Hawking Leads by Faith ?

[bojan]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

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

We know it because we are naturally curious.. just like monkeys are (and many other animals as well), the difference with us is, we are more clever.
Thanks to this curiosity and because we are smart enough, we figured it out to such details monkeys will never manage - their capability of understanding the gravity doesn't go deeper than swinging on the tree branches.

However the existence of gravity (whatever it is) is a fact, totally independent of our understanding.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

Hmm … no problems there, Rob …. 'stab in the dark' hypotheses shouldn't be viewed as a threat to Science. The scientific process gobbles 'em up & throws them out !

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

It doesn't stop at the mathematical construct though, does it Rob ?
The predictions or even predicted side effects of some part of M or String Theory can be tested. I posted a couple of these at the beginning of this thread.

Models having M and String theory as their basis are put to the test using computer simulations all the time. Some fail the test … life goes on ..

I don't see that observed reality will simply reflect the theoretical construct, although I understand how others may see it this way. Giving in to that temptation, results in pseudoscience. The whole point is to resist putting on those filters because as you say, it is a big risk to the rationality process, maybe even the biggest, overall. This is the discipline part of science .. and "it ain't easy, maaam !"

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. String theory doesn't take this view.

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

This is the classical approach to science in which Hawking is a master. But I think, just as Einstein chose to be blind towards quantum theory, Hawking may be blind to Chaos/Complexity and he's only just tweaking to M and String Theory. I was quite surprised to see him giving such a big 'plug' for M-Theory in his book ! I think he's surrendered, and I don't think he has a deep a knowledge of it, as others do. His approach may be a cover-up for the fact that he's spent his whole life and reputation chasing classical, deterministic solutions. (This is just my hypothesis, mind you).

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

Nope. Disagree. Actually, Joe's point about human nature kicks in as the motivation for moderation in this risky direction.
Wikipedia works for some strange reason … people love to correct others … I have 'faith' that this characteristic will keep it all on track.
Keep calm there, Joe.

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

Yep … I can see that !

So what makes M-Theory correct then ?
Is it just because 'it is the last man standing' ?

I don't think so.

Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm … no problems there, Rob …. 'stab in the dark' hypotheses shouldn't be viewed as a threat to Science. The scientific process gobbles 'em up & throws them out !

It doesn't stop at the mathematical construct though, does it Rob ?
The predictions or even predicted side effects of some part of M or String Theory can be tested. I posted a couple of these at the beginning of this thread.

Models having M and String theory as their basis are put to the test using computer simulations all the time. Some fail the test … life goes on ..

I don't see that observed reality will simply reflect the theoretical construct, although I understand how others may see it this way. Giving in to that temptation, results in pseudoscience. The whole point is to resist putting on those filters because as you say, it is a big risk to the rationality process, maybe even the biggest, overall. This is the discipline part of science .. and "it ain't easy, maaam !"

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. String theory doesn't take this view.

This is the classical approach to science in which Hawking is a master. But I think, just as Einstein chose to be blind towards quantum theory, Hawking may be blind to Chaos/Complexity and he's only just tweaking to M and String Theory. I was quite surprised to see him giving such a big 'plug' for M-Theory in his book ! I think he's surrendered, and I don't think he has a deep a knowledge of it, as others do. His approach may be a cover-up for the fact that he's spent his whole life and reputation chasing classical, deterministic solutions. (This is just my hypothesis, mind you).

Nope. Disagree. Actually, Joe's point about human nature kicks in as the motivation for moderation in this risky direction.
Wikipedia works for some strange reason … people love to correct others … I have 'faith' that this characteristic will keep it all on track.
Keep calm there, Joe.

Yep … I can see that !

So what makes M-Theory correct then ?
Is it just because 'it is the last man standing' ?

I don't think so.

Cheers

Craig,

Nicely dissected and thank you for your opinion.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

Yes Rob.

You're right .. they were my opinions ..
(As well as a few statements of how I'd manage my way through the possible evolving landscape).
I hope that's Ok … everyone seems to have their opinions …

(And I hope we're just chatting. )

Cheers

[CraigS]

Hmm ..

Originally Posted by CraigS

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 !

Originally Posted by joe_smith

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.

Hang on a sec !

My assertion that: "There is no absolute truth", was framed within the basic starting out assertions of scientific method AND that we can never disconnect our own consciousness to see what 'lies beyond'.

Ie: if there IS absolute truth, then go and ask the source for an answer .. don't bother with science.

But on the other hand, if there is NO absolute truth, then seek using whatever tools you can, to achieve a relatively unimpeded perspective, and learn about the nature of physical reality, in the process.

There is a big difference between establishing a paradigm (eg: the scientific realm), and making the statement: "There is no absolute truth", and stating it as a fact !

I checked a definition of fact (from Wiki):

The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.

So, there still may be an "absolute truth". But as far as the scientific realm is concerned, this would not be a 'fact', because it can never be tested.

There can still be truths external to science, or even mathematics, which may be true, but can never be proven, to be true. Godel proved this.

This is all about isomorphisms connecting science to physical reality and this is the area we need to be the most cautious about.

Just because science may make no verification or denial statements about something, doesn't make it fact or not fact.

Cheers

[joe_smith]

Thanks for the thoughts

This is where you lose me .....

There can still be truths external to science, or even mathematics, which may be true, but can never be proven, to be true. Godel proved this.

How can it be true if it cant ever be proven? and if it may be true it also may be false, its going around in a circle to me. How could Godel prove this when it has not even proven what needed proving in the first place?

: if there IS absolute truth, then go and ask the source for an answer .. don't bother with science.

good point, IS there an absolute truth to the universe? What will a unified field of everything answer? will it answer all the questions we want answered? will it answer your questions? will it answer mine? about life and the universe

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

where have I stated that? and where is the proof that's my belief anyway? you just brought it up not me, why?
Complexity out of chaos - by what force of nature?
We are the product of billions of years of random evolution - by what force of nature?


I read a good point about the boicentric universe model maybe its time to call in the biologists to help with the problem Maybe, no theory satisfies me for any proof at the moment, and why is it wrong to question what I don't understand? or state what I I think may be true but not proven. why can you use that logic but I cant?

In the past few decades, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that goes far beyond anything we could have imagined. A more accurate understanding of the world requires that we consider it biologically centered. It’s a simple but amazing concept that Biocentrism attempts to clarify: Life creates the universe, instead of the other way around. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held puzzles. This new model — combining physics and biology instead of keeping them separate, and putting observers firmly into the equation — is called biocentrism. Its necessity is driven in part by the ongoing attempts to create an overarching view, a theory of everything. Such efforts have now stretched for decades, without much success except as a way of financially facilitating the careers of theoreticians and graduate students.
Could the long-sought Theory of Everything be merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed? Some of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we are close to understanding the “Big Bang” rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality. But most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: We are creating them. It is the biological creature that fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our oversight, that science has not confronted the one thing that is at once most familiar and most mysterious — consciousness.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Thanks for the thoughts

This is where you lose me .....

How can it be true if it cant ever be proven?

No-one said it IS true. It may be true or it may be false, but the point was, that by using axiomatic (maths) systems and processes that are entirely valid within those systems, Godel proved that there will always be things outside of those systems, which can't be proven by using those same tools of logic.
So true & false things may exist outside of maths/science etc, which can never be proven from within it .. that's all.
The 'proof' was for those who thought at the time, that maths could lead the way to all 'truths'. He proved they were wrong by using their own logic. (I actually think this supports your perspective, too).

Originally Posted by joe_smith

and if it may be true it also may be false,

Yep .. that's right … but who knows which it is ? Its just a moot point, from a practical, scientific perspective.

Originally Posted by joe_smith

its going around in a circle to me. How could Godel prove this when it has not even proven what needed proving in the first place?

The 'logic' he used was mathematical logic. This is a very pure form of logic. It underpins everything we do (mathematically), every day. (Like calculating change from a shop-keeper).

Originally Posted by joe_smith

good point, IS there an absolute truth to the universe?

Damned if I, or anybody else knows !

Originally Posted by joe_smith

What will a unified field of everything answer? will it answer all the questions we want answered? will it answer your questions? will it answer mine? about life and the universe

Doubt it. These theories only seek to explain physical reality and physically observable phenomena. (Which, within science .. is assumed to be able to be done with objectivity. Which is Ok because no-one can prove otherwise). As Bojan mentioned way back … (I think) .. physical reality might be only a subset of everything there is. But if there's other things which we can't observe, it doesn't matter to science because we can't observe it, anyway.

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Complexity out of chaos - by what force of nature?
We are the product of billions of years of random evolution - by what force of nature?

All the stuff we know about so far ..gravity, the strong nuclear, the weak nuclear.
Chaos and Complexity have very specific meanings in mathematics. They are not the everyday meanings we associate with them in common language usage. Both arise as a result of non-linear influences acting upon systems set in motion (time or space), which also have an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. (This covers most of what we observe at the macro scales in nature).

Hope this clarifies my points a little more ?.
(I'll leave Bert to clarify his other points).


Cheers

[CraigS]

Hmm .. the Biocentric Universe, eh ?
Robert Lanza's dream.
(We should start a new thread to explore this one, eh ?)

There's not a lot of empiricism behind the concept. Our perceptions have to interact with something 'out there' in order for our minds to create reality.
And it has to be the same 'something' for everyone. We can all individually describe the same reality, pretty accurately actually. So, something else independent of our minds, must exist out there.

I don't know for sure, but I have a suspicion that Lanza is caught up trying to reconcile religious beliefs with Evolution, with a smattering of quantum physics thrown in, to make it sound legitimate. He might be right. But even if he is, what practical use is this perspective ? How can we turn it into something tangible ?

The beauty I see in the classical philosophy which underpins science, is that it has resulted in tangible things of practical value … like the computer you're sitting in front of, right now. It doesn't really worry me if standard science doesn't explain everything we know of (… my 2 cent opinion).

I guess this could be likened to the 'Holographic Principle' we talked about a long time ago. It was a bit of a 'stretch', too … ie: 'all that we are, is projected from the outside, to the inside'.
Biocentrism sounds a little bit like … 'all that we are, is projected from the inside, to the outside'.

Good luck Mr Lanza .. let us know when it comes to something tangible.

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by 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

Ok Avandoc you are the scientist so prove scientifically that there is no designer.

Whats that you say... you cannot prove scientifically there is no designer... then I guess you just demand we accept your statement on faith or you will run away.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Brian

[CraigS]

Well, its kinda like the ol' Westerns … the fastest draw wins all !

A negative assertion is made by the person who least needs that assertion … ie: "We DO NOT have a designer" … (he doesn't need that pesky Designer, anyway !)

Let those who do need a designer, prove he's wrong …

They can't, you say ?? …
Well, there's ya proof !! Right there !

'Pfft !!'.. he blows air into the barrel of his smokin' gun !
.. The Sun slowly sets in West …

Cheers

[marki]

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/tos.html


Cheers

Mark

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Well, its kinda like the ol' Westerns … the fastest draw wins all !

A negative assertion is made by the person who least needs that assertion … ie: "We DO NOT have a designer" … (he doesn't need that pesky Designer, anyway !)

Let those who do need a designer, prove he's wrong …

They can't, you say ?? …
Well, there's ya proof !! Right there !

'Pfft !!'.. he blows air into the barrel of his smokin' gun !
.. The Sun slowly sets in West …

Cheers

Exactly my point. You and I and everyone else reaches a point where they accept on something less than proof what in their world view makes the most sense. So while your gun is smoking your only shooting blanks.

Brian

[CraigS]

Actually, in science (of the type we're talking about), there is no proof, either.

So, the scientist doesn't have to play by any 'rules' which demand proof.

Theories are never 'proved'.


Tell ya what, though … this Biocentrism thing has me thinking a bit ..

I kinda warm to the idea that consciousness creates time as its framework (or filter) through which everything must be perceived.

Now that would explain a lot !

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Exactly my point. You and I and everyone else reaches a point where they accept on something less than proof what in their world view makes the most sense.

Brian, please don't count me in here.
As I said before couple of times, the only thing I actually believe is the scientific method, since this is the only activity that produces meaningful results. So even this "belief" has a sound fundamental in experience.

[xstream (John)]

A reminder of the TOS.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Brian, please don't count me in here.
As I said before couple of times, the only thing I actually believe is the scientific method, since this is the only activity that produces meaningful results. So even this "belief" has a sound fundamental in experience.

Fair enough Bojan and well said.
Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

Moderators, please do not lock this thread on account of me. Some interesting stuff going on before I butted in and now I will withdraw.
Brian

[CraigS]

Terminology difference .. just clarifying my position … I don't have to believe in the scientific method … I'll just use it for no reason … purely by choice.

Cheers

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality Human intervention - was scientific method applied to this experiment? Does it demonstrate that both are simultaneously correct in their assertions... but only when observing subatomic particles... which is pretty much all of the time...

[joe_smith]

The 'proof' was for those who thought at the time, that maths could lead the way to all 'truths'. He proved they were wrong by using their own logic.

OK now I understand takes time but it slowly works its way in. I just couldn't understand what he actually did.

Tell ya what, though … this Biocentrism thing has me thinking a bit ..

That's all I want to achive here. Me thinking about stuff I wouldn't normally think about, learning new ideas through other peoples views, sure at times it can get a bit heated but hey thats life, we deal with it dust ourselves off, shake hands and move on. I never knew about Godel until he was mentioned here, so I have learned something . Now I know what bert ment when he stated "Godel scared the mathematics community out of their smug complacency."

The big plus for me with Biocentrism is it includes life and life is part of the universe. I never could understand why its left out of all theory's, and when you look at it the human brain and consciousness are the most complex things in the universe. Why couldn't they play a bigger role in it? look at how simple some of the biggest discovery's have been take Darwinian evolution for example it was so simple in idea. Biocentrism is the same for me its so simple an idea.

(We should start a new thread to explore this one, eh ?)

I say yes, its my new pet model I love it. Plus Hawkins needs help with ideas lol

the only thing I actually believe is the scientific method, since this is the only activity that produces meaningful results

Plus it keeps people honest in the results that they use as evidence. I don't have a problem with that.

Let those who do need a designer, prove he's wrong …

I totally agree with that statement. but he raised it first so he must defend his view to me, not me defending my view but, my view closely resembles he's view on that topic as well, just nowhere near as hard-line, So it would be a waste of time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but don't get me wrong, I am very interested in the subject as its a big part of human nature, world history and the people close to me, and it has left it mark on me. Maybe this is why he pointed the question to me in the first place, He misread my intentions? Not that I'm worried about it mind you. I've read some Hitchens and Dawkins as well, it just took me a little by surprise I just want to clear the air between us now, so we are on the same page.

Damned if I, or anybody else knows !

good answer mate, made me smile, because its properly the only truthful answer there is.

thanks rcheshire, good link