Hawking Leads by Faith ?

[CraigS]

I’ve been puzzling over this review of the Stephen Hawking/Leonard Mlodinow book: “Grand Design”, by fellow physics author John W Moffat. (He’s a member of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto).

Moffat makes some good points in his review, and I find myself agreeing with him on many issues. For example he says:

It is important to the argument of the book – which leads eventually to more exotic models such as M-theory and the multiverse – that readers accept the premise of model-dependent realism. However, the history of science shows that the premise of one model being as good and useful as another is not always correct. Paradigms shift because a new model not only fits the current observational data as well as (or better than) an older model, but also makes predictions that fit new data that cannot be explained by the older model. Hawking and Mlodinow's assertion that "there is no picture, or theory-independent concept of reality", thus flies in the face of one of the basic tenets of the scientific method.

In this, he’s pointing out a logical flaw in the line of argument of the book, but the point underlined, is a great one. One of the biggest problems I think mainstream science is wrestling with, is just this issue. The mass-media does shape our reality, by citing scientific theory as real, but we don’t necessarily have to make it our reality. (It certainly isn’t mine). Its not science that does this ... its people’s interpretation, and the media’s presentation of it. Ie: science is ‘believed’, becomes ‘true’, 'faith' develops and then morphs into just another ‘religion’.

Have Hawking and Mlodinow fallen for this as well ?
(This is the aspect, and question, I pose in the title of this thread .. )

Moffat concludes ..

Near the end of the book, the authors claim that for a theory of quantum gravity to predict finite quantities, it must possess supersymmetry between the forces and matter.
They go on to say that since M-theory is the most general supersymmetric theory of gravity, it is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe. Since there is no other consistent model, then we must be part of the universe described by M-theory.
Early in the book, the authors state that an acceptable model of nature must agree with experimental data and make predictions that can be tested. However, none of the claims about their "grand design" – or M-theory or the multiverse – fulfills these demands. This makes the final claim of the book – "If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back 3000 years" – mere hyperbole. With The Grand Design, Hawking has again, as in his inaugural Lucasian Professor speech, made excessive claims for the future of physics, which as before remain to be substantiated.

Pretty critical analysis, but perfectly valid, I feel.

So, like it or not, because there is no other consistent model, we must be part of the universe described by M-Theory. A leap of faith ?

I wonder ..

The only M-Theory test I’ve ever seen hinted at, was described here.

And present-day tests for String Theory, (which would also be of significance in M-Theory), amount to entanglement and black hole mathematical commonality, thus enabling a string theory test to evolve and ..
the results of tests of ultra-chilled sticky gas may allow experimental tests of String theory in the future.

An interesting review (and thought provoking book).

Comments welcome.

Cheers

[joe_smith]

thus flies in the face of one of the basic tenets of the scientific method.

maybe the "basic tenets of the scientific method" need to be updated as new theory's and scientific models are updated or new ones found

Its not science that does this ... its people’s interpretation, and the media’s presentation of it Ie: science is ‘believed’, becomes ‘true’, 'faith' develops and then morphs into just another ‘religion’.

Yes the old elephant in the room of science raises it head again "human consciousness" lol

"There is no such thing as objective science. We cannot separate the observer and the means of observation from that which is observed because Consciousness is embedded in the process"

Have Hawking and Mlodinow fallen for this as well ?

I don't think so, if you want to make new discovery and solve problems you have to think on the wild side. You don't solve problems by going around in a circle you have to think outside of it.

So, like it or not, because there is no other consistent model, we must be part of the universe described by M-Theory. A leap of faith ?

sometimes "faith" is all we have to go by

the authors state that an acceptable model of nature must agree with experimental data and make predictions that can be tested

how do you test the untestable?? if its untestable dose that mean its not true by the scientific method?? because if it is true but untestable then the scientific method to test all things in the universe maybe wrong.

An interesting review (and thought provoking book)

I have it but haven't read it yet - so many books so little time

[bojan]

how do you test the untestable?? if its untestable dose that mean its not true by the scientific method?? because if it is true but untestable then the scientific method to test all things in the universe maybe wrong.

Well, simply you don't.
Untestable things are also not observable (if they are observable, this is actually the first test, c'nest pas?) so they don't exist... and you can't test them, natrally.

If something is observable, then it is testable... ergo, they exist.


We had that discussion before.

[snas (Stuart)]

I've read the book, an interesting read but who am I to argue with Stephen Hawking?

Stuart

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

I don't think so, if you want to make new discovery and solve problems you have to think on the wild side. You don't solve problems by going around in a circle you have to think outside of it.

Refreshing, because this arm of science has become something of a broken record. The same old hyperbole - conjecture, rather than inquiry.

Extrapolating hugely, the authors then apply Feynman's formulation of quantum mechanics to the whole universe: they announce that the universe does not have a single history, but every possible history, each one with its own probability.

Post modernism...

It seems that the authors indulge themselves philosophically - indeed philosophy is not dead! Except where it is likely to compete...

I'm not permitted to comment further on this forum, but the contradiction is obvious and astounding. It seems that they are no closer to reality and have proposed further speculation. I guess we'll be reading about that for the next 20 years.

Is it not obvious that Hawking has an emotional interest in his claims, and that realistically, his endurance is not empowered by empirical inquiry, though he may wish to have the reader think that.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

maybe the "basic tenets of the scientific method" need to be updated as new theory's and scientific models are updated or new ones found

Got any rational ideas about what should be done there Joe ?

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Yes the old elephant in the room of science raises it head again "human consciousness" lol

"There is no such thing as objective science. We cannot separate the observer and the means of observation from that which is observed because Consciousness is embedded in the process"

Yes well … how else do we make sense of what we see through our own minds/brains ? Make a proposal, Joe. I'm ready for it …

Originally Posted by joe_smith

I don't think so, if you want to make new discovery and solve problems you have to think on the wild side. You don't solve problems by going around in a circle you have to think outside of it.

Sounds like a rational approach …. (I wonder where that came from ?).
(Just kidding around .. )

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by rcheshire

Refreshing, because this arm of science has become something of a broken record. The same old hyperbole - conjecture, rather than inquiry.

But String and M-Theory, for example, now have tests devised !

Originally Posted by rcheshire

It seems that the authors indulge themselves philosophically - indeed philosophy is not dead! Except where it is likely to compete…

I think earlier on in the book, Hawking et al have made the point that philosophers have dropped the ball and have not kept up. So its up to the Scientists to further philosophy.

Originally Posted by rcheshire

I'm not permitted to comment further on this forum

Huh ???
Surely not the forum ?? Do you mean the topic ?

Originally Posted by rcheshire

, but the contradiction is obvious and astounding. It seems that they are no closer to reality and have proposed further speculation. I guess we'll be reading about that for the next 20 years.

Hawking's position, from which he is now retired, ie: Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, requires him to promote discussions of this nature. I see him as just doing his job (even though its not really his job anymore. )

Originally Posted by rcheshire

Is it not obvious that Hawking has an emotional interest in his claims, and that realistically, his endurance is not empowered by empirical inquiry, though he may wish to have the reader think that.

Glad you're not being led by faith there Rowland !
Cheers

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

Thank you Craig for clarifying those points. I do mean this thread - it is however a forum of discussion

I will however, take the authors to task on this matter alone.

I think earlier on in the book, Hawking et al have made the point that philosophers have dropped the ball and have not kept up. So its up to the Scientists to further philosophy.

Fallacious, unless qualified. Kept up with what? The supposition is, on one hand, philosophy is not in agreement, then it must be in error. On the other, the authors personal bias renders the same intent - can't have it both ways

I'm sure that Plato's Socrates (Republic) would see through the deception

Answering my own question - the authors must mean, that philosophy is not able to answer scientific questions, the facts thereof guide further philosophical speculation - but I hesitate to ask which arm of philosophy does Hawking et al. propose we abandon? Because philosophy deals with all of mans existence, whether we can agree or not.

It's an arrogant view, exceeding the intellect

[CraigS]

Interesting points, Rowland.

I get where you're coming from.

Are Hawking's/Mlodinow's accusations about philosophy provocative ?
Yep … one way good way to promote discussion (which is/was Hawking's job description). Let's face it, Hawking has also spent a lot of time talking about the no-need for the existence of God, as well. This is also part of the same provocative style. He also makes provocative scientific bets everywhere, (and has always done this). I think this indicates his style, in performing the leadership component of the Lucasian Chair job.

Arrogant ?
I don't necessarily agree. More like a 'crafty' or 'sneaky' way of being heard (in my view). Hawking's image is certainly not that of a Saint, nor is it one of humbleness, nor one of benevolence. But he is clearly passionate about his work.

Its really easy to say someone is 'arrogant' when they're talkin' Science. (I think I've experienced some of this recently .. and I hope I've learned something from the experience, too. )
But its extremely easy to be misunderstood when coming from a scientific principle, or theory, or even a mathematical theorem basis, amongst a widespread audience having a high variance of subject-matter knowledge.

The judgement of another's character (eg: 'arrogant'), I've found, is a sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious game humans play on other humans … for (often) concealed reasons, (sometimes a smoke-screen, even).

Cheers
PS: Good chatting with you ! Cheers.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

You make a good point Craig... I am addressing the behaviour not the individual - though that may reflect upon the character. It wasn't my intention to personalize the issue, rather point out that the position is singular - may be that's a better word to use

Likewise, nice chat.

[joe_smith]

Got any rational ideas about what should be done there Joe ?

Not yet but if you give me a couple of million $$$ and a lab I might come up with something lol

Make a proposal, Joe. I'm ready for it

Hmmm Human nature?? we cant predict what people will do, meaning its untesable as what they will do. But we exist so we are proven. We can guess what we will do, but not know by the scientic method what we will do. so by my logic going by the quote below we shouldn't exist

Untestable things are also not observable (if they are observable, this is actually the first test, c'nest pas?) so they don't exist... and you can't test them, naturally.

how dose the above answer, about Human nature, fit this statement ? is it still true or is it false

[bojan]

how dose the above answer, about Human nature, fit this statement ? is it still true or is it false

Human nature is irrelevant in science.
At the end of the day, Universe is as is not because of human nature but because the things are how they are. Moon doesn't orbit the Earth because of human nature, it does it because of gravitation.
Human nature may only affect the timing of discovery/realisation.. but not the facts themselves.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Not yet but if you give me a couple of million $$$ and a lab I might come up with something lol

I'll take a punt and guess that the couple of million $$$ will make no difference to the outcome.
Also, my point was that if you use 'rationality' as the basis, you'd be following a scientific process, and you'd invariably end up at the same point we're at in science, right now.
And thus, alas, I would've wasted my million $$$ … and the lab!

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Hmmm Human nature?? we cant predict what people will do, meaning its untesable as what they will do. But we exist so we are proven. We can guess what we will do, but not know by the scientic method what we will do. so by my logic going by the quote below we shouldn't exist .

Which says that the quote in your footer is either invalid .. or taken out of context, which I feel, may actually be the case here. (Is this the quote you're referring to ?)
In terms of practicality and usefulness, an observation can be objective. The interpretation of the observation requires theory, and may not be objective .. but so what ?
There is no absolute truth … and therefore … seeking absolute objectivity, in my view is a good waste of time !

Cheers (& I'm enjoying chatting with you ).

[avandonk]

We cannot know anything absolutely. We can only formulate a 'best model' that fits the current data.

I would rather live in an indeterminate Universe that leads to vast complexity out of simplicity than a boring determinate one.

Imagine if all humans fell out of the same die ie identical.

This has a bit of relevance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY


Apparently Hume in real life liked a drink or many. At least I have something in common with him.

Bert

[CraigS]

Thanks for that, Bruce !
hiccup … hiccup ..

Cheers

[avandonk]

That's alright Bruce.

It could be that Hawking is being provocative to induce some original thinking and argument.

My father, teachers, lecturers and superiors in my scientific work always encouraged questioning the orthodoxy of anything. Even if you are wrong at the very least you might get a coherent explanation from someone who purports to know. If not why not!? Sitting around being nice and agreeing with each other does not get you very far.

There should never be any embarrassment at not knowing something. There is an infinite amount of information that I do not know. Even when at my old age I could potentially possess an infinite amount of knowledge, there is still an infinite amount unknown to me.

What was it that Woody Allen said? Infinity is really long especially near the end!

I would add that filling that infinite bit you do not know with some sort of simplistic superstitious mythology is just an intellectual cop out just like the Tempelton Prize encourages. Although like the whiskey priest my baser instincts could override my purity of endeavour!

Bert

[Robh (Rob)]

Craig,

Most interesting. I have some thoughts to add here.

The classical approach to science is one of observation and discovery, formulation of hypothesis/theory and then testing. Continued observations and experiments suggest and modify theory that evolves to explain the observations. This is essentially an intuitive approach as scientists observe and make mathematical formulations to explain observed data. As the variety and complexity of observations increases, this also becomes a rather more haphazard approach as increasingly more stab in the dark hypotheses emerge to explain a bit of this or a bit of that but not the overall picture.

In contrast, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was a bold new approach, whereby a whole new theoretical construct was used to build a wider picture of the universe and predict non-intuitive effects that later observations would validate. In a sense, if the mechanisms that evolve the universe are essentially non-intuitive then it may need to be through a largely theoretical approach that an accurate description is developed.

The classical approach may be on the verge of being replaced by an essentially theoretical origin of it all. Here, observed reality will simply reflect the theoretical construct. String theory assumes that mathematics is an inherent characteristic of the universe itself and that the universe can be described by a purely mathematical construct. String theory of itself seems very open-ended and models can be designed with many different configurations. Whether the proponents of string theory or its extension, M-theory, can adapt them to tie up all the known physics and then lead us to new and useful paths of discovery is to be seen.

A major assumption of the explain it all theories is that there is a finite set of basic particles and governing forces that mould the universe. That is, the overall structure of the universe can in principle be reproduced from a finite set of mathematical algorithms modelled to represent all the established forces and particle interactions. There is of course no definitive point at which one can say that we have the theory of everything. Over a long period of time, such a theoretical model will seem to have explained all known effects and structures. A seeming stability will be sensed whereby new observations will simply blend in with existing theory and not contradict long established notions. New discoveries will simply be deductions implicit to the overall theory.

If the universe is found to be ever more complex, expanding into finer and finer detail, then we will be chasing shadows in the dark. New particles and unknown interactions will continually emerge to throw a spanner in the works. Unification will not be possible. Two different theories of everything could in principle explain all the known facts yet not be as "correct" as a third theory of everything that could explain a future observation that might contradict the former two. New observations can and will potentially falsify any previous "correct" theory of it all. And this process would continue ad infinitum as we vainly search for the elusive theory of it all. It is perhaps under this scenario that I think Hawking and Mlodinow are right - that no one model can claim to be a true description of reality.

And this I believe are philosophical considerations dependent on the true nature of the universe.

Regards, Rob

[avandonk]

Rob what you say is essentially correct as far as an approach to a real solution.

Consider what we know already.

At the basis of matter is a sea of quantum particles that defy logic on top of some predicted strings. At the next level we have so called atoms that start to behave predictably as far as chemistry is concerned.

All of this matter is nearly all empty space. Yet we happily assign such properties as charge and mass to entities we cannot pin down. So we invoke wave functions.

My conciousness is something real to me. I know it is a figment of my brain and senses. Reality is just the recording and retainment of our memories.

Godel scared the mathematics community out of their smug complacency.

I still think that we humans have barely started. We are just starting to understand molecular biology in a meaningful way.

We do not have a manual to our own hardware let alone the software! Or is that too simplistic?

Who reads manuals anyway?



Bert

[joe_smith]

Human nature is irrelevant in science.

I cant process that, how can human nature not be relevant to science? when all of our understating of the universe comes from that very human nature. its the way that we understand it, and its a human way of thinking and understanding. We are the game makers and we make the rules. Earth is flat, no its round, man cant fly, well we went to the moon so on and so on, Human nature makes the rules then human nature brakes them, again and again.

Moon doesn't orbit the Earth because of human nature

No I agree its gravity, but we only know this is because of our human nature.

Human nature may only affect the timing of discovery/realisation.. but not the facts themselves

In terms of practicality and usefulness, an observation can be objective. The interpretation of the observation requires theory, and may not be objective .. but so what ? There is no absolute truth … and therefore … seeking absolute objectivity, in my view is a good waste of time !

Yes I agree we only affect the timing of discovery or realisation of a fact "but so what ? There is no absolute truth" again human nature comes into those very facts.

My conciousness is something real to me. I know it is a figment of my brain and senses. Reality is just the recording and retainment of our memories

That begs the big question of WHY? why are we evolving that way? and in such a short amount of time on the evolutionary clock. Why is evolution driving human consciousness in a totally different way to the rest of the life?

We do not have a manual to our own hardware let alone the software! Or is that too simplistic?

That begs an even bigger question, what was the builder and programmer trying to achieve in the first place, some say if we are the only ones in the universe, its an awful wast of space. I also say if human consciousness has no meaning its an awful wast of time, and I would be more happier being a wombat without humans.

It could be that Hawking is being provocative to induce some original thinking and argument

I agree, and its this "human consciousness" driving science forward. some of our best advances in science have came from the worst "sins" of the human consciousness (WW1, WW2) again human nature driving science forward, Hawking is doing his job as a scientist, he's helping to push human nature to the fullest heights of its consciousness or its science if you like that word better, we need more like him.

Cheers (& I'm enjoying chatting with you

I am as well, lots of good points to ponder over, have been written here human nature at work.

ps

alas, I would've wasted my million $$$ … and the lab!

But at lest I would be happy, and i was going to buy you a puppy lol.

[avandonk]

Joe life is a total conundrum. We do NOT have a designer. We are the product of billions of years of random evolution. Complexity out of chaos. I do wish you could keep up with the rest of us.

If you invoke a mythical being I am out of here.

Bert