Well-known physicist Stephen Hawking just co-wrote a book called The Grand Design. In this pop-science best-seller, he and his pal make the argument that we need not call upon God to explain the origins of the universe, because the theory of multiple universes is satisfactory. I will now attempt to summarize and criticize/debunk this brilliant scientist's work, which I've never read.
You might be thinking, "Jon, you're pretty smart, but you're no Stephen Hawking." Agreed. Your next thought might amount to, "You haven't even read the book." Correct. But what I have done is pretty significant -- my friend scanned a couple chapters and summarized them for me, and I read the book's wikipedia page. I rest my case.
No, no, I'm not qualified to talk about cosmology or physics. But I have a brain, and it usually works, so I'm qualified to talk about my thoughts.
My first thought is that this argument is ooooold, but by leaking to the press that the book would denounce God and using the ethos of Hawking's name, Bantam Books and Hawking were able to recycle it and make tons of money.
Secondly, I'm thinking his argument doesn't give us any more explanatory power than a creation hypothesis. One classical argument for God's existence is as follows:
- Everything that has a beginning has a cause (or complex series of causes).
- The great host of physicists agrees there was a "Big Bang," an actual event that occurred a certain number of years ago, at which point matter and time first came into being. In other words, our universe had a beginning.
- Therefore, our universe had a cause outside of our universe -- something or someone that made matter and time emerge from nothing.
Hawking basically agrees with this argument, but says that "m-theory" (the latest version of string theory that identifies 11 dimensions in our universe) with an understanding that our universe is just one of many, provides a valid alternate hypothesis to the idea that God is the universe's cause. Hawking specifically states that the properties of gravity would make the spontaneous generation of our universe possible.
But what gravity does he mean? It can't be the gravity of our universe and its 11 dimensions. That property didn't exist until after the Big Bang, like all other physical properties in our universe. So Hawking must be referring to a "supernatural" (i.e. "outside of our nature or universe") gravity. This is a gravity in one of those other many universes that we've never seen, felt, or experimented on. Sounds pretty... unscientific.
My third thought is an attempt to understand the idea fully. We can study our gravity. We learn its properties and infer how a gravitational force might operate in a completely different universe. We make some prediction, and (this is the point in the book at which Hawking humorously says there is ample scientific evidence to support the theory) we find that yes siree, if the gravity of another universe were such-and-such a force, it could cause an entirely new universe to form.
Fourthly, I ask myself the many, many questions that stem from this line of reasoning:
- Why is it more reasonable/scientific to assume there is some other universe out there completely separate from ours that somehow -- via pure gravitation -- gave birth to ours (but remained completely separate from us), than to believe there is intelligence outside our universe that caused it to exist?
- What caused that universe to exist? Another universe with the same sort of gravity? What about that one? If we never trace back to an uncaused cause, we eventually have an infinitely old chain of infinitely many universes. But since all of these apparently have different sets of natural laws (and Hawking admits only a very few could conceivably support life, let alone intelligent life), what laws dictate which universes will have which properties? Wouldn't you need some over-arching "meta-laws" that are unchanging and eternal that determine this infinite chain of universe-spawning? And -- hammerstroke -- where do these meta-laws come from?
- How is any of this testable? Provable? It's nice that you predicted that a parent universe would have a certain gravity, and then coincidentally those properties theoretically would allow the generation of a new cosmos. But it sounds, to me, a lot like the natural theologian's exercise of predicting (from nature, human experience) what a Parent Deity would be like, and then coincidentally it's precisely that kind of Deity who would create a universe that supports intelligent life.
The fifth thing going through my mind is how many critics of The Grand Design -- including many who are in no way sympathetic to creation hypotheses -- have shared my first four thoughts (you can make the case that this is no surprise, since I already read their thoughts before writing this post. Touche.).
One Columbia physics professor said a few weeks ago, "I'm in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you're the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me."
The Economist -- deciding to review a pop physics book? -- slammed it as well, pointing out that "the authors’ interpretations and extrapolations of [m-theory] have not been subjected to any decisive tests, and it is not clear that they ever could be. Once upon a time it was the province of philosophy to propose ambitious and outlandish theories in advance of any concrete evidence for them. Perhaps science, as Professor Hawking and Mr. Mlodinow practice it in their airier moments, has indeed changed places with philosophy, though probably not quite in the way that they think."
Renowned scientific journalist John Horgan said that if we believe the book's claims that we've reached a trustworthy explanation of the universe's origins, "the joke's on us."
Sixthly (<-- nice), I'm realizing how tired I am. I really need to get some sleep. So I'll move on to thought seven:
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man. Maybe the most brilliant man in the world when it comes to physics and math. I'm sure I couldn't ever grasp the full breadth of most ideas in his book, and that what I've done above is almost certainly attacking a straw man. But I can't help but wonder about his motives -- or others', like Dawkins -- for coming out with a public attack on God's existence.
Of course there are the typical reasons you could imagine. They simply don't believe, and they want others to see the world the way they do. Sure. Maybe they see a lot of hypocrisy, or even evil, done in God's name, and since they don't even believe in Him, it seems like the world would be better if no one else did. Okay. Or the grandest of them all -- perhaps they are so convinced of atheism that, in the spirit of the world being educated and knowledgeable, it would only be right for the world to be enlightened and atheistic as well.
But why, then, are their attacks so full of anger and based on bad logic? Dawkins is almost unreadable to me because he is so full of condescension and underlying rage toward anyone who's a theist. Even Hawking is willing to imagine this multi-verse universe-popping scheme and then claim that it's supported by empirical evidence!
I guess I just suspect that in many cases, the crusade to refute God is not an educational or purely intellectual one, but a deeply personal and emotional one. Or possibly a greedy one (the book in question hit #1 on Amazon the day it was released).
I don't know how to best generate conversation about this, except that I would love to hear any and all thoughts regarding the book (if you've read it... or skimmed wikipedia), the existence of God, and the above arguments for and against God's existence.
Sometimes it's fun to visualize the future. Usually when we do this, I think, it's about our individual lives -- living in a certain city, doing a certain job, coaching a certain Little League team. Or we might imagine the future fruitfulness of some cause we support -- a citywide spiritual revival, universal healthcare, peace in the Middle East, etc.
In the spirit of these fun daydreams about worlds that might be, let's wonder what technology might be like in the future. I feel kind of stupid saying this, but I'm pretty sure the best place to look to catch glimpses of future technology is science fiction books and movies. As nerdy as sci-fi might be, I bet it forecasted many of our major advances in technology -- flying machines, space exploration, the internet, etc.
What's next? What will the next 10, 30, 50, 200 years see? Here are some of my thoughts:
Coming soon(ish)
Really good talk-to-text software. It seems like this should already be here. As someone who never really got the whole "typing" thing, I've been waiting for this to arrive and be cheap for years. I don't know how important this technology will be, but it would certainly be convenient for those of us who type awkwardly and like the sound of our own voice. Looking further ahead, I think this will be integrated into everything, so that we will be able to speak our emails, text messages, facebook statuses, school papers... you get the idea. Everything we now type.
I can't think of anything else right now for this category. Help me.
Things that will happen, but I've resigned to not seeing them in my lifetime
Hoverboards. My heart breaks when I watch Back to the Future Part 2 and have to live with the reality that hoverboards don't exist. It's one of those inventions that just seems like it should work. You can easily picture a board that cruises along quickly about 2-3 feet above the ground. The tricky part, of course, would be for the board to take you along with it instead of just leaving you on your butt. But with the technology in Segways that allows them to adjust to your shifts in weight without letting you fall, this seems like it could eventually happen. I don't actually necessarily think this will come after my lifetime, but I've had to brace myself for that possibility. Otherwise the crushed hopes of each new hoverless year might destroy me.
A bunch of technologies that respond to your thoughts. I think the day will come when we understand the human brain a lot more than we do now. It seems conceivable that we could find a way to "sync up" certain machines with our brain to allow for them to respond to thought commands. The possibilities with this seem endless.
Sci-fi Fail (things that will never happen)
Time machines. I love dreaming about time travel, and puzzling out the paradoxes that it would present. In other words, I'm the biggest nerd you've ever met. And yet, I'm pretty sure there are certain things we can dream up that will never happen. The biggest evidence for time travel's not happening is perhaps the fact that we're not constantly (or ever) bombarded by curious time-travelers from the future (or from the past?). But there are real scientists doing real research on the possibility of sending light back in time or something.
Teleportation devices. I don't think there will ever be a guy named Scottie beaming people up. The only "real" reason I can give for this is that I think teleportation (along with time travel) would require movement faster than the speed of light, and I'm accepting physicists' theories that this isn't possible for any kind of particle.
All right, what new inventions, gadgets, or showdowns with centuries-old foes are you waiting for?
Jon
Welcome back. The Gone Baby Gone debate ended in a 7-7 tie (though the vote is still open for a few more days, if you want to tip the scale). This wasn't surprising at all, given the scenario's almost eery ability to split any group down the middle.
[Note: "eery" looked a little weird, so I looked it up. It is an alternate spelling for "eerie", and I'm going to stick with it.]
And now, we move onto one of my favorite rants of all time [yes, I said "one of my favorite rants"; I apparently enjoy individual rants the way I do ice cream flavors]: the uneven distribution of teams in Major League Baseball's divisions. Wait!! If you're not a baseball fan, or even a sports fan, I implore you to keep reading! I can't think of a single reason why, but... come on, I'm imploring you. How often are you implored to do anything?
For those of you who don't know the MLB very well, there are six divisions -- three in the National League ("NL") and three in the American League ("AL"). Each League has a West, Central, and East division. And now, the moment we've all been waiting for. Here are the number of teams in each division:
AL East: 5
AL Central: 5
AL West: 4
NL East: 5
NL Central: 6
NL West: 5
If you're a fan of sports, nae, a fan of such things as decency, justice, and hope, you're probably looking at that and thinking, "WHAAAAAT?!?" I know. Four divisions with 5 teams each, one with 4, and one with 6 makes no sense. But it's worse than just not making sense -- it's super unfair.
Here's the bottom line -- making the playoffs is (theoretically) significantly easier or harder for you depending on which division you're in. For example:
What it takes to make the playoffs if you're in the...
- AL Central or AL East: win your division or win the AL wild card spot -- i.e. outperform 4 specific teams, or outperform 10-12 of the other 13 AL teams
- AL West: win your division or win the AL wild card spot -- i.e. outperform 3 specific teams, or outperform 10-12 of the other 13 AL teams
- NL West or NL East: win your division or win the NL wild card spot -- i.e. outperform 4 specific teams, or outperform 12-14 of the other 15 NL teams
- NL Central: win your division or win the NL wild card spot -- i.e. outperform 5 specific teams, or outperform 12-14 of the other 15 NL teams
Even the parts I didn't bold are bad, but I just had to draw attention to what I think is the biggest problem with this system -- how much lighter a task an AL West team has to make it to the postseason than an NL Central one. Also note the fact that the NL simply has more teams, making the Wild Card harder to attain.
Some arguments I've heard supporting this unfair system:
- The AL and NL are like different sports, so how dare we force a team to switch? It would be some sort of disgrace to the game.
- The NL Central is a bad division and the AL West is a good one, so it balances out the factor of number of teams.
- Interleague play (or specifically the way it's scheduled) relies on the NL having more teams than the AL, or the 2 uneven divisions, or a lunar eclipse, or something. -- Courtesy of my friend Jason, whom I've invited to explain in a comment below.
The first two arguments are bad (in fact, the second is horrible), and the third one I don't understand at all. But I'll address all three:
- No, they're not. Having a DH on your roster does not change the game nearly as much as all the raving National League purists claim it does. Plus, we already saw the Brewers make this leap in memorable history, and I don't remember hearing about any spontaneous combustion or anything. Now, we'd never ask a team to move to a stadium built over an ancient Native American burial site...
- This argument is ludicrous. It's like condoning a league with one division of 5 teams and one division of 27 teams and saying, "Well, those are 5 really good teams, so it balances out." No, it's an unfair way to run the league, regardless of where the "good teams" happen to fall.
- On the one hand, I invite Jason to please comment on this entry and explain the Interleague Play Theory. On the other hand, even if Jason presents the most crystal-clear, articulate argument that demonstrates why all of Interleague Play rests on the teams being distributed in their current fashion, I'd still say the system needs immediate revision. Interleague Play, for all its merry matchups and fall foreshadowing, should never be able to dictate something so big and unfair. Interleague Play is a trivial (if not stupid) part of the game, not a major one.
I'm not sure how to fix the problem. I mean, it seems like we should take one NL team and put it in the AL, and shuffle teams around until the divisions make sense geographically and each one has 5 teams. If this puts Interleague Play in grave peril, then revise IP or get rid of it altogether.
Thoughts? Ideas? Observations?
Bonus question: What year will the Pirates be above .500 again?
Jon
Welcome back, college football Saturdays. Now that my roommate and I have ditched cable, my watching is limited. I'll need to find important (read: WVU) games online, I guess. In the meantime, I have time to kick off our series of tangents by asking what I consider to be one of the toughest ethical questions raised in a major motion picture: the Gone Baby Gone dilemma.
I will give a little background that will lead into the question:
[WARNING: YOU ARE ENTERING SPOILER CITY]
There is a girl with a really bad mother. She's a single mom and is very negligent of the child. She lives a life of partying and debauchery, and if I remember correctly, she has drug problems. The girl has concerned and caring aunt and uncle; they try to help, but feel that as long as the girl lives with her mom, there's only so much they can do for her.
And so, a secret deal is struck between the uncle and the soon-to-retire chief of police. He [the policeman] kidnaps the girl, retires, and starts a new life in which he and his wife lovingly raise the child in a scenic cabin somewhere, focusing solely on providing her with safety, affection, a "normal, happy childhood", etc.
After a while, the girl is declared dead. But eventually a P.I., hired by the aunt or mom, discovers the cabin and sees the girl with her new "parents." The P.I.'s girlfriend happens to be with him when he makes the discovery, and a debate ensues (that will ultimately end their relationship).
Thus, our dilemma. Should the P.I. call the cops and report the kidnapping, or just go home and act like he never saw anything?
I could delve into the complexities of the issue, but I think you can do that yourself. So instead, I'll share one of the reasons I find the question so fascinating -- people's answers are very different, and I've found that, of the people I've asked, it's split about 50/50. It's always interesting to see how the opinions fall down gender lines, political lines, etc.
So I say we conduct a vote. I've added a poll below where you can vote. If you get a chance, comment what you'd do and explain why. If nothing else, though, PLEASE vote in the poll below.
I'll take part, too. Sometime in the next few days I'll write a comment and explain why I'm on the (rules-following, obey-all-authority) side I'm on.
Thanks for weighing in. Enjoy college football. Let's Go Mountaineers!
Jon
Welcome friends, family, strangers, enemies, frenemies. I'm glad you're here! To add to the brief description over to the right, I want this blog to be full of ideas. Mine, yours, scholars', I don't care whose they are, as long as they are interesting, fun, or funny and can generate some good thoughts and discussions.
I want this to be as interactive as possible. So please, please comment. Our first order of business is to figure out what we're going to talk about. What questions, mind-benders, events, mysteries, stories, and debates do you want to read about and discuss? Here are some of my ideas, to help you brainstorm and to forecast the first several weeks of blog entries:
Sports
- Why, O why, must the divisions of the MLB be unevenly sized?
- College basketball: Big East vs. ACC
- Just how bad is the Big East in football?
Theology and Faith
- God's timelessness and its crazy implications
- If there is a heaven and hell, what would be a "fair" system of judgment?
Mathematics and Philosophy
- Certain unproven assertions of math on which tons of other math depends
- The remarkable fact that "infinity", though it is incredibly important in math, doesn't seem to ever appear in nature
Miscellaneous Other Things
And so, please embark on this journey with me by doing these things:
- Comment on this entry with ideas of topics and ideas you'd like to see and discuss. Anything's fair game, though I might reject some (especially political things).
- Bookmark and/or "follow" this blog so you can be a regular reader/contributor.
If you don't have any ideas, comment anyway. It will encourage me, and I will blog with greater frequency and zeal.
Jon
