LISTEN. Gary wonders what we think of this "new bend on the cosmos," though it sounds to me more like the old bend that alleges the need for a design-explanation of the "fine-tuning" of the physical constants of the universe, the anthropic principle etc.
5. The Arguments from the Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants
1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.
2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions: Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 & 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine-Tuner.
8. God exists.
Philosophers and physicists often speak of "The Anthropic Principle," which comes in several versions, labeled "weak," "strong" and "very strong." All three versions argue that any explanation of the universe must account for the fact that we humans ( or any complex organism that could observe its condition) exist in it. The Argument from Fine-Tuning corresponds to the Very Strong Anthropic Principle. Its upshot is that the upshot of the universe is . . . us. The universe must have been designed with us in mind.
FLAW 1: The first premise may be false. Many physicists and cosmologists, following Einstein, hope for a unified "theory of everything," which would deduce from as-yet-unknown physical laws that the physical constants of our universe had to be what they are. In that case, ours would be the only possible universe. (See also The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe,# 35, below).
FLAW 2: Even were we to accept the first premise, the transition from 4 to 5 is invalid. Perhaps we are living in a multiverse (a term coined by William James), a vast plurality (perhaps infinite) of parallel universes with different physical constants, all of them composing one reality. We find ourselves, unsurprisingly (since we are here doing the observing), in one of the rare universe that does support the appearance of stable matter and complex life, but nothing had to have been fine-tuned. Or perhaps we are living in an "oscillatory universe," a succession of universes with differing physical constants, each one collapsing into a point and then exploding with a new big bang into a new universe with different physical constants, one succeeding the other over an infinite time span. Again, we find ourselves, not surprisingly, in one of those time-slices in which the universe does have physical constants that support stable matter and complex life. These hypotheses, which are receiving much attention from contemporary cosmologists, are sufficient to invalidate the leap from 4 to 5. --36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction
Far be it from me to challenge the genius of Stephen Hawking, but I really think Carl Sagan got it right near the end of chapter 2 in VSE when he said this sort of thinking implies a failure of imagination and possibly a dangerous fatalism. Any universe in which organisms are capable of wondering about their origins will be one in which the conditions that enabled their particular form of existence had to one way and not another. But that doesn't show things were designed to be just that way. Can't we just be cosmically lucky? Isn't it obvious that life on earth could have evolved very differently, under different initial conditions? Or maybe this really is an "everything everywhere all at once" multiverse, which would indeed stretch the imagination.
But it will be fascinating to read On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking's final theory. Isn't it inspiring that someone whose experience was as constricted as Hawking's could still produce such an impressive body of work, and is still provoking deep reflection on the human condition! -jpo
A Brief History of Time is 'wrong', Stephen Hawking told collaborator
In 2002 Thomas Hertog received an email summoning him to the office of his mentor Stephen Hawking. The young researcher rushed to Hawking's room at Cambridge. "His eyes were radiant with excitement," Hertog recalls.
Typing on the computer-controlled voice system that allowed the cosmologist to communicate, Hawking announced: "I have changed my mind. My book, A Brief History of Time, is written from the wrong perspective."
Thus one of the biggest-selling scientific books in publishing history, with worldwide sales credited at more than 10m, was consigned to the waste bin by its own author. Hawking and Hertog then began working on a new way to encapsulate their latest thinking about the universe.
Next month, five years after Hawking's death, that book – On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking's final theory – will be published in the UK. Hertog will outline its origins and themes at a Cambridge festival lecture on 31 March.
"The problem for Hawking was his struggle to understand how the universe could have created conditions so perfectly hospitable to life," says Hertog, a cosmologist currently based at KU Leuven University in Belgium... Guardian
Typing on the computer-controlled voice system that allowed the cosmologist to communicate, Hawking announced: "I have changed my mind. My book, A Brief History of Time, is written from the wrong perspective."
Thus one of the biggest-selling scientific books in publishing history, with worldwide sales credited at more than 10m, was consigned to the waste bin by its own author. Hawking and Hertog then began working on a new way to encapsulate their latest thinking about the universe.
Next month, five years after Hawking's death, that book – On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking's final theory – will be published in the UK. Hertog will outline its origins and themes at a Cambridge festival lecture on 31 March.
"The problem for Hawking was his struggle to understand how the universe could have created conditions so perfectly hospitable to life," says Hertog, a cosmologist currently based at KU Leuven University in Belgium... Guardian
==
And then, consider Rebecca Goldstein's critique of Argument #5 (of 36)...
1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.
2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions: Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 & 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine-Tuner.
8. God exists.
Philosophers and physicists often speak of "The Anthropic Principle," which comes in several versions, labeled "weak," "strong" and "very strong." All three versions argue that any explanation of the universe must account for the fact that we humans ( or any complex organism that could observe its condition) exist in it. The Argument from Fine-Tuning corresponds to the Very Strong Anthropic Principle. Its upshot is that the upshot of the universe is . . . us. The universe must have been designed with us in mind.
FLAW 1: The first premise may be false. Many physicists and cosmologists, following Einstein, hope for a unified "theory of everything," which would deduce from as-yet-unknown physical laws that the physical constants of our universe had to be what they are. In that case, ours would be the only possible universe. (See also The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe,# 35, below).
FLAW 2: Even were we to accept the first premise, the transition from 4 to 5 is invalid. Perhaps we are living in a multiverse (a term coined by William James), a vast plurality (perhaps infinite) of parallel universes with different physical constants, all of them composing one reality. We find ourselves, unsurprisingly (since we are here doing the observing), in one of the rare universe that does support the appearance of stable matter and complex life, but nothing had to have been fine-tuned. Or perhaps we are living in an "oscillatory universe," a succession of universes with differing physical constants, each one collapsing into a point and then exploding with a new big bang into a new universe with different physical constants, one succeeding the other over an infinite time span. Again, we find ourselves, not surprisingly, in one of those time-slices in which the universe does have physical constants that support stable matter and complex life. These hypotheses, which are receiving much attention from contemporary cosmologists, are sufficient to invalidate the leap from 4 to 5. --36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction
No comments:
Post a Comment