Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Is Stephen Hawkings argument against creation more valid in any of the other dimensions?

Pierre-Simon Laplace is reputed to have told Napoleon, after the emperor asked why he had not mentioned God in one of his scientific treatises, "I had no need of that hypothesis." Celebrity physicist Stephen Hawking is now being lauded by anti-religious scientists for saying basically the same thing. In a new article in the Wall Street Journal (excerpted from his book released today) Hawking says that it is possible to explain the beginning of the universe without God having created it.

But in order to do this there is a hypothesis Hawking does need: that there are multiple universes.

The argument in Hawking's article is far from lucid, and one assumes that the argument in his book is couched in clearer terms, but he seems to argue that if you assume certain cosmological theories, then we don't need God to explain how the universe got here, since these theories would account for it. We don't need God to explain the universe because we can explain it without God.

But exactly how is this to be done?

No one except physicists should do anything but fear to tread on matters as mathematically complicated as what Hawking only hints at in the Journal article. But he is offering his argument in public, in an organ of opinion directed at the intelligent non-scientific laymen, and therefore we should expect that he has an argument understandable to the public to make.

So let's try to make sense of this--and by the way, I'm perfectly open to correction on this, but it will have to come from someone who states the argument better than Hawking.

As best one can tell, Hawking seems to argue that if you assume there are multiple other universes than our own, then an explanation of how the universe got here without God is possible. And if there is a possible explanation of how the universe got here without God, then we need not bother about God.

What Hawking never explains is why the theory that there are multiple universes is any more rational an explanation than that God created the universe. Nor does he explain why one possibility necessarily excludes the other.

Let's grant him for the sake of argument that multiverse theory is a possible explanation. Why is it a better explanation than the God hypothesis, if the God hypothesis is also a possible explanation? Why choose the former over the latter? John Lennox makes somewhat the same point:

He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

In other circumstances we could invoke Occam's Razor, a popular scientific principle: that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." The principle is stated more simply as the idea that the simplest theory is the best one. But if you want to make the argument that multiverse theory is more simple than the God hypothesis, then you're going to have to explain why the God hypothesis is simple enough to be readily understandable to the general public, whereas multiverse theory is so complicated that only trained physicists seem to really understand it--and even that is somewhat questionable, since it would require an understanding of multiverse theory to verify whether anyone else does, in fact, properly understands it.

So the first problem with Hawking's conclusion--that God is not required to explain the universe--is that Hawking so far is having a hard time explaining himself. If Hawking is going to convince the rest of us that he can explain the universe, then he should at least be able to explain the theories he says explain the universe, and he hasn't sufficiently done that yet (at least not in the public pronouncements he has so far made. Maybe the book can accomplish this).

The second problem is that, as we have said, there are a lot of questions about whether multiverse theory is any less fantastic than the God theory. As another physicist, Paul Davies, points out:
The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping "meta-laws" that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained – eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.
The third problem is the status of multiverse theory as science. In fact, all of the things we are told science should do--be observable, testable, and have predictive power--are absent to a large degree from multiverse theory. In other words, there not only a questions at to whether this scientific theory can explain God away, but there is a debate about whether the theory is even scientific. Once all the purported advantages of science are no long possessed by a scientific theory, then why are we to prefer the scientific theory of the origin of things any better than the religious theory of the origin of things?

Writing before the Hawking comments made the news, Adam Frank, an astrophysicist and science journalist pointed out:

The core problem is that, as of this writing, there is no experimental evidence that hidden dimensions or alternate universe exist. Proponents will justifiably point to the rich theoretical insights that a field like String Theory has provided. They also rightly argue that Einstein's relativity seemed overly mathematical and abstract when it was first introduced and took time before people figured out how to test its veracity. These are valid points but it seems to me there is more at work here than simply technical abstraction. There is an unspoken metaphysics in the new theories that manifests itself as shift in the focus of science. That shift needs to be brought out in the open as part of the debate lest we end up in a very dead end. As Unger says "When we imagine our Universe to be just one out of a multitude of possible worlds we devalue this world, the one we see, the one we should be trying to explain."

I think I would have to agree. There might, indeed, be a multiverse and I like alternative universes as much as the next science fiction groupie. But I wonder how long we should wait before a field yields real, experimentally verifiable fruit. It may well be that String Theory's hidden dimension's are real. Still how much effort do we put into explorations based on the potentially unobservable while shifting away from the tradition of exploring only the actual? More importantly what do we make of the ontological status of theories that need what might be permanently hidden to explain what is always visible?

What happened to all the pro-science putties who jump your case about your religious beliefs because they are not falsifiable? Stephen Hawking has to merely hiccup, and they all go scurrying away.

In fact, the whole way in which these kinds of theories are used brings up important questions. If you read around a bit on this, what you find is that you have scientists concocting an explanation of something, and simply concocting however many other logically prior assumptions it takes to make that explanation plausible. For example, Frank points out that one of the theories employed to explain quantum gravity was string theory. But, it turns only, string theory cannot do this in a world of only three dimensions. But it could be explained with an additional seven dimensions--ten in all. Do we therefore automatically accept that there are ten dimensions? What if string theory is just wrong? Then what happens to the dimensions that string theory required to explain quantum gravity? And at what point do the required assumptions become so preposterous that scientists simply decide to abandon string theory and wait for another explanation to come along?

Or maybe just accept--at least on a tentative basis--the Oldest Theory about how the universe got here?

Physics comes to its conclusion largely through mathematical abstraction, and it may be for reasons like above that Einstein said in 1921, "Insofar as the propositions of mathematics give an account of reality they are not certain; and insofar as they are certain they do not describe reality."

It isn't as if no one has tried to explain Hawking's thesis. Sean Carroll has taken a stab at it. "You don't need to go outside the universe to explain the universe," He says:
You could imagine an understanding of the universe--why it came into existence--without ever leaving the laws of nature--without ever invoking some divine, some supernatural being. The universe could just obey its own laws. It could be a natural, physical, real universe, obeying the laws of physics, and that can be a complete explanation of everything.
Well, the first and perhaps most obvious point is that just because you can imagine something does not make it true. You would think that would go without saying in a scientific discussion, but such is the allure of atheism.

Furthermore, if you invoke natural laws to explain the universe and then, based on your assumptions about those laws, start doing your atheist end zone dance celebrating your victory in explaining the universe, exactly how long does it take for you to realize that those laws themselves require an explanation?

The point apparently never occurred to Carroll. In fact, he goes further than Hawking seems himself to go: "The question 'Why is there something rather than nothing," he says, "has been answered."

It has? How exactly do you answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing by simply pointing to the something? C. S. Lewis once asked how someone, simply on the basis of studying nature, can say anything about what is beyond nature.

In fact, we seem to have here the perennial problem here of scientists making forays into philosophy without any actual expertise. The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is simply not a scientific question.

It's a bad mistake to make, since science and philosophy are two entirely different universes.

21 comments:

Singring said...

Martin, you really take the prize with this one.

First off, let's start with the most astonishing lapse of cinsistency of argument:

'Hawking says that it is possible to explain the beginning of the universe without God having created it.'

POSSIBLE. That's the word. Yet the rest of your post you lambast Hawking for claiming that the multiverse theory is MORE probable than God - I quote:

'What Hawking never explains is why the theory that there are multiple universes is any more rational an explanation than that God created the universe.'

or

'Why is it a better explanation than the God hypothesis'

All he is saying - as you stated earlier - that there is a POSSIBLE naturalistic explanation for the universe. no more, no less. So please don't attack straw men.

'Paul Davies,'

Of course. Paul Davies always gets quoted as the token theist cosmologist. This is the same Paul Davies who stated flatly that particles arrise without cause.

'What you find is that you have scientists concocting an explanation of something'

Excuse me?! What exactly is it about creating complex mathematicl models that make testable predictions that you call 'concocting'?

'Do we therefore automatically accept that there are ten dimensions?'

OF COURSE NOT! This is precisely why string theory is in crisis today: It fits reality beautifully, but it makes no predictions we can currently test for (maybe modern particle accelerators will be able to do so). That's why physicist today do not assume string theory is true, accurate or anything else. It is pending verification by experimentation. Had you spent two minutes researching the issue you would know this!

'Or maybe just accept--at least on a tentative basis--the Oldest Theory about how the universe got here?'

LOL...

Yeah! let's forget about all that sciency nonsense that gave us electricity, modern engineering, computers and spaceflight stuff. Let's just dump all that rubbish and go back to the middle ages! Yay!

How utterly fascinating that you faulted me for supposedly dismissing an argument purely because it is old, yet here you are advancing an argument purely because it is old. Hilarious.

Singring said...

'Physics comes to its conclusion largely through mathematical abstraction'

False. Mathematical abstraction AND testing of prediction made by them. The second part is crucial and is precisely why cosmology is in so much turmoil - we simply don't have the means yet to test for some of its most cuttting edge ideas. Which is why they are taken as tentative.

'Sean Carroll'

Who made me laugh with his complete misrepresentation of currentphysics. It is not about IMAGINING a possible explanation, it is about constructing a consistent, coherent, self-conatined model of the universe that operates perfectly without assuming God and is verifyable by experimental evidence. If we can do that, God is completely superfluous. And that's ALL modern science claims to be able to do.

'those laws themselves require an explanation?'

Why?

'he perennial problem here of scientists making forays into philosophy without any actual expertis'

LOLOLOL!!!

I nearly choked on my milk reading that doozy. You spend paragraph after paragraph lecturing cosmologists of Hawking's stature about why theor science is lacking and then accuse scientists of lacking expertise in philosophy. Priceless.

'The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is simply not a scientific question.'

I agree. It's a stupid question. in fact its the most stupid question I can imagine.

There is a very simple way of shwoing why asking this questions is so pointless as to be comical - answer me this, Martin:

Why should there NOT be something rather than nothing?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Could you please tell me the title of Hawking's article in the Wall Street Journal (I realize he didn't write the headline, but please tell me what it says)?

Joe_Agnost said...

Martin asks: "Could you please tell me the title of Hawking's article in the Wall Street Journal (I realize he didn't write the headline, but please tell me what it says)?"

Since you've already pointed out that Hawking didn't write the headline - what are you trying to show by citing the headline?

If you have a problem with the headline then you should take it up with the WSJ... they're the ones who are trying to sell the most papers (hense the headline). Didn't you hear? Shock sells, and most Americans would be ~shocked~ to read that god didn't create the universe! I bet the headline got a lot of mileage out of this story!

Singring said...

'Why God Did Not Create the Universe'

You're right - he didn't write the title, because it makes a claim he does not make in his article.

Now YOU tell me where in the article Hawking says that God is more or less probable than his explanation?

In fact, he is very clear in what he is intending to say:

'As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.'

There you have it - modern cosmology gives us a nice explanation for our universe - no God required.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

And could you please tell me what Sean Carroll said in his explanation of what Hawking said concerning the question "Why there is something rather than nothing?"

Singring said...

I already adressed Carroll's nonense in my first post which you apparently had no interest in actually - you know - reading. The same problem you seem to have with books on modern science.

To say that Hawking is 'imagining' an explanation and that therefore it must be true is so epically stupid it beggars belief. As I clearly stated, physics is about making TESTABLE hypotheses. Hawkings is arguing that IF we can come up with a coherent, consistent model of the cosmos that explains the origin of our universe AND can be verified by testing the predictions it makes (which he argues is already the case, though some physicists might disagree), THEN we don;t need God.

It' a simple as that.

You can still believe in God.

But the first cause argument, the fine tuning argument, the design argument - they all go out the window (of course they already have long ago, but this time even the most bone-headed apologist should get the memo).

Now Martin, I made several criticisms of your post which you failed to adress - i take it you accept them then?

And what about my question?

Why should there NOT be something rather than nothing?

Singring said...

Haha...

You know what's funny? I gave you more credit than you deserve!

I was attributing what YOU said in response to Carrol to Carrol himself (the formatting in the comment window does not indicate where a quote ends, sorry about that). So in fact Carrol is making a good point (and he is NOT claiming that God is now disproved or any such nonsense - he is reiterating Hawking's point). See how he uses the 'COULD' word over and over? He's not making any claims to certainty or even probability.

But that means that the response you amde was the stupid part. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your misrepresentation of his and cosmologie's position is just that.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I see now that you did address Carroll in your first post. I'm sorry, I quickly responded on your first point intending to get to the rest later. I can only take so much Singring before my coffee in the morning.

I will be answering most of your points tonight, but one of the things I would like to know is this: Carroll (as much as I disagree with him) is himself a working physicist. As understand it, you are not.

Why should I believe you rather than him?

Singring said...

'I can only take so much Singring before my coffee in the morning.'

LOL. I sympathize.

'Carroll (as much as I disagree with him) is himself a working physicist. As understand it, you are not.

Why should I believe you rather than him?'

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, cause by me wrongly assigning your response to Carrol to carrol himself (as I explained in my post just previous to this one). I have watched Carrol's video statement and agree with it 100%. He clearlys tates that God has not been disproved and makes no claims as to the probability of scientific explanation over God, but he does reiterate Hakings point: If we have a self-contained, coherent and tstable model of the cosmos that explains the origin of the universe and itself then God is not needed. At all. As I have said, not all physicists will agree with Hawking that this model has been arrived at yet.

What I was objecting to was your false claim that Carrol's position was 'I can imagine a self-caused cosmos/universe, therefore that's teh way it is'. That is not his position at all. The model he is talking about makes testable predictions and can thus be verified. It is as much 'imagination' as the Theory of Gravity (in principle, the evidentiary base for the latter is much stronger at the moment of course).

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

1. You argue that I overstate Hawking's case because I say that he prefers the naturalistic argument to the religious one. That is clear from the first several paragraphs where he compares the God hypothesis to ancient mythology, and science to the philosophers who brought enlightenment.

To say that Hawking is merely offering multiverse theory as another equally possible theory to creation is simply ignoring his clear implication in the piece.

If it makes you feel better, cherish it.

2. The answer to the question about scientists concocting explanations of things and what it has to do with mathematical models that make testable predictions is that they come up with mathematical models that don't make testable predictions.

In fact, I used string theory as an example of this, and then you go and give me a lecture on the testability of string theory.

Multiverse theory and superstring theory are not only not testable, there is a question of whether they're even conceivably verifiable, which gets into the question I brought up about whether they are science at all according to the criteria critics of religion have themselves employed.

But you just brushed by that point altogether.

3. Your ad hominem attack on Davies is not convincing. But maybe you could expand on what the problem is with Davies saying that particles seem to arise without cause, since you have admitted that yourself in a post on a previous comment.

4. In regard to physicists coming to conclusions based on mathematical abstraction, you say it is false based on the fact that predictions are used to test theories. Um, maybe you could tell us what exactly it is in a scientific argument that is tested and verified if it is not the conclusion. In fact, the conclusion is the prediction in a scientific argument. Just because it hasn't been verified doesn't mean it isn't a conclusion.

I'm sorry, but I am always amused to receive lectures on quantum theory from someone who claims to be as scientist but a) didn't know that physicists view atomic particles as mathematic models until I pointed it out and b) who claims that quantum theory supports squirrels "popping into existence" when such popping into existence, at least under quantum theory, only happens at the particle level.

Singring said...

Thanks for the response Martin.

I noted with interest that despite being asked twice you did not even atgempt to answer the very basic question of why you think there should NOT have been something rather than nothing. But of course I expected that because it would reveal the 'why is there something instead of nothing' question for the philosophical parlour trick that it is.

On to your points:

'1. You argue that I overstate Hawking's case because I say that he prefers the naturalistic argument to the religious one. '

Fale. Yet again you completely misrepresent what I actually said. You attack Hawking for arguing that a naturalistsic explanation is more probable than a 'God' one. You failed to provide one quote from the article where he does that, despite being asked to do so, which goes to prove my point. What he personally thinks on the matter is another question altogether.

'In fact, I used string theory as an example of this,'

Yes, you did. You used it as an example of scientists coming up with crazy ideas ad libitum without a scrap of evidence and then ask these questions:

'Do we therefore automatically accept that there are ten dimensions? What if string theory is just wrong? '

thereby clearly implying that scientists are simply accepting string theory hook line and sinker, when that is clearly not the truth as you now admit you know yourself! Don't attack science for doing things you know they are not doing. I would have thought that would be a fair approach to the issue - you don;t seem to think so. Your interest seems to be to take cheap shots at science.

'there is a question of whether they're even conceivably verifiable, which gets into the question I brought up about whether they are science at all'

Exactly. But who is questioning whether string theory is science at all? SCIENTISTS! So stop with th spiel that scientists are just making stuff up and accepting crazy theories as long as they please their atheistic minds.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I just don't know how to respond to your assertion that Hawking is not arguing for the naturalistic cause of the universe over the theistic one except to say that everyone else seems to understand that that's what he is saying, including Hawking himself who said, in the book from which the article was excerpted, "In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously."

This is the naturalistic explanation he offers which excludes the creation theory. I don't know why you're having so much trouble with this. It's why he wrote book from which the article comes and is clearly implied in the article.

Martin Cothran said...

I did not say I had an answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I said that that was the question Hawking claims to have addressed.

And I don't know why anyone would even ask why there is not something rather than nothing, since there is something, and there is not nothing. There are no answers to meaningless questions.

Singring said...

'This is the naturalistic explanation he offers which excludes the creation theory. I don't know why you're having so much trouble with this. It's why he wrote book from which the article comes and is clearly implied in the article.'

I'm not having trouble with it. I'm having trouble with you alledging that Hawking and scientists in general are somehow claiming that somehow - just because we have a working expolanation for the universe without God - this means God cannot exist or that this tells us anything about precise probabilities for God's existence. The main reason is that the word 'God' can mean represent number of concepts. If we are talking about 'God' as the Christian God - then we cna start saying that what we scientifically know about the universe makes his existence extremely unlikely - I would argue that the Christian God cannot exist if the definition we are using is the most commonly used one (i.e. omnisicient, perfect, timeless, spaceless, personal etc.).

But as longa s we are just talking about 'God' there is no real way of saying whether or not Hawkings ideas disprove him or her or it or not or what probabilities would be attached to either side.

Yes - Hawkings personally thinks there is no God - but in the article you are critiquing, he is very clearly simply putting forward a Godless explanation of the universe. Nothing is said about certainties or porbabilities.

This is the distinction I would hope you would make when talking about the atheistic position or the position of science and scientists in general. I know you know better because you are an educated and well-read man. Which is why I get doubly frustrated when you make these horrible distortions again...and again...and again. I have no problem with fair criticism of science or atheism. What i do have a problem with is polemic mispresentation and shadowboxing.

Anyway - to end on a high note:

'And I don't know why anyone would even ask why there is not something rather than nothing, since there is something, and there is not nothing. There are no answers to meaningless questions.'

Martin, hold on to your coffee mug: We are 100% in agreement on this. This may be a first.

Martin Cothran said...

I think you misread that last remark. I was saying that the question, "Why is there not something rather than nothing," which is what you said, is a meaningless question. That is different from the question "Why IS there something rather than nothing," which is not a meaningless question.

Singring said...

'I think you misread that last remark. I was saying that the question, "Why is there not something rather than nothing," which is what you said, is a meaningless question. That is different from the question "Why IS there something rather than nothing," which is not a meaningless question.'

Oh. In that case I did indeed misread the intention of your response. I thought you had actually comprehended the question and the point I was trying to make. This was apparently not so. And thus the high note turns into a low grumble.

Let me explain my point again:

There obviously is 'something'. We agree on that. However, to ask the most stupid of all questions ('Why is therre something rather than nothing'), one has to first assume that there is the possibility of there being 'nothing'.

So, Martin - how do you know that in fact it is even possible for there to be 'nothing'? How do you know there is an alternative state of 'being' or of 'existence' that is the opposite of 'something' or the absence of 'something'?

I'd be intersted to find out if and how you know that.

In other words:

'Why should there NOT be something rather than nothing.'

Why is the above a silly question, yet the question of 'why is there something rather than nothing' is a valid one? I hope that now you understand the point I'm making.

Singring said...

I note with interest that you omitted/changed the words 'should there' from my original question, then pretended to have answered that question when in fact you asnwered a different one (i.e. why is there nothing rather than something)..

Please don't do that.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Okay Singring, I'll go along with you here. Let's see what we can make of it.

Either there is something and there cannot be nothing, or there is something and there can also be nothing. In the first case, anything that exists would exist necessarily; in the second case, anything that exists exists contingently--necessary beings being beings that could not not exist and contingent beings being beings that could not exist.

I, of course, think that the world is contingent: it could not exist (i.e. nothing is a possibility). Are you saying you disagree with this?

If you do, of course, then you are saying that the world is necessary.

Is that what you believe?

I cannot accept that the world (

Singring said...

'I, of course, think that the world is contingent: it could not exist (i.e. nothing is a possibility). Are you saying you disagree with this? '

I'm saying that I don;t know. And neither do you. It's wild, complete, utter speculation.According to current cosmology (and since you're commenting about Hawking at a frantic pace these days I'm sure you've read up on it), there is in fact no such thing as 'nothing'. There is quantum fluctuation. That's teh most fundamental state we have discovered so far and - according to Hawking - that is sufficient to explain the universe.

So not only is there no indication of there being a possibility of there being 'nothing', not only is there no way of even guessing at the probability that there could be a 'nothing' - the current model of what tehre is works without a 'nothing'!

So all the evidence we know of suggests that the question 'Why is there something instead of nothing' is completely pointless (at this stage). It's a philosophers parlour trick.

It's like me asking 'Why are unicorns pink insatead of yellow?'. Until I can provide you some reasonable evidence or rational argument why we should think there are unicorns, it is pointless to ponder their qualities. You would rightfully dismiss the question as pointless.

Likewise, until you have given some good reasons that there could be a 'nothing' rather than a 'something', asking the question of why there is something rather than nothing is utterly pointless.

So, Martin, I expect you have some good arguments as to the possibile existence and likelihood of there being a 'nothing'.

I'd like to hear them.

The rest of your message is truncated truncated so I can't respond.

Singring said...

Well, much as I expected from my previous experience with you and Thomas, the moment any direct questions are about to be adressed or answered you simply leave the discussion. You don't have any coherent argument to support your claims of a contingent universe, so you go silent.

QED.