In a new book Stephen Hawking has finally come off the fence and said that Science has no need for God in explaining the existence of the Universe. God Redundant, Angels Put On Short-Time. Hawking is correct, there is no need to appeal to God or any other supernatural force, but its also not true to say that Science has all the answers. In fact, some of the theories for the explanation of the existnce of the Universe - M Theory, and the idea of of a Multiverse - have no evidence to support them, and so to accept them would amount to just as much an act of Faith as that involved in a belief in God.
There is a problem, however, for science. If we base ourselves on the science that is backed by evidence then the best theory for explaining what we know and can back up with observation leads us to a conundrum. At the base of that conundrum is the Cosmological Constant. Basically, it amounts to this. The Mathematics that model the Universe contain a number of variables, such as that for Gravity. These variables can be within given ranges in order for the laws of Physics to work and produce the Universe we see around us. If any of these variables are outside those ranges then the model would produce a different Universe to that we observe. We can measure some of these variables, and confirm that they do in fact, fall within thse ranges. If the force of gravity, for instance, was stronger than it is, and outside this range, then the speed at which matter would have moved away after the Big Bang would have been lower, and this would also have effects on the formation of stars and Galaxies, and planets. For gravity this is not so much a problem, because the range is sufficiently wide that we can say that it is probable that it would fall within the given range.
With the Cosmological Constant, however, it is not so simple. Its possible range is so small that the probability of it actually falling within this range is so small that it points to the idea that the Universe had to be "designed", because it is simply beyond the realms of credibility that it would have occurred accidentally. It is this problem which prompted the idea that there must, in fact, be more than one Universe, that there are in fact, and infinite number of Universes, and, therefore, although in most of these Universes the laws of Physics would be different, galaxies, stars and planets let alone humans would not develop, in at least some of those Universes the necessary conditions would exist, and we live in one of those Universes. There are similar and related ideas concerning the fact, that at a Quantum level matter is indeterminate and can only be understood as a probability, and so is continually dividing into possible alternate realities.
The problem is that we have no proof of these alternate realities or Universes, and so the best scientific theory we have at the moment that can be proved suggests a designed Universe. But, of course, "designed" does not at all mean designed by God, less still by the kind of God that the religionists believe in. A team of computer programmers for instance designed the "Universe" in which the Sims live! Some time ago I read an article, which said that given the current rate of increase in computing power, in 100 years it would be possible to produce such a simulation of our entire Universe. It went on to say that the mathematical probability then of someone producing such a simulation, and all of us merely being part of it, was greater than that we actually existed in the way we beleive we do. There would be no reason why the Universe inhabited by such programmers would have to conform to the laws that our Universe has than that the laws in the Sims Universe comply with ours. But, again that is speculation not evidence based science.
What is annoying, though about the discussions on TV about Hawking's statement is that the theory of the origins of the Universe based in science are still placed on the same footing as the "Theory", based on no evidence for the existence of God, and worse the equivalence of the term God with the accepted understanding of God as the same being as that described in various Holy Books. It is quite clear apart from anything else that the kind of "personal" God described in those various books has no bearing whatsoever on the idea of "God" as simply being a term used to describe an unknown variable, or to describe a Universe whose laws arise by its own design, in other words a Universe that is in some sense a collective consciousness. Still less could any such definition of God be used to back up the nonsensical Creation stories of those various holy books.
The argument, put forward in these discussions to cling to the idea of God, that you have not disproved the existence of God is even more disingenous and annoying. If someone insists on beleiving that motor cars are made to move because some invisible green giant is standing behind each of them pushing along the road, the fact that sciene can prove that no such giant is needed to explain the cars movement, does not disprove its existence, and those that wished to continue to beleive in it could not then be dissuaded about it. Yet, most rational people would be happy to accept that the car was propelled by means of the chemical reactions of an internal combustion engine, and the mechanical operation of gears etc. As Bertrand Russell once put it, a teapot could be in orbit around the Sun, but it is too small for us to see with even our most powerful telescopes. We cannot prove it exists or does not exist. Yet, everything we know about reality would lead us to beleive that it does not even though we cannot prove it. The beleif in God is the same, but it is as though someone who was in an influential enough position were to convince enough people of the existence of the teapot, and that over the ages belief in its existence was assumed. In that case, it would be the disbeleivers who would be seen to be odd.
But, in reality it is the religionists who have more in common with those who beleive themselves to be teapots.
2 comments:
Yes, he says "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Fine, but then where does gravity come from? It just gets to be self existing without an explanation? :)
Actually, there is a difference between the existence of a law, and the existence of matter or energy. There is no reason why natural laws such as the law of gravity have to come from anywhere - they just are. The same is not true of gravity itself, which is a force, which arises due to the nature of matter.
However, we could ask would the laws themselves exist as separate from matter. In other words are the laws themselves only a reflection of the nature of matter and energy. As a Materialist I would have to argue the latter, which does then lead back to the original question.
This is why I tend to favour the infinite alternative realities concept. In materialist dialectics we are familiar with the idea that all of reality is based on contradiction, that the Aristotelian Syllogism does not hold, A is not equal to A. One of the easiest illustrations is that of the nature of a circle. Logically, every point of a circle is curved. Yet, draw a tangent to the circle, and at the point of tangency the angle of the tangent and of the circle are equal. In other words at this point the circle is not curved, but straight. A contradiction.
But, looked at from another perspective, and this fits with the ideas of Quantum theory, which deal with reality at these points of the infinitely small, we could say that at this point it is both straight and curved, or that there is an equal probability that it is either, which could only be determined by observation, or as QT puts it, observation itself determines reality. Shroediger's Cat. Put another way, in one reality it is straight, in another curved.
If we apply that to the Universe we could say that there is a 50-50 chance that it exists or does not. In one reality it does, in another it does not. But, in the reality where it does, this sets off a chain reaction of other infinite probabilities, each creating a new reality.
Another reason I am attracted to this idea is that I heard a Radio programme a while ago in which a Thermodynamicist was speaking to Melvyn Bragg, and said that it had been calculated that if you totalled all the matter and anti-matter, and energy and anti-energy in the Universe the result would be zero. In other words nothing had divided into two somethings.
Post a Comment