Hawking: Philosophy is Dead and has been replaced by Physics.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

[Wesrock]

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.

Two points on this. First, you mistake my meaning. Empirically demonstrating that empiricism is true is impossible. Why? Because you can’t empirically prove anything without first presuming cause and effect relations that can be studied. You have to presume the conclusion in order to prove the point. It’s entirely circular.

Second, philosophy of the mind is actually an area where I’d say philosophy demonstrates it’s strength. Thomism philosophy of the mind, for example, has suffered no set backs from neuroscience (and I see no reason why it ever should, given that they are complementary and not opposed; there’s been no such disproving for some schools), for example, and philosophy of the mind can quite clearly outline the limits of any such investigation.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Some worshippers of science prefer obscurantism regarding the metascientific principles on which it is based because they are convinced it will solve all our problems.

 

[tonyrey]

Two points on this. First, you mistake my meaning. Empirically demonstrating that empiricism is true is impossible. Why? Because you can’t empirically prove anything without first presuming cause and effect relations that can be studied. You have to presume the conclusion in order to prove the point. It’s entirely circular.

Second, philosophy of the mind is actually an area where I’d say philosophy demonstrates it’s strength. Thomism philosophy of the mind, for example, has suffered no set backs from neuroscience (and I see no reason why it ever should, given that they are complementary and not opposed; there’s been no such disproving for some schools), for example, and philosophy of the mind can quite clearly outline the limits of any such investigation.

By its very nature neuroscience is restricted to **impersonal **explanations…

 

[mackbrislawn]

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 am going to take the boorish and churlish point of view that Hawking is unable to contribute to physics anymore and so makes daring and controversial statements in order to get attention.

 

[tonyrey]

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…

I agree but it doesn’t alter the fact that dogmatic atheism has no rational foundation and often leads to an unnecessarily morbid view of life in which gratitude is replaced by cynicism. Intellectual pride is also a factor that has to be taken into account when a person has achieved international fame as an authority on black holes.

 

[RCinMT]

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.

You and I have had this discussion re Dr. Penrose’s calculation around phase spaces which is related directly to the low entropy conditions that are required to exist for life to be and have been capable of existing in this universe.

 

[fisherman_carl]

What’s your take?

That’s like saying goodness and truth is replaced with mathematics. Or love is Replaced with parallel lines. It doesn’t make sense. Hawkins makes a philosophical statement in order to condemn philosophy. Hawkins bows down to the god of physics, without realizing he must philosophize about his god in order to make any sense of it. And then in the same breath condemns philosophy in general. Hawkins philosophy is dead.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s like saying goodness and truth is replaced with mathematics. Or love is Replaced with parallel lines. It doesn’t make sense. Hawkins makes a philosophical statement in order to condemn philosophy. Hawkins bows down to the god of physics, without realizing he must philosophize about his god in order to make any sense of it. And then in the same breath condemns philosophy in general. Hawkins philosophy is dead.

Did it ever exist? Apart from the implication that naturalism is the only true explanation of reality with scientists as its sole interpreters…

 

[RCinMT]

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.

Science has no ability to place value judgements on things. Okay, so there’s a multiverse theory: what does it mean? If the answer is that it doesn’t matter what it means because a scientist said it then the next logical question is: then why do I care at all, period? Why would I as an American or British citizen or citizen of any other nation be interested in having my tax dollars support research for something that doesn’t matter?

The answer to why should I care about Stephen Hawking’s newest theory (which has nothing to do with science other than being espoused by one because it is neither testable nor observable) cannot possibly be “because a scientist said it”. If it nothing matters, if thinking about the value or goodness of anything, of searching for deeper meaning is all futile than wasting time discovering anything is futile.

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.

There’s quite a leap to ask why humans don’t philosophize when trying to meet survival needs versus why people shouldn’t philosophize about the meaning of new discoveries or the goodness of certain ideas or statements.

It’s tantamount to saying somebody shouldn’t ask whether a salad or sandwich is better because they don’t ask if it’s good to fight for their lives when being assaulted.

 

[inocente]

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

You said “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.”. I saw what you meant, but by definition that’s ad hominem - appealing to his characteristics to discount him rather than making a logical rebuttal to his argument.

Look back over the thread and you’ll see lots of ad hominems - Hawking apparently is cocky, obnoxious, falling ever deeper into himself, knows nothing about philosophy or religion, is ignorant, says things just to be controversial, attention seeking …

I don’t want to defend Hawking’s argument, I was just surprised that so many posters willingly helped him prove philosophy is dead by giving their opinions of his personality instead of using logic to rebut his argument.

 

[inocente]

Two points on this. First, you mistake my meaning. Empirically demonstrating that empiricism is true is impossible. Why? Because you can’t empirically prove anything without first presuming cause and effect relations that can be studied. You have to presume the conclusion in order to prove the point. It’s entirely circular.

Yes, and it’s generally impossible to make 100% proofs empirically. No one can even prove that the Sun will still exist tomorrow. Perhaps a separate thread to debate whether philosophy is limited to proof or can evaluate probability would be interesting.

Second, philosophy of the mind is actually an area where I’d say philosophy demonstrates it’s strength. Thomism philosophy of the mind, for example, has suffered no set backs from neuroscience (and I see no reason why it ever should, given that they are complementary and not opposed; there’s been no such disproving for some schools), for example, and philosophy of the mind can quite clearly outline the limits of any such investigation.

My turn to say you mistake my meaning. Hawking stated that philosophy is dead in 2011:-

*Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of ‘A Brief History of Time’ said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don’t worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”. - telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html*

So I think his argument is that philosophy has fallen behind in these areas and can no longer compete. In the past philosophers could make simple deductions about nature, but all the simple deductions have been made and further progress depends on gathering reams of data, which philosophers don’t do. So they can only look back on past successes. TV productions are made about science and science books are best sellers, because philosophers are no longer the bearers of the torch of discovery. That seems to me to be his argument.

 

[inocente]

You and I have had this discussion re Dr. Penrose’s calculation around phase spaces which is related directly to the low entropy conditions that are required to exist for life to be and have been capable of existing in this universe.

Oh right, his back of an envelope calculation. Though I don’t remember finding him or anyone else claim it means what you claim it means.

Science has no ability to place value judgements on things. Okay, so there’s a multiverse theory: what does it mean? If the answer is that it doesn’t matter what it means because a scientist said it then the next logical question is: then why do I care at all, period? Why would I as an American or British citizen or citizen of any other nation be interested in having my tax dollars support research for something that doesn’t matter?

The answer to why should I care about Stephen Hawking’s newest theory (which has nothing to do with science other than being espoused by one because it is neither testable nor observable) cannot possibly be “because a scientist said it”. If it nothing matters, if thinking about the value or goodness of anything, of searching for deeper meaning is all futile than wasting time discovering anything is futile.

I wouldn’t call any of them theories, they’re just unproven hypotheses, and some of them quite wild at that. You introduced me to Penrose’s wild hypothesis so I’m not sure why you’re arguing against Hawking’s equally wild hypothesis. They’re both wild hypotheses. Take your pick from another 1,130,000 hypotheses at arxiv.org/

*There’s quite a leap to ask why humans don’t philosophize when trying to meet survival needs versus why people shouldn’t philosophize about the meaning of new discoveries or the goodness of certain ideas or statements.

It’s tantamount to saying somebody shouldn’t ask whether a salad or sandwich is better because they don’t ask if it’s good to fight for their lives when being assaulted.*

I think Hawking isn’t claiming that, he’s claiming that philosophizing is now limited to interpreting reality as discovered by science.

 

[Aloysium]

At least Hawking is trying to present what he believes.
Most atheists leave it at “saying no to gods”, not accepting the proofs provided.
Actually spelling out what a godless universe would look like, reveals its absurdity.

 

[zz912]

At least Hawking is trying to present what he believes.
Most atheists leave it at “saying no to gods”, not accepting the proofs provided.
Actually spelling out what a godless universe would look like, reveals its absurdity.

This is spot on!

Atheists generally get very flummoxed and upset when you lay out what a godless universe looks like and means, and what it means for their lives. They also get upset when you point out that atheism is literally irrational and illogical, as they believe, incorrectly, that they are the logical ones while theists the illogical ones.

 

[tonyrey]

Science has no ability to place value judgements on things. Okay, so there’s a multiverse theory: what does it mean? If the answer is that it doesn’t matter what it means because a scientist said it then the next logical question is: then why do I care at all, period? Why would I as an American or British citizen or citizen of any other nation be interested in having my tax dollars support research for something that doesn’t matter?

The answer to why should I care about Stephen Hawking’s newest theory (which has nothing to do with science other than being espoused by one because it is neither testable nor observable) cannot possibly be “because a scientist said it”. If it nothing matters, if thinking about the value or goodness of anything, of searching for deeper meaning is all futile than wasting time discovering anything is futile.

There’s quite a leap to ask why humans don’t philosophize when trying to meet survival needs versus why people shouldn’t philosophize about the meaning of new discoveries or the goodness of certain ideas or statements.

It’s tantamount to saying somebody shouldn’t ask whether a salad or sandwich is better because they don’t ask if it’s good to fight for their lives when being assaulted.

Irrefutable!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am going to take the boorish and churlish point of view that Hawking is unable to contribute to physics anymore and so makes daring and controversial statements in order to get attention.

This remark is similar to the conclusion drawn by many scientists.

M-theory does nothing to explain why there must be an infinite number of universes, nor how you would ever prove that, nor why universes are created one after another through all eternity, nor where the laws come from that govern all these universes, nor whether there are different laws that govern different universes.

The Big Bang model is the only one that scientifically and cogently argues the existence of a single universe that began in time.

M-theory is dreamy wish-fulfillment … a way of getting rid of God.

After all, it was dreamed up by an atheist.

 

[tonyrey]

This remark is similar to the conclusion drawn by many scientists.

M-theory does nothing to explain why there must be an infinite number of universes, nor how you would ever prove that, nor why universes are created one after another through all eternity, nor where the laws come from that govern all these universes, nor whether there are different laws that govern different universes.

The Big Bang model is the only one that scientifically and cogently argues the existence of a single universe that began in time.

M-theory is dreamy wish-fulfillment … a way of getting rid of God.

After all, it was dreamed up by an atheist.

The most powerful objection to M-theory is that it violates the principle of parsimony. Why postulate more than one universe?

 

[tonyrey]

Science has no ability to place value judgements on things. Okay, so there’s a multiverse theory: what does it mean? If the answer is that it doesn’t matter what it means because a scientist said it then the next logical question is: then why do I care at all, period? Why would I as an American or British citizen or citizen of any other nation be interested in having my tax dollars support research for something that doesn’t matter?

The answer to why should I care about Stephen Hawking’s newest theory (which has nothing to do with science other than being espoused by one because it is neither testable nor observable) cannot possibly be “because a scientist said it”. If it nothing matters, if thinking about the value or goodness of anything, of searching for deeper meaning is all futile than wasting time discovering anything is futile.

There’s quite a leap to ask why humans don’t philosophize when trying to meet survival needs versus why people shouldn’t philosophize about the meaning of new discoveries or the goodness of certain ideas or statements.

It’s tantamount to saying somebody shouldn’t ask whether a salad or sandwich is better because they don’t ask if it’s good to fight for their lives when being assaulted.

Precisely!

 

[DebChris]

To say there is no philosophy is to say there is no abstract thought.
Science is very much about the concrete, about what can be observed through the five senses.
Hopefully my example will not take this thread off topic since I really don’t know anything about M-theory. I do know a little about scripture. There are those who rely strictly on sola scriptura without type of authority. They do not see how faith and reason work together.
They read Genesis simply as it is written literally and do not make connections to other parts of scripture.
As Catholics we are taught to read Scripture as a whole. Currently, I am reading Genesis, Matthew, and for my Lectio Divina I have Hebrews Ch. 11.

Within Genesis, we have the story of Noah and the Ark. St. Paul tells us that Noah and his family were saved by faith within the Ark while the world was destroyed. Abstract thinking allowed me to go in so many different directions with this, it was totally amazing. If philosophy were dead, if abstract thought and reasoning were dead, the connections I made simply would not have happened.
What knowledge did I have? The story from Genesis concerning Noah and the Ark. Knowledge of the Arc of the Covenant that the Israelites carried. Knowledge of Mary as the Arc of the New Covenant.

When St. Paul preached the Gospels, he preached to Gentiles, to those who were used to debating, to those used to using reason and logic. St. John Paul II often referred back to Genesis in his Theology of the Body, making connections to other parts of scripture as he presented the lesson he was trying to get across in easy to understand terms.
Faith and reason are not separate, as non-believers often try to portray it. Reason strengthens faith. In a world that has a tendency to look inward and to be self-seeking, faith looks outward and upward. We find safety and security within the Ark, within the loving arms of God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To say there is no philosophy is to say there is no abstract thought.

To say there is no philosophy is to say there is no wisdom.

Does Hawking actually wish to argue that the only wisdom possible is in science.

Well, that would make fools of the rest of us, and a fool of Hawking when he is not thinking science.