Hawking: "Philosophy is Dead"

[Windfish]

I guess I have to read more science and philosophy. I have understood science to be an endeavor to observe, describe, and predict natural phenomena. Science produces these kinds of statements: if I heat this amount of water at this temperature, this is what will likely happen. And this is why I am always creeped out when atheists try to romanticize this (i.e., “We’re made of star dust!”) - it is so so shallow.

 

[GEddie]

I guess I have to read more science and philosophy. I have understood science to be an endeavor to observe, describe, and predict natural phenomena. Science produces these kinds of statements: if I heat this amount of water at this temperature, this is what will likely happen. And this is why I am always creeped out when atheists try to romanticize this (i.e., “We’re made of star dust!”) - it is so so shallow.

Nothing to creep out over; these “atheists” are just speaking to the hyper-emotional general culture.

There’s IMNAAHO nothing at all wrong with shallowness. “Profundity” is an illusion caused by our lack of understanding.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JohnDamian]

Ah, but to attempt to justify naive materialism and atheism would require the use of philosophy in the justification, which Buddha Hawking says we cannot discuss.

“Master, what is the justification for the epistemology of Logical Positivism?”
“Philosophy is dead.”
“Master, what is your justification for this claim?”
“Mu.”

Absolutely - it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Obviously to one who does not understand philosophy, who has probably never even read a question by Aquinas, who probably thinks that Ockham’s Razon was invented by William of Ockham… obviously to that person philosophy is dead, inasmuch as it was never alive in him in the first place.

Absolutely - and William of Ockham clearly didn’t invent “Ockham’s Razon”; but instead the modern formulation of “Ockhams Razor” “Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate”; but it is clear that the principle was alive and well far before Ockham; as was his nominalism — incidently what did Ockham do that was significant at all… apart from being Michael of Cesena’s philosophical henchman…

 

[Adeodatus]

Absolutely - and William of Ockham clearly didn’t invent “Ockham’s Razon”; but instead the modern formulation of “Ockhams Razor” “Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate”; but it is clear that the principle was alive and well far before Ockham; as was his nominalism — incidently what did Ockham do that was significant at all… apart from being Michael of Cesena’s philosophical henchman…

snort Where’d that typo come from?

Yeah… Ockham’s Razor appears in Aquinas. I don’t know of an earlier attestation but I’d be interested if there was one.

 

[Vindictive]

Hawking was LITERALLY responsible for driving me crazy… and giving me a very unique perspective on the universe and it happened all of two months ago.

Hawking’s statement that we should plan to leave the earth within the next century led me to start thinking about the philosophical and theological ramifications of nymphomania.

Yeah, bizarre, I know.

I like to think. Mostly I think about 3 things… The meaning of life, quantum physics, or the nature of god…

There was GOD. There was no “In the beginning” because there was no time.

GOD brought forth within GOD’S SELF light.

The light erupted outward from the center, creating “placeness.”
The light erupted inward, creating matter. The first matter was simply electrons and quarks, drifting through the newness of space.

Eventually, electrons and quarks began to join together, creating gasses… the heavens. The gasses interacted with the primal energies and heavier elements were formed. The seas. More and more complex elements continued to form, and soon the dry land rose out of the sea.

Next, GOD allowed independent animation to begin. All of this animation operated on fundamental principles that were a result of the primary characteristics of the materials from which they were created. Animation required energy, and every animated thing developed means for gathering energy to itself.

As life became more and more complex, humankind was born. GOD breathed REAL life into mankind; a life that was deeper than the animation found in any other species. GOD infused humanity with the ability to choose. Choice is important, because it means that mankind is free from the demands of a purely physical existence. When humankind reached their full potential to act with freedom from the mechanical universe, GOD presented humankind with a choice.

Every NEED of man was provided for. GOD had provided sustenance for the body with both plants and animals to feed and use for shelter and clothing.

Sustenance for the psyche came in the form of companionship. Each human body holds a unique spirit of intellect and self that seeks outside itself for completion.

Sustenance for the soul was the purpose of the choice GOD presented to humankind. The choice was to have faith in GOD’S ability to meet all of mankind’s needs and accept GOD’S plan for the structure and mechanic of life OR to act in doubt of GOD’S ability to provide.

This was the choice that created the rift between humankind and its creator.

There are only two choices that humankind can make in resistance to GOD’S plan. The first is to reject ones own role in creation by rejecting the portion allotted. The second is to take more than ones allotted portion, thereby denying another human THEIR allotted portion.

Greed and apathy are humanity’s greatest failures and GOD’S greatest burden. GOD desires only that humanity live, love and share love, both with GOD and with the rest of humanity. Every time an individual demands more than their share or rejects that which is rightfully theirs, others are injured.

In the story of “The Garden of Eden” GOD provided for all of humanity’s needs. The temptation of the serpent was not the temptation to “sins of the flesh.” GOD gave humanity sustenance for the bodily needs of lust. In “The Garden” GOD set aside only one thing from humanity, and humanity took that one thing, despite that all humanity’s needs had been provided for in abundance.

Humanity is not created equal in their needs, desires, or abilities; however all of humanity contributes to the fullness that is GOD, and without the contribution of each and every person, GOD will never attain GOD’S fullest potential in love.

In order to achieve the plan GOD laid out in the moment of creation, each and every person MUST love each and every other person in a deep and meaningful way. Humanity must love with the knowledge that the failure to love condemns not only the one who fails, but the rest of humanity and GOD’S SELF to an eternity of failure…

Heaven is the manifestation of GOD’S perfect love in each individuals existence. There is no room for rejection or even imperfect acceptance in heaven. It is not possible to reject GOD’S will in heaven because heaven and GOD’S will are one.

When humanity discovers within itself the ability to love any part of creation perfectly, then humanity will recognize the ability in itself to love ALL things perfectly. GOD truly is all of creation and there is NOTHING in creation that is not GOD. There is only the failure of the observer to recognize GOD when GOD presents GOD’S self.

vindictiveranting.blogspot.com/2010/09/grand-unified-feild-theory-in-simple.html

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

So you believe some things to be beyond our understanding.

Care to elaborate on what those things would be; or are we talking empty speculation here?

I have yet to see a thing I could not see as either understandable now; or possibly understandable in the future; nor have I any reason to believe that there are things that are essentially unexplainable.

You’re a very optimistic person. I don’t think even many Christians hold that view.
NOTHING wrong with what you are espousing—just think we need to be careful of wanting to “Know Everything,” since “knowing everything” may mean crossing some boundaries Man was not meant to cross. We need “limits,” even with knowledge.
Remember the Tower Of Babel.

 

[JohnDamian]

snort Where’d that typo come from?

Yeah… Ockham’s Razor appears in Aquinas. I don’t know of an earlier attestation but I’d be interested if there was one.

You are allready aware of Aquinas so I shall mention some earlier versions than that;

Also two other Theologians prominently used it before Ockham; Durandus of Saint-Pourçain and John Duns Scotus; the latter of whom Ockham lends from heavily in his works and is probably where Ockham picked up the theory at Oxford; where he studied Theology.

Earlier than Aquinas we have three major contestants; any or all of whom may have influenced the idea in Aquinas; but it is plausible also that it emerged independantly with him.

Aristotle - Metaphysics
Alhazen - Book of Optics
The Guide for the Perplexed - Maimonides

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Nothing to creep out over; these “atheists” are just speaking to the hyper-emotional general culture.

There’s IMNAAHO nothing at all wrong with shallowness. “Profundity” is an illusion caused by our lack of understanding.

ICXC NIKA

This could be construed as a “profound thought.”

 

[JohnDamian]

You’re a very optimistic person. I don’t think even many Christians hold that view.
NOTHING wrong with what you are espousing—just think we need to be careful of wanting to “Know Everything,” since “knowing everything” may mean crossing some boundaries Man was not meant to cross. We need “limits,” even with knowledge.
Remember the Tower Of Babel.

I do; and I doubt that any single human can know everything. It is clear to me however that everything we have encountered in the universe at present is either knowable now; or can be speculated to know in the future. It is curious that some people speculate that there are things we cannot know.

I point out here I was ambiguous; I was intending to refer to the physical world; and didn’t make myself clear on that.

From where I am standing; there is no good reason why events or objects in the physical world will are beyond our understanding either now or in the future; and there is certainly no good reason to speculate that the things we do not know will remian unknown; - no black swans anyone?

 

[GEddie]

You’re a very optimistic person. I don’t think even many Christians hold that view.
NOTHING wrong with what you are espousing—just think we need to be careful of wanting to “Know Everything,” since “knowing everything” may mean crossing some boundaries Man was not meant to cross. We need “limits,” even with knowledge.
Remember the Tower Of Babel.

There is no need for self restraint in knowing at all, since if there are boundaries that GOD does not want human life to cross (any other sense of “meaning” is subjective), GOD will simply not allow it to happen. Exactly like the tower of Babel.

Scripture never describes the Babelians as sinners for attempting the tower, and they were not penalized for building it; they were simply stopped from doing it. No doubt there are other such stoppages in our history, possibly in space expansion or nuclear energy, that we do not recognize as such.

There are “limits” already to our knowing, established by the nature of our bodies, up to and including that hideous limit that is death. There is really no need for human life to seek or create additional limits to knowledge enquiry. “Meaning” is best left to the judgement of history, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Touchstone]

Ah, but to attempt to justify naive materialism and atheism would require the use of philosophy in the justification, which Buddha Hawking says we cannot discuss.

“Master, what is the justification for the epistemology of Logical Positivism?”
“Philosophy is dead.”
“Master, what is your justification for this claim?”
“Mu.”

I think you have that just backwards. The book, as I’m reading it, is all about the justification of his epistemology (and, ostensibly, Mlodinow’s). It is “philosophy of science”, or more precisely a kind of philosophy of physics that strikes me as a modernized take on perspectivalism. Hawking goes through (if too breezily and in “dumbed down” fashion) point after point of justification, real-world, objective results he offers as justification for the epistemic and heuristic grounds of his approach.

The reply is not “Mu”, then or some vague koan, in retort, but the opposite of that, nuts-and-bolts science and empirical results and testing. “Here, he says, put all this in your pipe, philosophers and now whaddya got?”.

And this is the point where Hawking sees philosophy as dead. They don’t even grasp what he’s presenting, theoretically, and moreover, don’t have anything that begins to compete with all the validation that Hawking can present as the grounds for “unscientific philosophy”, for lack of a better word, to even be relevant to the big picture.

A more accurate scenario, I suggest:

“Master, what is the justification for the epistemology of Logical Positivism?”
“Read through and digest all this, and make sure you understand the results and how they were obtained”.
“Master, this is beyond me.”
“Then what do you propose to use as a measure of ‘justification’ for this?”
awkward silence

Obviously to one who does not understand philosophy, who has probably never even read a question by Aquinas, who probably thinks that Ockham’s Razon was invented by William of Ockham… obviously to that person philosophy is dead, inasmuch as it was never alive in him in the first place.

Even if we grant that as true – and I just identify that kind of answer as a conceit – what would such a Aquinian-neophyte like Hawking (hypothetically, I have no idea, he may be quite well versed in his Aquinas) look to for the evidence that Aquinas’ ideas aren’t dead, lifeless, inert? What knowledge did that produce that should get our attention, that would discredit Hawking’s uppity pronouncement?

Maybe it helps to point out that “philosophy is dead” – and this is a pronouncement made by every generation, going back centuries, I say – has a different sense than it may have previously. Any non-scientific philosophy wouldn’t necessarily have to wither, regress or dessicate in absolute terms to support Hawking’s idea, I think. Rather, science has just produced so much, so fast, and has so much intellectual inertia that (non-scientific) philosophy, even as “same as it ever was” just looks dead, inert, by comparison. It used to be the intellectual king of the hill (perhaps only playing second fiddle to theology at some points, historically), but that seems to be a bygone era, now.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

sounds to me the same thing as trying to show human beings don’t exist anymore, because of changes during the last 10K years, by pointing to a human. This doesn’t fly. For the record, Hawking is no more authoritative on these matters than any other scientist or philosopher.

This may be, strangely, the best argument yet put forward for the idea that philosophy *qua *philosophy is dead. If what you say is true, you are pointing to a kind of egalitarian nihilism, or more brusquely, “when it comes to philosophy, no one knows nuthin’!”. Just as every theologian, even the wisecracking teenager, is as much a cosmic authority as every other theologian, outside of philosophy-bound-to-results (i.e. science), philosophy is in principle impotent. No authority or progress or objective success obtain, and can’t obtain, as no one agrees on what such a measure would be or how it would obtain.

-TS

 

[Pieman333272]

Hawking can believe what he wants to believe. If he wants to bend science to answer the “why” questions, he can write books based on that view. But no matter how famous or rich or smart he gets, he can’t force scientists to answer the “why” questions. He can’t uproot 3000+ years of thought, or 6000+ years of belief. He can try and try, but there will still be professors of philosophy, new schools of thought, and religion. Philosophy will always be there. And it certainly isn’t unscientific. Philosophy, religion, and science are not contradictory unless you want them to be. Clearly, Hawking does. Its sad how little people know that .

 

[JohnDamian]

Philosophy, religion, and science are not contradictory unless you want them to be. Clearly, Hawking does. Its sad how little people know that

I think you hit the nail on the head here;-

It seems like some scientists see Philosophy and Religion as a threat to what they percieve to be a monopoly on the truth.

 

[The_Exodus]

As naive as this will make me sound…

I’ve yet to hear - and I am honestly open to evidence - any scientific explanation which can justify the perspectivism that is assumed in order to prove or show any evidence whatsoever for the Big Bang. Since we cannot get outside the universe, all our perspective of space/time is seen from our own planet. It seems it is against intuition, but, how in the world could we ever show that our Earth is not the center of the universe?

 

[Pieman333272]

As naive as this will make me sound…

I’ve yet to hear - and I am honestly open to evidence - any scientific explanation which can justify the perspectivism that is assumed in order to prove or show any evidence whatsoever for the Big Bang. Since we cannot get outside the universe, all our perspective of space/time is seen from our own planet. It seems it is against intuition, but, how in the world could we ever show that our Earth is not the center of the universe?

Astrophysics points to the fact that we can observe radioactive particles moving/expanding out towards (what we presume to be) the outer edge of the Universe. We can also see galaxies in spite of huge amounts of gravity moving away from each other end stars doing the same.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I do; and I doubt that any single human can know everything. It is clear to me however that everything we have encountered in the universe at present is either knowable now; or can be speculated to know in the future. It is curious that some people speculate that there are things we cannot know.

I point out here I was ambiguous; I was intending to refer to the physical world; and didn’t make myself clear on that.

From where I am standing; there is no good reason why events or objects in the physical world will are beyond our understanding either now or in the future; and there is certainly no good reason to speculate that the things we do not know will remian unknown; - no black swans anyone?

I have no problem with the physical world—however, even with the purely physical there would be “questions.”
What if Science found a way to retard the aging process in Humans and make them Immortal? Would you support that?
And what would the Church decide, I wonder?
What would the ethical and moral implications of that would be?

And what would happen if you could decide WHEN you would die? Live 500 years and then decide “It’s time to die?” What about you?

What if Science found a way to clone humans?
Have you seen the movie The 6th Day with arnold Schwarzenegger? That is what I was thinking of…
Is that consistent with the Church’s teachings and Natural Law? I DON"T THINK SO.

What about IF there was a so-called Gay Gene and one could detect it in a fetus before birth? Do we get to abort that child because we don’t want “a gay child?”
There was a movie about that too but I forget its name…

You see what I’m saying? Where do you draw the line at acquiring knowlege about the Universe or beings in it and knowing so much one gets to play God???

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

There is no need for self restraint in knowing at all, since if there are boundaries that GOD does not want human life to cross (any other sense of “meaning” is subjective), GOD will simply not allow it to happen. Exactly like the tower of Babel.

Scripture never describes the Babelians as sinners for attempting the tower, and they were not penalized for building it; they were simply stopped from doing it. No doubt there are other such stoppages in our history, possibly in space expansion or nuclear energy, that we do not recognize as such.

There are “limits” already to our knowing, established by the nature of our bodies, up to and including that hideous limit that is death. There is really no need for human life to seek or create additional limits to knowledge enquiry. “Meaning” is best left to the judgement of history, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

I’m sorry but I have to repectfully disagree with your assertion here. The Babelians may not have been DELIBERATE sinners in the standard sense, but they DID (albeit unintentionally) sin against God by PRESSUMING to build a tower big enough to reach to heaven so they could “see” HIM. That is abrogating to oneself the things of the Almighty.
It is Presumption that one is one big and powerful enough to meet God on HIS terms—which is blasphemous and heretical.

God did not want humans to reach Heaven, so he “punished” them (albeit the punishment was of the preventative variety) by confusing their tongues.

That’s what I meant that there are “limits” to knowledge. When worthless Humankind gets so arrogant that they presume to put themselves at the same level as God, there has to be a limit/punishment to that.

 

[Soulewolf]

As naive as this will make me sound…

I’ve yet to hear - and I am honestly open to evidence - any scientific explanation which can justify the perspectivism that is assumed in order to prove or show any evidence whatsoever for the Big Bang. Since we cannot get outside the universe, all our perspective of space/time is seen from our own planet. It seems it is against intuition, but, how in the world could we ever show that our Earth is not the center of the universe?

According to hawking, if one moves through the universe in one direction, you will eventually end up right back in the same place because of the 11 dimensional nature of the universe. Much like walking on a sphere. This being know, one could technically desribe any point in the universe, including the earth, as the center. Describing it without a center is also plausable.

The big bang can be proven through the static on your TV. That static is radiation left over from the big bang. Plus Red and Blue shift also point towards a big bang.

 

[PAboy57]

I think Mr. Hawking is a very sick man and the best thing we could do for him would be to pray for him. Only by the grace of God is that man permitted to live, study and conclude the things he comes up with. I’m sure he is very sad and possibly bitter for the physical life he has had to live. In all honesty I don’t know what I would think if I was in the same physical shape he is in.

After spending his life in total misery this guy is asking to spend the rest of eternity in hell. That is terribly sad that one should suffer most of their life and then never have the reward of Heaven. So I’m going to hope and pray that this broken man wakes up before it’s too late and accept Jesus as his Savior.