The Philosophy of Creation
This week I set iGoogle to be my Chrome (Chromium on GNU/Linux boxes) home page. I like the "Quotes of the Day" gadget. I just learned that Carl Sagan said this: "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." It reminds me of the joke about the scientists who go to God and say, "We've finally discovered how to create life starting with only dirt. No one needs you anymore." God says, "Show me." While the scientists are scooping up some dirt, God says, "Hold on there, my precious creatures! First go and get your own dirt." I wonder if Sagan has heard about recent developments in M-theory. (Yes, I know, he died in 1996. I still wonder.) Only six weeks ago, Stephen Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, was released. In it, he begins by saying, "Philosophy is dead... [It] has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." And, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." [Hat tip to John Mangels for the quotes.] Since M-theory as theorized today has no predictive power and is untestable, and because Hawking is apositivist (a term I use with more contempt as an amateur philosopher than a patriotic American who calls someone Communist or an Islamofascist), the joke still matters. Hawking has stepped out of his role as a scientist and making a proclamation as a philosopher. (Michael Polanyi, staunch opponent of positivism, is my scientist-philosopher-hero. In this context, Hawking is an anti-Polanyi.) So. Why is there something rather than nothing? That's the philosophical question that fascinates me more than any other. I even have a philosophical theory that there are two kinds of people: those who care about this question, and those who don't. I don't suppose I'll get any response from the latter kind of person, so I address the former when I ask: What's your answer?
700 views and 3 responses
-
Oct 16 2010, 5:35 PMkartiksubbarao responded:Larry King interviewed Stephen Hawking on his show recently, and the second part of the show was a panel discussion with Leonard Mlodinow (Hawking's co-author on his recent book), Deepak Chopra and Robert Spitzer. I enjoyed the show -- this is the kind of show that I've always liked from Larry King, when he brings really smart people together to talk about great topics and asks them good questions. I think you might find the discussion interesting:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/10/lkl.01.html
(There are links to the video on the net as well)I agree with Deepak's perspective as he eloquently expresses it in this excerpt:
=====
700 years ago, the great Sufi poet Rumi said we come spinning out of nothingness, scattering stars like dust. He said, look at these words, spinning out of nothingness. This is within your power.A great sage from 2,000 years ago called Vashishtha said, infinite words come and go in the vast expanse of nothingness, which is consciousness. And they're like moats of dust dancing in the beam of light.
So I tell you, it validated everything. The only difference between me and (Mlodinow) is that I believe this nothingness, this nothingness is not an empty void. It's the womb of creation, that nature goes to exactly the same place to create a galaxy of stars, a cluster of nebulas, a rainforest, or a human body, or a thought, that this is the formless mind of the infinite being. As Father Spitzer said, it's the transcendent mind.
Now you know, Leonard will say the same thing, but he won't use the word transcendence. He'll say it's a field of possibilities or he'll say it's a super position of possibilities. In fact, he says in the book that at least 10 to the power of 500 universes could possibly exist in super position of possibility at this level, which to me suggests an omniscient being. The only difference I have was God did not create the universe, God became the universe. So okay.
-
Oct 16 2010, 11:46 PMTim Chambers responded:This is disappointing because it's like other King "interviews" that I've watched. No one gets more than a few sentences to make their point. And the priest gets interrupted more than the others.
Hawking says, "Gravity and quantum theory cause universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing." Aha. Do I really need to read his book to have the spontaneous appearance and annihilation of virtual particles explained to me? I'll put that on my todo list. But I'd rather spend some time understanding quantum probability first. It all smells fishy to me. We're left rolling those dice Einstein talked about. That's not satisfying.
Hawking also says that "[M]ultiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science." Aha again. A prediction of science. No experimental evidence. Our understanding could very possibly shift and evolve before we ever invent an experiment to validate M-theory. And don't forget that Hawking has been wrong before: Susskind and Hawking radiation. Or do we know? You can google for recent experiments regarding Hawking radiation, but is there evidence of Susskind's holographic theory?
And what's with this sloppy comment? "[Y]ou could fly off in a rocket and return before you set out." A rocket? I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think a rocket is going to cut the mustard. Of course Hawking knows that. But it's sloppy to let the public imagine that rockets have a future in space (or time) travel.
Then there's Prof. Mlodinow. He's all about saying that his personal beliefs aren't important. I'm with Michael Polanyi on this: a scientist's personal beliefs are essential to the advancement of science. I'd like to know if Prof. Mlodinow has read Personal Knowledge and how he would respond to Dr. Polanyi's work related to tacit knowledge.
Kartik, I can't agree with the approach of Deepak Chopra. I assume the transcription is in error. I'm guessing he's talking about Gödel's Theorem, not Gordon's. Prof. Mlodinow reinforces that guess with his talk of axiomatic systems.
But I cannot accept the Hindu belief of Universalism. I see God revealing Himself as a transcendent being, separate from the Universe.
I need sleep now. I hope the discussion continues.
-
Oct 17 2010, 7:49 AMkartiksubbarao responded:FYI, there are some more videos of Robert Spitzer commenting on this subject on his web site:
I agree with you that personal beliefs are important to include in the discussion, and not try to sweep under some rug of idealized objectivity. Especially when it comes to topics like metaphysics and the underlying framework of the universe which we are part and parcel of. Even scientists who *acknowledge* their biases (known unknowns) also acknowledge that they have biases of which they may not be aware (unknown unknowns). I'm skeptical about scientists who claim to be totally objective. In some cases, I think their aversion for subjectivity gets in the way of their seeing the full picture.