Reviewing The Grand Design, I
Posted in Books, Cosmology, Philosophy, Physics, Science on | 4 minutes | 5 Comments →
So I picked up the new Hawking / Mlodinow book, The Grand Design. I have a feeling this book will generate much discussion on (a)theist blogs, so I want to be sure I’ve read the arguments in earnest. Thus, a new book series [no I haven’t given up on reviewing The Atheist Afterlife, either].
As far as the aesthetics go, well… it’s a nice book: hardcover, 6×9″ format, with black-and-white and full color illustrations interspersed throughout on quality, encyclopedia-feeling stock. I guess that’s why they charge $30.00 for it! Personally, I prefer the utility of a trade paperback; the last thing I want to do is muddy this thing up with highlights and notes. The book is only about 200 pages long, so I figured I’d devote a post to each chapter, and then follow those up with a cohesive review. In this first installment, we’ll discuss chapter 1, which serves as a short introduction.
Short as it may be, don’t let the brevity of the introduction fool you, for the authors make some bold – dare I say extraordinary – claims. Like many who’ve traversed the question of origins, the authors begin by proffering their iterations of life’s basic questions:
How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? [p.5]
Though they don’t tell us the answers quite yet, there sure do imply their opinion of who’s most qualified to answer:
Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. [p.5]
Really now? Well, I did not know that. Perhaps the authors are speaking rhetorically? Perhaps this foreshadowing is evidence of an impending sermon on scientism? Perhaps the authors are forgetting that philosophy is to science as a surfboard to a skateboard? I suppose we’ll see as the story unfolds. Maybe philosophy is dead. Either way, I must admit it confused me to hear “How does the universe behave?” as a question for philosophy, because the behavior of the natural world is the domain of science. Any ideas?
Chapter One – titled The Mystery of Being – alludes to the inherent limitations in any single theory or model and compares M-theory to the Mercator projection used for world maps: as one can’t show the whole of the Earth’s surface on a single map, no single theory offers an accurate representation of observation at all levels. Accordingly, M-theory is actually comprised of several overlapping theories, each applicable in a given range. The programming concept of variable scope comes immediately to mind: where one variable leaves off, another picks up. Some variables have global scope, others only local. The authors refer to M-theory as a candidate for a cohesive TOE [theory of everything], and insinuate that M-theory may offer answers to the question of creation:
According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science. [p.8-9]
I don’t know about you, but I think those are some pretty bold claims! I can’t wait to see the support. I must admit that my first reaction was to wonder what type of data they might be looking at, that might enable a claim that seems to have absolutely no respect for Ockham’s Razor. It would seem that all possible universes arising from nothing is maximally more complex than just one universe arising from nothing, but, we’ll see. They’re the experts, and that’s why I bought the book.
The authors close this chapter with,
To understand the universe at its deepest level, we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why.
Why is there something, rather than nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why this particular set of laws and not some other?This is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. We shall attempt to answer it in this book. Unlike the answer given in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, ours won’t be simply “42.” [p.10]
I always give writers bonus points for a good sense of humor, but all jokes aside, I wonder if why is an appropriate question for scientists. Isn’t science supposed to focus on the behavior of the natural universe? Do you think “why-type” questions are better left to philosophers or scientists? Why or why not?
chroma
says...I really doubt TGD (oops, now that acronym goes to two books..) will offer any original arguments. I don’t plan on buying it; maybe skim it at the bookstore. By the sound of it it sure seems anti-philosophy, which is disappointing, because certain metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological details should be taken into consideration on an intellectual endeavour of this magnitude, in addition to empirical items (even if philosophy’s major campaigns have historically been tsunami’d under sophistry, convolution, and anti-clarity). In any case,
You like programming analogies (for obvious reasons). What happens between the ranges? Whereas local and global procedures in computation are mutually exlusive save for data relayed between the two, a ‘range’ of the universe with physical laws must have those laws obeyed in all sub-regions, else they wouldn’t be physical laws for the whole region in the first place. General relativity describes macroscapic phenomena and quantum theory describes microscopic phenomena, but they aren’t compatible as they are. A finalized TOE must be scalable, i.e. applicable all at levels.
Hmm. In positing a many-worlds theory, should the presumptuousness be measured as one assumption per universe, or one assumption per explanatory principle, with each universe standing independently as corollaries?
Clearly you could use some reading up on complexity theory. Complexity is not a measure of how many parts a whole has. Rather, in most senses (there are many, many technical definitions which attend to more nuance in the issue) it is a measure of the difficulty in describing (or abstractly generating) a system. Writing a program to generate all possible strings with 100 characters is much easier than writing a program to generate a specific hundred-word essay, for illustration.
There’s more than one why-type question. A whats-the-explanation-for-this type question may fall under science’s jurisdiction, but a whats-the-intent type question isn’t easily assessable through the scientific method. Observation and contemplation are needed either way, though.
Meta: Still not planning to come out of the woodworks for a while, contrary to earlier statements, and I have a pseudonym now, but I couldn’t resist a quick comment here, just saying I still read. I had a hunch you’d jump on this book too.
P.S. Try mentioning creationist children in isolated third-world countries in that one thread on CSA. Surely they aren’t “epistemically irresponsible” or whatever the phrase was. OTOH, skin color isn’t needed to rob a place, while brainpower is needed to develop a belief, so your analogy there is overblown.
cl
says...chroma,
Thanks for stopping by. I thought of Dawkins’ book when I went to use that acronym, too :)
I like that line. I think it’s a great, “true for the most part” summary of philosophy. Thing is, as much as the authors seem to want to distance themselves from philosophy, only two chapters in, I can see the philosophical premises they appear to be smuggling. I’m hoping these premises will be justified via appeal to empirical evidence, but ultimately, I have a feeling the veracity of this book will vary from person to person according to their preconceived worldviews.
Yes, that’s how I’ve always understood a TOE, too, and this seems to be what the authors are aspiring towards. They believe that M-theory is the most successful candidate for a TOE yet, for precisely the reasons you allude to.
I think the latter makes more sense.
I would agree. To me, M-theory seems like “all possible strings with 100 characters” and “single universe” theories would refer to the “specific hundred-word essay.” Yet, in either case, don’t we need a programmer? Or is it plausible to proffer code that literally springs out of nowhere?
I agree. I’m getting the feeling there are many questions of the latter type in the book. We’ll see.
Ha! That’s funny, people are actually paying attention to that thread. I had already thought of mentioning children that were raised on faulty information that they accepted from trusted sources [i.e. parents], but at this point, I don’t really care. Those people aren’t going to ever admit to any bigotry whatsoever. They flipped the whole thing from, “Is this bigotry, why or why not?” to, “It’s not bigotry unless you can convince us Earth is under 10,000 years old.” So, I’ll just feed MichaelPJ examples of anomalous evidence and watch him [likely] dismiss each one.
Thanks for stopping by, whoever you are :)
Luke
says...I’m watching your review. I’ve never understood how stuff coming from quantum soup counts as coming from “nothing.” But that may just be because I’ve never read that literature.
jayman777
says...Science makes certain metaphysical assumptions and metaphysics is a philosophical discipline. In the quote you provided from pp. 8-9, the authors say that “M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing.” This is a metaphysical issue. Can something come out of nothing?
You might also want to look into the realism/anti-realism issue in the philosophy of science. Are scientific theories a description of how the universe actually works or are they useful fictions that allow us to predict future events and manipulate our surroundings? One need not be a realist or anti-realist in respect to every scientific theory. For example, you could say that science really explains how billiard balls interact in a game of pool while remaining skeptical as to whether a theory of everything reflects reality or is merely a useful equation. I take an eclectic route, judging each scientific theory on its own merits.
cl
says...Luke,
Well well. Glad to have you over here for a change.
Neither have I, but, that we can’t understand something is no good argument against it [not to imply that’s what you’ve implied, either]. It’s funny, because on p5 the authors declare that philosophy is dead, yet, it’s a philosophical interpretation of scientific evidence that “allows” them to make that assumption [that nothing constantly creates everything]. The way I see it so far, this is more than the claim “something came from nothing,” this is the claim that nothing is constantly creating everything. What allows them to proffer “nothing” if not the commitment to physicalism that science tends to cultivate in certain individuals? To say “nothing” in this instance is to assume that no non-physical things exist. It could very well be that science has actually confirmed the existence of Lazlo’s A-field, which is really just a scientific label attached to the concept of Akasha [Sanskrit] found in the Vedas.
See what good coffee does for writing? All that from a simple comment. Anyways, cheers.
Jayman,
I agree it’s a metaphysical issue, yet, I also see it as a legitimate scientific question at the same time. The question is, can nothing constantly create everything? Well, if we’re committed to naturalist / physicalist assumptions, then, of course we’re going to interpret QM as evidence that nothing constantly creates everything. The person committed to the idea that something non-physical underlies all that is physical might interpret QM along the lines of the example I gave to Luke above.
I believe referring to “that which populates the universe with quantum particles” as “nothing” is imprecise. The fact that we can ponder the concept of true nothing seems to prove it doesn’t exist.
Now that’s weird. Before you left that comment, I had just finished writing a post about exactly that. The authors cover these concepts in chapters 2 and 3, which led me to look deeper into the matter. I’m glad I did. The various descriptions of scientific anti-realism I found actually articulated my own thoughts rather well. I feel like I learned a bit more about myself from the philosophical angle. It was like, “Yeah, that’s why I question this or that other thing that hardcore scientific realists accept as inviolable truth.”
I hope you find the post useful. It will be up sometime next week.