathematical odds that are somewhere around a quintillion trillion to one is to say that we are one of a quintillion trillion universes. But we cannot observe any other universe. And to posit that life exists elsewhere when we have absolutely no way of knowing any way life can be sustained outside of the laws of this universe is even more astounding.

I agree with some earlier assessments: Hawking probably doesn’t think there’s a God but he has no way of knowing. But on the outside chance (to him) that there is then he wants him to know he’s extremely unhappy with the hand he dealt Dr. Hawking.

 

[inocente]

Unless he has some scientific evidence to back it up, the statement that “philosophy is dead” is a philosophical statement. Besides, what “logical rebuttal” does one need for such a simplistic, nonsensical statement?

That’s your opinion. In your opinion, Hawking is wrong. But philosophy isn’t expressing opinions.

Hawking has made a logical argument, that philosophers provide no new knowledge about nature, and can only sit on the sidelines interpreting what science discovers, which is something every man and his dog can do.

Why is that nonsensical? Seems perfectly sensible to me. New ideas like M-theory may be wrong, but they do come from scientists, not from philosophers. Scientists come up with black holes and dark energy, philosophers don’t. Lavish TV productions are made about the latest ideas in physics, not the latest ideas in philosophy. Books by scientists about their new ideas become best sellers, books about new philosophy sink with all hands.

Even on this thread, people are discussing their opinions of new ideas from scientists. As an exercise, list all the new ideas such as the Higgs boson and dark energy which came out of scientists in the last 50 years, then list all the new ideas from philosophers in the same time frame.

So why isn’t Hawking correct to say philosophers are offering nothing new and can only look back nostalgically at past successes? If no one can point to the contribution made by new philosophy but can only talk of the past, then philosophy is history and Hawking is right.

What logical argument can philosophers use to rebut him?

 

[tonyrey]

Yet for the projects you mentioned there was reason to believe the possibilities existed and there were testable ways to obtain results (that’s science, yes?). What Dr. Hawking proposes is untestable, cannot therefore be proven and has no basis in anything observed at this point. Moreover he’s throwing up a Hail Godless Mother of Nature to explain away the extremely, absurdly low probability of a life sustaining universe. Moreover his way around the mathematical odds that are somewhere around a quintillion trillion to one is to say that we are one of a quintillion trillion universes. But we cannot observe any other universe. And to posit that life exists elsewhere when we have absolutely no way of knowing any way life can be sustained outside of the laws of this universe is even more astounding.

I agree with some earlier assessments: Hawking probably doesn’t think there’s a God but he has no way of knowing. But on the outside chance (to him) that there is then he wants him to know he’s extremely unhappy with the hand he dealt Dr. Hawking.

He is understandably sceptical in view of his unfortunate affliction but he should be grateful for the power of his mind which to a large extent has liberated him from his infirmity. Having worked in a psychiatric institution I’m acutely aware that mental illness is often far more devastating and soul-destroying than physical infirmity. As so often with scientists Hawking doesn’t appreciate the full significance of consciousness and insight into the nature of reality, outstanding facts which remain scientifically inexplicable…

 

[inocente]

Moreover he’s throwing up a Hail Godless Mother of Nature to explain away the extremely, absurdly low probability of a life sustaining universe.

I’ve seen similar claims of extreme low probability, and have asked for the calculation and assumptions, but never once has anyone delivered. I’m hoping this time will be different. Would you please cite the peer-reviewed papers. Thanks.

 

[goout]

Is this a marketing tactic to ruffle feathers and get attention? If I buy the book, I would buy it used in Amazon so as not to give him more money. He fell in love with money with A Brief History of Time. Should I buy the book? Is it a good read? Would you say he was philosophizing when he made such a deduction? He also says that God never existed and now we have M-theory anyway - so there is no need for a ‘god’ to understand/explain creation. He annoys me because of his attitude towards theists which is like we are some kind of orangutans that must believe in the existence of a god in order to make sense of the universe. He is so cocky, to the point of obnoxious. I think he indulges with these attitudes because they get him attention ($$$). He claims he is providing what Einstein wanted to but failed - an explanation of everything. Here is a little review: youtube.com/watch?v=UZpfCNT_Opc

Years ago, I actually had a cup of coffee with him and asked him a couple of yes or no questions. I forget what they were.

What’s your take?

I don’t think intelligence is the same thing as wisdom.
I also would find it hard to believe in God if I were confined to a chair my whole life. So I take him with a grain of salt.

 

[Wesrock]

That’s your opinion. In your opinion, Hawking is wrong. But philosophy isn’t expressing opinions.

Hawking has made a logical argument, that philosophers provide no new knowledge about nature, and can only sit on the sidelines interpreting what science discovers, which is something every man and his dog can do.

Why is that nonsensical? Seems perfectly sensible to me. New ideas like M-theory may be wrong, but they do come from scientists, not from philosophers. Scientists come up with black holes and dark energy, philosophers don’t. Lavish TV productions are made about the latest ideas in physics, not the latest ideas in philosophy. Books by scientists about their new ideas become best sellers, books about new philosophy sink with all hands.

Even on this thread, people are discussing their opinions of new ideas from scientists. As an exercise, list all the new ideas such as the Higgs boson and dark energy which came out of scientists in the last 50 years, then list all the new ideas from philosophers in the same time frame.

So why isn’t Hawking correct to say philosophers are offering nothing new and can only look back nostalgically at past successes? If no one can point to the contribution made by new philosophy but can only talk of the past, then philosophy is history and Hawking is right.

What logical argument can philosophers use to rebut him?

It’s nonsensical because science itself presumes the intelligibility of reality, the ability to gain knowledge about a thing through observation, that reality has a causal effect on our experiences, that knowledge can be gained that the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity are true. It assumes a framework in which knowledge can be gained and logic applies. These are philosophical and metaphysical statements not subject to empirical falsification and upon which all scientific inquiry is grounded. “Empiricism” is itself a philosophical and metaphysical position.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think intelligence is the same thing as wisdom.
I also would find it hard to believe in God if I were confined to a chair my whole life. So I take him with a grain of salt.

You could be taken to be arguing that paraplegics lack your wisdom.

 

[exnihilo]

As far as I am concern, he picked it up from Nietzsche. Remember, Nietzsche first became famous because he claimed: God is dead. Probably Hawking thought, well, if I say: Philosophy is dead - I will get a lot of attention thru controversy etc…

I can’t say what the man really thought or thinks. But there certainly is an incentive in academics to say shocking or controversial things and to base your work upon such positions. You don’t get noticed so much if you work along established or commonly held beliefs. The same is true with the news. This is partly why so much of what comes out of these institutions is controversial and counter cultural.

 

[inocente]

It’s nonsensical because science itself presumes the intelligibility of reality, the ability to gain knowledge about a thing through observation, that reality has a causal effect on our experiences, that knowledge can be gained that the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity are true. It assumes a framework in which knowledge can be gained and logic applies. These are philosophical and metaphysical statements not subject to empirical falsification and upon which all scientific inquiry is grounded. “Empiricism” is itself a philosophical and metaphysical position.

If that’s true then you’re playing into Hawking’s hands by only speaking of things that past generations of philosophers did long long ago. Hawking is saying make the philosophy department part of the faculty of history. You need an argument why not.

But I’m not sure it’s true anyway. Modern science is split from metaphysics much as Francis Bacon demanded, such that the scientific method totally excludes metaphysics. Stone age hunters learned the best way to hunt by trial-and-error, by experiment, they had no philosophy department to guide them. So you would need to demonstrate that modern science just could not be done if the philosophy department was closed and its building reassigned to media studies and post grad Pilates.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s nonsensical because science itself presumes the intelligibility of reality, the ability to gain knowledge about a thing through observation, that reality has a causal effect on our experiences, that knowledge can be gained that the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity are true. It assumes a framework in which knowledge can be gained and logic applies. These are philosophical and metaphysical statements not subject to empirical falsification and upon which all scientific inquiry is grounded. “Empiricism” is itself a philosophical and metaphysical position.

:thumbsup:Exactly! Philosophy presents explanations which correspond to our experiences as** persons** whereas we are no more than higher mammals as far science is concerned. Philosophers are steadily discovering more about the mind and its capabilities. In fact it is intertwined with theology and psychology which are obviously the most vital subjects for personal, moral, social, aesthetic and spiritual development:

consc.net/guide.html

 

[Wesrock]

Philosophy departments can be closed when Empiricism proves itself true.

Anyway, I think it’s good for people to inquire into ontology and epistemology, the nature of reason, the consequences of certain points of view, etc… instead of just taking for granted certain positions and remaining ignorant of the intellectual consequences.

 

[inocente]

Philosophy departments can be closed when Empiricism proves itself true.

Easy. For instance on Tony’s point, philosophers of mind are being overtaken. Neuroscience can and does disprove their theories, while they cannot disprove evidence discovered by neuroscience, or even prove any of their own theories without a rubber stamp from neuroscience.

Anyway, I think it’s good for people to inquire into ontology and epistemology, the nature of reason, the consequences of certain points of view, etc… instead of just taking for granted certain positions and remaining ignorant of the intellectual consequences.

I’d imagine Hawking agrees, since rational thought is his bread and butter.

 

[GEddie]

He is understandably sceptical in view of his unfortunate affliction but he should be grateful for the power of his mind which to a large extent has liberated him from his infirmity. Having worked in a psychiatric institution I’m acutely aware that mental illness is often far more devastating and soul-destroying than physical infirmity. As so often with scientists Hawking doesn’t appreciate the full significance of consciousness and insight into the nature of reality, outstanding facts which remain scientifically inexplicable…

As someone with (admittedly, relatively very minor) physical limitations, please permit me to say that the mind does not negate bodily infirmity or limitation. By making the human being more aware, a larger mind can increase the frustration and pain of such limitations.

As comforting as it can be for anybody to “live inside one’s head,” at the end of the day, it is the mind wherein we live life, and the body that lives the life. We need both!

And while someone of faith can take comfort knowing that his mind can at least in theory, survive his body however afflicted, and be restored to a spiritual body; an atheist has no such prospect in view. They are to be sympathized with.

ICXC NIKA

 

[goout]

You could be taken to be arguing that paraplegics lack your wisdom.

You could take lots of things lots of ways, depending on your good will or lack thereof.

 

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by goout View Post
I don’t think intelligence is the same thing as wisdom.
I also would find it hard to believe in God if I were confined to a chair my whole life. So I take him with a grain of salt.

You could be taken to be arguing that paraplegics lack your wisdom.

Not really.

He is expressing a viewpoint shared by many. But there are counterexamples.

The world is full of people of various degrees of severe disability who are people of great faith. Joni Eareckson Tada comes to mind, who launched an international ministry despite living with a broken neck for 40 years. And there are others, although most will never be worldwide names (most scientists and philosophers aren’t, either).

ICXC NIKA