Hawking: "Philosophy is Dead"

[Touchstone]

Hmm. I recall that one of the greatest threats to human civilization in the 20th Century were the totalizing ideologies of Nazism (which could be linked back to social darwinism, “supermen ideologies”, and German Fascism) and Communism (Marx-Engels) which latter totalitarianism believed in monistic fashion that we are all economic beings and that there is a scientific socialism - a deterministic historic progress - which will explain the final historic synthesis when classes no longer exist and paradise has been created on earth without regard to the individual but only the collective. There were Nazi philosophers, and there were Communist philosophers. These two ideologies together were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of humans, whether by Nazis, Fascists, Soviets, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. These totalitarianisms were an existential threat to the Western way of life. Never before in human history had there been so much human violence and mass killing that went up into the hundred of millions. Yes, science advanced in the 20th century. So did the capacity of men to kill on mass scale, never seen before: industrialized killing.

Ideas are dangerous things. Caution and reason are recommended, along with benevolent goals and values. Knowledge is power, and can be used for good or evil.

The study of science, physics, chemistry, etc., apart from finding new world changing medical cures, also gave us the A-Bomb, biological weapons, chemical warfare, and the ability to destroy humanity many times over. Yes, science advanced, but it could say nothing on the morality of using these weapons and by whom and when or for what. This is the question that can only be answered by philosophy, ethics, not science.

You noted yourself – there were Nazi philosophers and Communist philosophers, as well as philosophers of every other stripe you’d care to name. And these questions are not answered by philosophy, in the way that “how do we build an atom bomb” are answered – really answered, that is – by science. It’s just so much dialectic chaos and will to power. Science qua science doesn’t provide values, but it can provide a grounding for the discourse, if it’s allowed, and this can reduce both the chaos and the subjective will to power. To the extent we understand the dynamics of atoms, genes, minds and bombs, we have an objective domain to work from in making our choices.

To the extent that philosophy proceeds without that, it’s just subjective will to power. And this becomes particularly dangerous when its ungrounded like that, because philosophy is so amenable to sophistry. It becomes a deceptive weapon, an “anti-answer” all too easily.

There was a great Battle of Ideas in the 20th Century. The Marxist philosophers lost. Western philosophy on the dignity of the individual won. Have you never heard of philosopher Karl Popper’s Poverty of Historicism, Frierdrich Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, or Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski’s magisterial Main currents of Marxism books.google.ca/books?id=qUCxpznbkaoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Leszek+Ko%C5%82akowski&hl=en&ei=aqGRTKWUCcP78Aah2rH5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
which philosophers’ ideas and theses all in their way came out victorious in the great Battle of Ideas between totalitarian philosophers and Western philosohpers in the 20th Century. Against those who justified their coerced totalizing ideologies on the supposed perfectibility of human nature, many Western philosophers, religious, moral, ethical, won the battle of ideas . This was a philosophical victory for the right philosophers which saved the world.

Yes, but for better or worse, these are, were, and remain rhetorical victories. That’s all it takes to be effective in terms of realpolitik I grant, but that’s just the problem: philosophy didn’t answer anything; it was the podium political appeals were launched from, some more effective, some less. But the “defeated” Marxist recognizes his “philosophical defeat” no more than a young earth creationist recognizes his; the political winds may have blown against him, but philosophy is the cure for any and all evidence (for non-scientific philosophies/theologies).

This is a powerful example of the poverty, and often enough, perversity of philosophy and theology detached from empirical accountability and corrective feedback loops. I certainly am happy that enough Enlightenment individualism somehow persevered and prevailed to enable me to live as freely as I do; but I’m under no illusion that that is the product of philosophical ‘knowledge’. Where it is effective, we point to science – these ideas put into practice tend to produce much greater economic output than these other ideas, and therefore tend to overwhelm these others, over time…

But I have politics, and a bloody, painful commitment to political strife and struggle to thank for what blessings I enjoy. No one looked and agreed that yes, Jeffersonian libertarianism was indeed the objective winner in the philosophy wars and assented to its reign over their own convictions. This routinely happens in science (see Hawking’s capitulation to Susskind in a famous dispute over black holes and white holes, for example). Philosophy outside of science is perfectly nihilistic, or perfectly post-modern, if you prefer – there is no standard, and Aquinas has nothing over Ken Ham, unfortunately, because non-scientific philosophy as an enterprise disavows any objective epistemology or standard for evaluation. It’s just politics, ultimately, and who can convince or persuade who, once science is factored out.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

So I chalk up this as one victory for philosophy over the last 100 years in banishing Communist/Nazi totalitarianism to the philosophical deathbin.

Well, you do need a God to help you (and all of us) then, if so; economic productivity was the decisive factor, and to the extent philosophy was dispositive, it was also scientific: these beliefs (never mind their cosmic “rightness”) tend to succeed in the context of clashes of civilizations and existential struggles… such views and priorities appear to foment higher economic productivity, innovation and infrastructure development that prove decisive.

KyivAndrew:

And what of the philosophy of science: has Karl Popper not made some very good arguments on what is “scientific truth” so to speak and what constitutes scientific knowledge and verification.

Sure, he’s one of my heros, intellectually.

Science, physics, can bring the world medicine, cures, but also unimaginable weapons with which we fallen humans can kill ourselves. How these things are used, and in what way best, is ultimately a question that cannot be answered by science, no matter how much advances. Philosophy and Ethics and Religion come in here.

And in they come, and all hell breaks, and has broken loose. Or not. But either way, philosophy sans science reduces to a rhetorical device, a political tool. That can “break for the good”, or “break for the bad”, but it’s a political dynamic, for philosophy has no grounding beyond that in the affairs of men.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Well, there you go, then. Here is the allowance for a un-caused universe/metaverse. Coming-to-be from metaphysical nothing is now not absurd in principle.

But it’s *not *uncaused. That is precisely the point. It is not caused in the same species of causality; i.e. it is not caused by spatial/temporally existent agent; yet it is caused by a non-spatial/temporally existing agent. No principle is violated; no unfair treatment is given; nothing is admitted “now” which has not always been admitted in the axiom: every effect has a cause.

touchstone:

I hesitate for the best of reasons, I think: I’ve got no warrant to make that step.

This, of course, can never amount to more than a bald assertion on your part. Hence your disagreeing with me when I say I am perfectly justified in making that step because my senses perceive that it is manifestly impossible for a thing to simultaneously be and not be a) flies in the face of what we positively sense; and b) demands an alternative and arbitrary criteria of judgment which is a piori outside the range of sense perception in the first place; i.e. even if things did or could come into being uncaused, it would be impossible for us to sense, observe, know, demonstrate, etc.

Again, as Aquinas would say, so long as you make no concession whatsoever concerning the statement “a thing may come into being uncaused”, and so long as you neither say it is possible nor impossible, no argument can be had. If you make some concession, however, (as it seems to me you certainly do, in granting science a certain immanence in gaining knowledge), then we can have an exchange. Yet you betray your fickle nature precisely on this point: on the one hand, you acknowledge that science can lead us to knowledge and truth (which is always subject to development); and on the other, you think it may be possible for things to happen without causes. The former view necessarily excludes the latter, and this is my main point of objection to you. If you are going to be agnostic, be agnostic across the board. You arbitrarily point to various physical experiments to show that perhaps things can happen without causes; but this is patently fallacious, since, what you must assume in the first place, if you wish your argument to have any force by using the science of demonstration in the realm of QM, is that such demonstration demonstrates something; i.e. some intelligible phenomena. You cannot use the principle of causality to undermine the principle of causality.

touchstone:

This is not a contradiction. X would be temporally coherent: not-exist a t=A, exist ant t=B. There is no point where it would both non-existent and existent, any more than if it were a ‘thing-cause-to-be-by-another’.

Temporality conflates the issue, since the laws of causation and contradiction subsume time. Substitute “act” for x and the point stands. Not-act exists prior to act. Yet, the law of causality states that every effect must have a cause; i.e. nothing moves from not-act (potency) to act (actuality) of itself, since it would have to be not-act and act simultaneously.

touchstone:

Yes, tautologically…The question it hand is causality and its… transitivity. But in any case, temporally, this represents no contradiction.

This is only a tautological example if you beg the question in your favor and assume the law of causality does not hold. If, however, it is admitted axiomatically, then there is no contradiction. Furthermore, the law is derived from our sense perception of the world, and to reject it, or even to hesistate to accept it, requires enormous justification. The fact is, no one really rejects our experience of causality; you reveal this even in yourself by calling it “transitive.” Is it not true that you know this transivity by having experienced it?

touchstone:

Same idea holds existentially; if X is eternal, it need not appeal to a causally prior agent. And yet, it would/could be perfectly indistinguishable from “having effect”. If the universe is eternal, and X is uncaused and eternally moving from infinitely-far-behind to infinitely-far-ahead, it remains in motion in a Newtonian mechanical model, giving every appearance of “being moved”, but yet, having no “mover”.

If you redefine sense phenomena as being eternally unmoved, then of course it follows that there is no need difference between such a thing and “uncaused God.” Yet this contradicts our sense experience. Are sense phenomena unmoved? You see how such views call into question our basic grasp of existence itself. In order to accept that we live in an eternal, unmoving universe, we would have to dimiss our senses as entirely erroneous. If this is where physics must go to disprove an uncaused cause, I can’t help but think they are grasping at straws.

Furthermore, if indeed the universe is eternal, it would still follow that there exists an eternal reality, would it not? Of course you would say, “yes but this is the universe, and not God.” But it is not the universe as we experience it. It would in actuality be a “thing” essentially cut off in its very nature from our sense experience, and, conceptually speaking, would be the same thing as an uncaused cause, or Aristotle’s prime mover. Regardless of what name you want to give it, if you hold that the universe is eternally unmoved, you are no longer describing what we know to be the universe, and hence the parallel, or rather the attempt to refute God’s existence by parity to “the observable universe” would fail.

 

[The_Exodus]

I think this is a point for JDaniel’s “First Way” thread, but I can’t find a reason to accept that as a rule. Think of an asteroid “at rest” in terms of acceleration and angular momentum, but humming along at high speed through space, for billions of years. This is just Newtonian mechanics, a body in motion tends to stay in motion, etc. As soon as we get there, an eternal motion defeats this principle. There would be no casually prior agent in that case.

Same idea holds existentially; if X is eternal, it need not appeal to a causally prior agent. And yet, it would/could be perfectly indistinguishable from “having effect”. If the universe is eternal, and X is uncaused and eternally moving from infinitely-far-behind to infinitely-far-ahead, it remains in motion in a Newtonian mechanical model, giving every appearance of “being moved”, but yet, having no “mover”.

Of course, if you want to define the universe as “essentially being eternal and motionless” then it would follow that the universe does not need God to explain it. In order to make that claim, you would have to completely abandon all our sense perception of motion and change. More fundamentally, you could have to abandon our notion of becoming which has not so much to do with mere change of location or rearrangement, but “coming to be” of new essences. The question then, is, is the universe like that? Does it really not become anything ever? Maybe, you say, it is so, and we only experience through minds unable to deal with the brute fact of its reality, and so we conclude otherwise.

Well, maybe. But in my mind you are making the boldest and most fedeistic claim imaginable. We would have to overthrow every intuition we have ever had. And for what reason? Because you don’t want to admit that perhaps a cause is really necessary when an effect comes to be? This is just grasping at straws. Is this where atheism ends up? Is this where the almighty rationalism of science terminates - in abandoning our connection with perceived reality because we do not want to admit that an effect comes from a cause?

But, furthermore, even if you redefine the universe as such a reality - an eternal and immutable existence - you are doing nothing more than saying that an eternal and immutable reality exists; i.e. that God exists, at least in the Aristotlean sense. Of course, one may claim, “but it’s the universe, not God.” But it is not the *perceived *universe. Whatever name you call it, you are simply saying “a timeless, eternal reality exists in a mode outside our ken.” That is really all Natural Theology has ever tried to prove.

 

[The_Exodus]

Indeed, it would be absurd if objects at our scale, and in our locale just appeared/disappeared without cause or continuity at all. If that was “the rule”, there’d be no ‘persistence of objects’ to hang our mental hat on, so to speak. That’s an existential crisis, intellectually.

But the absurdity disappears if macrophysics holds as it does, and is uniform and intelligible at our scales, and “gets wonky” at quantum scales (which it does, for all we can tell). It’s counter-intuitive, but “remotely absurd”, practically not-absurd. So to, with cosmogony. This is so far from our time, scale and reference frame as to be beyond the reach of absurdity, to be beyond any context for which absurdity represents a problem for our reasoning.

Why does the absurdity disappear simply by reducing its size? I don’t see how this follows. If it is absurd for a horse to pop into being out of nowhere, why is it not absurd to think a particle does as well?

touchstone:

Hmmm, don’t this strike you as a false dichotomy, though? I don’t think your “either” nearly exhausts all the options.

No. As an Aristotlean I hold it patently impossible there can be any mediary between “we can know truth” and “we cannot know truth.”

touchstone:

Reality may be “clockwork intelligible” on some levels and scales, and spooky-weird-can’t-be-this-weird at others. This actually is not a bad representation of our current apprehension of the universe around us.

Reality is either fundamentally knowable in itself, or not. If it is knowable in itself, it may be possible for us to know it or it may not be possible for us to know it, but it can never be possible for it to be unknowable in itself, and possible for us to know it at the same time. This is a point I’ve made repeatedly. Just because we do not yet know the cause of x, does not therefore mean x has no cause. If, indeed, we presuppose that reality is knowable, we must presuppose however that x is knowable in itself (i.e. it has a cause), it is just the case that it is, due to ignorance, unknown to us.

touchstone:

I think we are close to agreement on this point. But I think my response to Nietzsche is far stronger – humans are wired for those first principles, QED. It’s a non-issue, and it’s demonstrably a non-issue (here is where I take Nietzsche’s wrist and show him how he can refute his own ideas with a cigarette lighter. Even an ubermensch has a brainstem that will involuntarily recoil from an open flame upon the skin. Nietzsche’s “if” is only an abstract if, and not a real if.

But the only way you can say Nietzsche’s “if” is not “real”, is if you assume a prior that everything which comes to be has a cause or reason. If, however, the universe came into being by no cause, it came into being for no reason, and hence, all “reason” and “causality” is merely subjective transcience, random gurglings of the organisms gray matter.

 

[Vico]

I don’t see why gravity would cause a problem with Maxwell’s laws of electricity and magnetism.

Since I have a B.A. in Physics, I will try to explain. Most that have studied science has learned something of Quantum Mechanics, however many have not studied General Relativity, more likely only special relativity.

Quantum mechanics is inconsistent with singularities of general relativity. Due to a law called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle a particles location and velocity cannot be know precisely (if you try to measure it, the measuring effects the measurement). Electrons are in an unknown orbital path around a nucleus (probability density) so how can the gravitation field of a particle be determined?

In a double-slit experiment we have a wavefunction for a particle with several peaks in space. Every particle gravitates exerting a gravitational influence on other particles. If we have a wavefunction telling us that the particle is in a superposition of being in many places, then the gravitational field that the particle sets up should be in a superposition too. So far, string theories are the only model that can do that.

 

[sidbrown]

Electrons are in an unknown orbital path around a nucleus (probability density) so how can the gravitation field of a particle be determined?.

I thought that the masses of the electrons and atomic particles are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. In fact, the gravitational force between the electron and the proton in a hydrogen atom is approximately 1.0E-44 times smaller than the electrical
force.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Originally posted by Touchstone
Ideas are dangerous things. Caution and reason are recommended, along with benevolent goals and values. Knowledge is power, and can be used for good or evil.

Please define what is good and what is evil based upon the only standard you seem to accept, scientific knowledge. On what grounds does “objective” science condemn the communist genocides or the Holocaust?

You noted yourself – there were Nazi philosophers and Communist philosophers, as well as philosophers of every other stripe you’d care to name. And these questions are not answered by philosophy, in the way that “how do we build an atom bomb” are answered – really answered, that is – by science. It’s just so much dialectic chaos and will to power. Science qua science doesn’t provide values, but it can provide a grounding for the discourse, if it’s allowed, and this can reduce both the chaos and the subjective will to power. To the extent we understand the dynamics of atoms, genes, minds and bombs, we have an objective domain to work from in making our choices.

So in other words, there is no moral difference between the ideas espoused by Nazism and Communism vs. a Liberal Democracy based on rule of law and human welfare. Some may have had genocide as their goal but it appears you are saying that is neither here not there, as all these discussions of philosophy, moral values, are just, in your words, “chaos and will to power”. You assert that only understanding “the dynamics of atoms, genes, minds, and bombs” leads us to “make choices” grounded in an “objective domain”. In my humble opinion, this is willful blindness, and simply a recipe for “chaos and will to power”. Reductive materialism, scientism can say nothing as to why one should value a human life over that of the ant, or why one should not just go through life satisfying oneself in pure hedonism, never mind the consequences.

To the extent that philosophy proceeds without that, it’s just subjective will to power. And this becomes particularly dangerous when its ungrounded like that, because philosophy is so amenable to sophistry. It becomes a deceptive weapon, an “anti-answer” all too easily.

So, again, I assume there is no external objective standard by which one can differentiate the democratic West’s philosophy from Nazi philosophy (and the study of atoms and genes and scientific empiricism cannot make judgments on right or wrong here I believe). In your opinion, both liberal Western philosophy and Nazi philosophy are just grounded in subjective wills to power and both use sophistry. Foucault I take it?

Yes, but for better or worse, these are, were, and remain rhetorical victories. That’s all it takes to be effective in terms of realpolitik I grant, but that’s just the problem: philosophy didn’t answer anything; it was the podium political appeals were launched from, some more effective, some less. But the “defeated” Marxist recognizes his “philosophical defeat” no more than a young earth creationist recognizes his; the political winds may have blown against him, but philosophy is the cure for any and all evidence (for non-scientific philosophies/theologies).

Well, these, what you call “rhetorical” victories were responsible for freeing millions from death and tyranny. Scientism can neither condemn nor approve of ideologies practicing genocide.

This is a powerful example of the poverty, and often enough, perversity of philosophy and theology detached from empirical accountability and corrective feedback loops. I certainly am happy that enough Enlightenment individualism somehow persevered and prevailed to enable me to live as freely as I do; but I’m under no illusion that that is the product of philosophical ‘knowledge’. Where it is effective, we point to science – these ideas put into practice tend to produce much greater economic output than these other ideas, and therefore tend to overwhelm these others, over time…

Sheeze. How does one empirically measure the value of a baby born with Down’s syndrome versus the healthy, economically productive businessman? You are preaching economic determinism above.

Philosophy outside of science is perfectly nihilistic, or perfectly post-modern, if you prefer – there is no standard, and Aquinas has nothing over Ken Ham, unfortunately, because non-scientific philosophy as an enterprise disavows any objective epistemology or standard for evaluation. It’s just politics, ultimately, and who can convince or persuade who, once science is factored out.

Let’s turn that on its head. Science outside of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics) is perfectly nihilistic. Dr. Mengele practiced science too.

Andrew.

 

[sidbrown]

Please define what is good and what is evil based upon the only standard you seem to accept, scientific knowledge. On what grounds does “objective” science condemn the communist genocides or the Holocaust?

So in other words, there is no moral difference between the ideas espoused by Nazism and Communism vs. a Liberal Democracy based on rule of law and human welfare. Some may have had genocide as their goal but it appears you are saying that is neither here not there, as all these discussions of philosophy, moral values, are just, in your words, “chaos and will to power”. You assert that only understanding “the dynamics of atoms, genes, minds, and bombs” leads us to “make choices” grounded in an “objective domain”. In my humble opinion, this is willful blindness, and simply a recipe for “chaos and will to power”. Reductive materialism, scientism can say nothing as to why one should value a human life over that of the ant, or why one should not just go through life satisfying oneself in pure hedonism, never mind the consequences.

So, again, I assume there is no external objective standard by which one can differentiate the democratic West’s philosophy from Nazi philosophy (and the study of atoms and genes and scientific empiricism cannot make judgments on right or wrong here I believe). In your opinion, both liberal Western philosophy and Nazi philosophy are just grounded in subjective wills to power and both use sophistry. Foucault I take it?

Well, these, what you call “rhetorical” victories were responsible for freeing millions from death and tyranny. Scientism can neither condemn nor approve of ideologies practicing genocide.

Sheeze. How does one empirically measure the value of a baby born with Down’s syndrome versus the healthy, economically productive businessman? You are preaching economic determinism above.

Let’s turn that on its head. Science outside of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics) is perfectly nihilistic. Dr. Mengele practiced science too.

Andrew.

Ethics is of course not dead. The world could have used a little ethics in WWII, and today as well.

 

[lemondiesel]

Philosophy itself is a field of science and Hawking is absolutely right that, for the most part, philosophers have been dropping the ball that physicists have been passing to them.

All he’s talking about here is quantum physics and the gap between (most) current philosophical research and what we’ve come to learn (or unlearn) about ourselves and the world around us. The study of quantum mechanics has brought about fundamental changes to the way we must conceive ALL of matter, force, causation and existence. To say that this is irrelevant to philosophy suggests that those of you making such claims either don’t understand even the most basic goals of philosophy, or don’t understand the scope of the changes that have taken place in the world of physics over the past hundred years.

Physics and philosophy are necessarily interconnected and interdependent. If, like most, you assume that we are made of matter then the ways in which matter interacts with itself in the apparent absence of consciousness is essential to any understanding of its behavior when consciousness is operating as a factor.

If you’re a proponent of a more new-agey kind of philosophy that eats away at the concept of what matter and consciousness really are then you’re either: a.) surprisingly well-informed about the implications of quantum physics or b.) a nutjob spouting off whatever crazy theory you want.

This is the problem that Hawking is talking about. Discoveries in the quantum world have led to such monumental, foundation-shaking ideas that many philosophers have been too scared to pick them up. Even if they can understand the concepts, they know that the general public (even the general public of philosophers) will not and will immediately write them off as being in the “nutjob” category. Look at what has happened to Brian Josephson. He won the Nobel Prize in 73 and less than 30 years later was considered a crackpot by nearly all of his colleagues simply for being interested in testing some of the (admittedly) more radical implications of quantum entanglement.

Hawking is not saying that philosophy is dead or that there’s no need for it. He’s saying that there’s a greater need than ever, and it is not being fulfilled because philosophers aren’t willing to put themselves on the line.

Luckily, this is becoming less and less true and today you can find publications by really big names (Henry Stapp, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose just to name a select few) that really are groundbreaking and at least represent an effort to create a philosophy that is consistent with modern physics. Even these men, who are some of the most renowned in science today, have faced a lot of ******** for their ideas. It would seem that most “philosophers” aren’t actually interested in critical thinking and prefer to spout off the outdated ideas of long-dead men instead. Literally every month brings about more and more publications that show an increasing number bucking this trend so hopefully getting off your *** and actually doing work will become more acceptable in the philosophical community soon.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Philosophy itself is a field of science and Hawking is absolutely right that, for the most part, philosophers have been dropping the ball that physicists have been passing to them.

All he’s talking about here is quantum physics and the gap between (most) current philosophical research and what we’ve come to learn (or unlearn) about ourselves and the world around us. The study of quantum mechanics has brought about fundamental changes to the way we must conceive ALL of matter, force, causation and existence. To say that this is irrelevant to philosophy suggests that those of you making such claims either don’t understand even the most basic goals of philosophy, or don’t understand the scope of the changes that have taken place in the world of physics over the past hundred years.

Physics and philosophy are necessarily interconnected and interdependent. If, like most, you assume that we are made of matter then the ways in which matter interacts with itself in the apparent absence of consciousness is essential to any understanding of its behavior when consciousness is operating as a factor.

If you’re a proponent of a more new-agey kind of philosophy that eats away at the concept of what matter and consciousness really are then you’re either: a.) surprisingly well-informed about the implications of quantum physics or b.) a nutjob spouting off whatever crazy theory you want.

This is the problem that Hawking is talking about. Discoveries in the quantum world have led to such monumental, foundation-shaking ideas that many philosophers have been too scared to pick them up. Even if they can understand the concepts, they know that the general public (even the general public of philosophers) will not and will immediately write them off as being in the “nutjob” category. Look at what has happened to Brian Josephson. He won the Nobel Prize in 73 and less than 30 years later was considered a crackpot by nearly all of his colleagues simply for being interested in testing some of the (admittedly) more radical implications of quantum entanglement.

Hawking is not saying that philosophy is dead or that there’s no need for it. He’s saying that there’s a greater need than ever, and it is not being fulfilled because philosophers aren’t willing to put themselves on the line.

Luckily, this is becoming less and less true and today you can find publications by really big names (Henry Stapp, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose just to name a select few) that really are groundbreaking and at least represent an effort to create a philosophy that is consistent with modern physics. Even these men, who are some of the most renowned in science today, have faced a lot of ******** for their ideas. It would seem that most “philosophers” aren’t actually interested in critical thinking and prefer to spout off the outdated ideas of long-dead men instead. Literally every month brings about more and more publications that show an increasing number bucking this trend so hopefully getting off your *** and actually doing work will become more acceptable in the philosophical community soon.

This all presumes that scientists know exactly what they are talking about and philosophers don’t.

 

[buffalo]

Fr. Barron comments on Stephen Hawking & more tired atheism

 

[Touchstone]

Please define what is good and what is evil based upon the only standard you seem to accept, scientific knowledge. On what grounds does “objective” science condemn the communist genocides or the Holocaust?

Science neither affirms nor condemns it, any more than it condones or approves atomic fission being used for an atom bomb, or a nuclear reactor to power hospitals for kids.

Ethics and other values-based arguments go on as they always have, but they convictions don’t obtain objectively. Science does provide useful testimony for people who see value in grounding their ethics and beliefs in empirical evidence, but ultimately, it’s a subjective matter. Humans, by their nature (like other animals), have an innate drive to live and survive, to avoid being killed, and this is something we can observe as a fact. But that’s an is, not an ought. It’s a very straightforward ought in my view from that “is” – killing without justification at least by symmetry, as we would not like to be killed, we ought not kill others. Because we value our own lives and freedom, we recognize the value of the lives and freedom of others, reciprocally.

But that’s an “ought”, not an “is”.

So in other words, there is no moral difference between the ideas espoused by Nazism and Communism vs. a Liberal Democracy based on rule of law and human welfare.

No, that couldn’t be more wrong. The moral differences couldn’t be more stark. But they are moral differences, subjective differences, disputes about ought. I have no problem condemning the oppressive tyranny of communism, or the immoral stance of the Catholic church against homosexuals, but I don’t suppose these are scientific questions. These are moral convictions in my mind that see the dark and destructive features of communism and Catholicism in their respective abuses. These are moral convictions, and stark differences, between, say, communism and Jeffersonian libertarianism.

But it’s a moral question, not a scientific one. And I’ve no objective epistemology that even applies, nor does anyone else.

Some may have had genocide as their goal but it appears you are saying that is neither here not there, as all these discussions of philosophy, moral values, are just, in your words, “chaos and will to power”.

Yes, if you read about the American revolution, for example, it wasn’t a science experiment. It wasn’t a matter of Jefferson’s math outperforming King George in his predictive models. It was a bloody, brutal, war to the death. And well it should have been, their freedom (and mine, derived from it) was worth it, in my view. But it was violent realpolitik, just in service of what I believe are (generally) noble ideals, as opposed to violent pogroms against against Jews by the Russian czars, or the Catholic crusades, or Cultural Revolution under Mao. Philosophies ultimately prevail politically, by persuasion or else the sword. They don’t succeed because they make better predictive models. They are successful as politics in action. And that often enough means brutal violence.

You assert that only understanding “the dynamics of atoms, genes, minds, and bombs” leads us to “make choices” grounded in an “objective domain”. In my humble opinion, this is willful blindness, and simply a recipe for “chaos and will to power”. Reductive materialism, scientism can say nothing as to why one should value a human life over that of the ant, or why one should not just go through life satisfying oneself in pure hedonism, never mind the consequences.

It can say a lot, and with the authority of real world evidence. It just can’t be decisive, can’t have the last word – people have goals and values that factor in. I think science can be a useful and reasonable starting point for men of goodwill to work from as a shared base – if we understand that that neo-cortical activity begins in the brain of a fetus at around 8 weeks, we can perhaps add 4 weeks just to be sure and recognize the legal personhood and all the rights that go with it of a 14 week old fetus. This means science doesn’t determine the “ought” itself, but informs it. Or we can just throw that out the window and decide the dogmatic imaginations of an unseen God carry the day, and force “pro-life” into “from conception” territory, and the wonderful results that has produced for the unborn.

In either case, science is available, but can’t be authoritative. “Authority” is a subjective concept on this.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

So, again, I assume there is no external objective standard by which one can differentiate the democratic West’s philosophy from Nazi philosophy (and the study of atoms and genes and scientific empiricism cannot make judgments on right or wrong here I believe).

Science can certainly differentiate their features and attributes, and report on the observed influences and outcomes of them, as far as empirically can be measured. But it’s not a moral system, and it operates on a different plane - it’s empirical, and people’s values are not determined empirically.

In your opinion, both liberal Western philosophy and Nazi philosophy are just grounded in subjective wills to power and both use sophistry. Foucault I take it?

Don’t care for Foucault, I’m a die-hard modernist, after all. But yes, I find Nazi philosophy execrable and classic liberalism quite agreeable, and and staunch enough in my convictions I’d have no reservations about shedding blood to defend the freedoms liberalism secures, especially against an ideology like Nazism. But I’m not confused about what’s happening – war is ultimate form of politics, and politics is philosophy powered by personal values and social dynamics. It ain’t science.

Well, these, what you call “rhetorical” victories were responsible for freeing millions from death and tyranny. Scientism can neither condemn nor approve of ideologies practicing genocide.

Well, that’s confusing. I keep hearing that scientism does suppose it can approve or condemn these things – that’s what makes scientism scientism (or so I hear). But such questions are a “divide by zero” for science. You might as well ask science what the smell of the color nine is. blank out

Sheeze. How does one empirically measure the value of a baby born with Down’s syndrome versus the healthy, economically productive businessman? You are preaching economic determinism above.

Not at all. We can observe humans, uniformly, are motivated toward survival, and interested in their own welfare, and their own autonomy, to the extent they are able to care for themselves. This is something we can observe, objectively. And that’s the “is” for the “ought” that grounds the value of human life; just as I value my life and freedom, thus am I bound to observe and respect the freedom and liberty of others.

Let’s turn that on its head. Science outside of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics) is perfectly nihilistic. Dr. Mengele practiced science too.

Andrew.

Bad values and vice with science applied is stil bad values and vice. Science can’t redeem one’s values if they are evil, nor validate them if they are good. It’s a category error to suppose they can.

-TS

 

[Vico]

I wrote: “Electrons are in an unknown orbital path around a nucleus (probability density) so how can the gravitation field of a particle be determined?”

I thought that the masses of the electrons and atomic particles are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. In fact, the gravitational force between the electron and the proton in a hydrogen atom is approximately 1.0E-44 times smaller than the electrical force.

Do you mean the “gravitational force between them” where you wrote “effect of gravity on them”?

Calculation of gravitational field in classical mechanics using Newton’s Law is simple. Using Quantum Mechanics for gravitation requires Einstein’s field equations and is difficult because energy must also be considered besides mass. In attempting to unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity (GR) the string theories have been developed to merge formulas for observable photon particles (open string) with formulas theoretical graviton particles (closed string = ring). All particles follow the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The gravitational field has not been observed but is an interpretation of GR.

 

[sidbrown]

…people’s values are not determined empirically.

How are they determined? Are they absolute in some sense or are they more in line with a utilitarian philosophy. Take for example the moral precept against lying. Lying is morally wrong. But is that in an absolute sense or should it be modified in some cases. Take for example the case of a murderer who is looking for his victim to kill and he asks you if the victim is in the barn next door and you lie and say no acting out of the utilitarian motive to save the victim and discarding the moral imperative to tell the truth.

 

[sidbrown]

I wrote: “Electrons are in an unknown orbital path around a nucleus (probability density) so how can the gravitation field of a particle be determined?”

Do you mean the “gravitational force between them” where you wrote “effect of gravity on them”?

Calculation of gravitational field in classical mechanics using Newton’s Law is simple. Using Quantum Mechanics for gravitation requires Einstein’s field equations and is difficult because energy must also be considered besides mass. In attempting to unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity (GR) the string theories have been developed to merge formulas for observable photon particles (open string) with formulas theoretical graviton particles (closed string = ring). All particles follow the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The gravitational field has not been observed but is an interpretation of GR.

I was asking about the explanation of : “Due to gravity, there is a problem in all the theories.”
I don;t see where gravity comes in at all on the atomic level since the gravitational force is so small and is negligible. Gravity comes in on the macroscopic level where the masses and distances are large, and QM comes in on the atomic level where the masses and distances are small.

 

[Touchstone]

How are they determined? Are they absolute in some sense or are they more in line with a utilitarian philosophy. Take for example the moral precept against lying. Lying is morally wrong. But is that in an absolute sense or should it be modified in some cases. Take for example the case of a murderer who is looking for his victim to kill and he asks you if the victim is in the barn next door and you lie and say no acting out of the utilitarian motive to save the victim and discarding the moral imperative to tell the truth.

Yeah, that brings to mind the illustrious Christine O’Donnell, now GOP candidate for US Senate in Delaware, going on about how she wouldn’t lie, even to save Jews hiding in her house from a Nazi jew hunter in WWII, because, you know, lying is wrong. Ayiyiyi…

Your case establishes the point. Humans, as a social species, rely on social contracts, and collaboration to survive. That’s difficult without trust, and some significant level of honesty between people (sometimes, at least). There’s your basic biology driving our “moral grammar”. It’s not brittle and simple-minded – O’Donnell is a circus clown on that issue. But the expectation of honest communication, as well as the temptation to deceive when it’s opportune, as well as keen awareness for cues and tips that we are being deceived, comes to us naturally. Literally naturally, as part of our evolved psychology. Those of us with kids can see this in them from very early ages.

People have multiple and competing goals and interests, not to mention proclivities and dispositions in their personalities, some of which are formed at a very young age and are powerfully influential. Some men value sexual conquest and exploitation of women for their own satisfaction more highly than their own honest and integrity. Others find the satisfaction of being honest of more value, and their respect for the women they know of more importance than just their value as sexual satisfiers. So you have different valuations for “lying” in different men.

Your question one is a hugely broad one, but I’d suggest that the right place to start is looking at it the hard way, the way I think reality presents it – as a huge set of individual stories and personal cases, all different from each other, even as they begin from a shared biology. We share common, low-level commitments as humans, but where we go from there is highly dependent on our particular dispositions (some of which may be genetic/epigenetic) and the innumerable stream of experiences that shape us from from the day we are born. That means you can find a huge consensus on the idea that lying is wrong as a kind of abstraction – that we humans don’t like to be lied to, and therefore can expect others to feel wronged when we lie to them – but the practical application varies a lot. Some men will lie seemingly without conscience to achieve the sexual results the value more than their honesty. Others will work toward the same goal (or not) but will pursue “success with honesty”. A man’s real values are proved in his actions.

But each one is a different story. And each one’s values obtain from that story.

-TS

 

[sidbrown]

Yeah, that brings to mind the illustrious Christine O’Donnell, now GOP candidate for US Senate in Delaware, going on about how she wouldn’t lie, even to save Jews hiding in her house from a Nazi jew hunter in WWII, because, you know, lying is wrong. Ayiyiyi…

Your case establishes the point. Humans, as a social species, rely on social contracts, and collaboration to survive. That’s difficult without trust, and some significant level of honesty between people (sometimes, at least). There’s your basic biology driving our “moral grammar”. It’s not brittle and simple-minded – O’Donnell is a circus clown on that issue. But the expectation of honest communication, as well as the temptation to deceive when it’s opportune, as well as keen awareness for cues and tips that we are being deceived, comes to us naturally. Literally naturally, as part of our evolved psychology. Those of us with kids can see this in them from very early ages.

People have multiple and competing goals and interests, not to mention proclivities and dispositions in their personalities, some of which are formed at a very young age and are powerfully influential. Some men value sexual conquest and exploitation of women for their own satisfaction more highly than their own honest and integrity. Others find the satisfaction of being honest of more value, and their respect for the women they know of more importance than just their value as sexual satisfiers. So you have different valuations for “lying” in different men.

Your question one is a hugely broad one, but I’d suggest that the right place to start is looking at it the hard way, the way I think reality presents it – as a huge set of individual stories and personal cases, all different from each other, even as they begin from a shared biology. We share common, low-level commitments as humans, but where we go from there is highly dependent on our particular dispositions (some of which may be genetic/epigenetic) and the innumerable stream of experiences that shape us from from the day we are born. That means you can find a huge consensus on the idea that lying is wrong as a kind of abstraction – that we humans don’t like to be lied to, and therefore can expect others to feel wronged when we lie to them – but the practical application varies a lot. Some men will lie seemingly without conscience to achieve the sexual results the value more than their honesty. Others will work toward the same goal (or not) but will pursue “success with honesty”. A man’s real values are proved in his actions.

But each one is a different story. And each one’s values obtain from that story.

-TS

It seems like from this that people’s values are determined empirically, at least to some extent.
With reference to Ms. O’Donnell, I thought that she won her primary election which indicates that her voter support was substantial enough to win.

 

[Touchstone]

It seems like from this that people’s values are determined empirically, at least to some extent.

OK, I can see that the way I wrote that was confusing, ambiguous. When I say, values are not determined empirically, I mean that we don’t just run lab experiments, or some kind of objective review to see what values perform best. It’s personal, and subjective. It relies on experience, for sure, but not in the sense of “empirical” where we aggregate our measurements and observations and see which ones perform best (whatever that would mean in this context) and adopt that.

We certainly do obtain our values substantially by our personal experience, though. And this is what defeats the possibility of objective determinations. The “grounding” for those values is the sum of our experience and our choices, which we cannot share or copy to some other location. It’s subjective.

With reference to Ms. O’Donnell, I thought that she won her primary election which indicates that her voter support was substantial enough to win.

Indeed it was. Wasn’t suggesting there was something unfair about her win – fair and square, so far as I can tell. Surreal yes, but unfair or illegitimate, no.

-TS