The Grand Design

[danbaron]

A friend lent me Stephen Hawking's and Leonard Mlodinow's new book, "The Grand Design".

I just finished it. Overall, I think it is very good. They write in a very simple way. If you didn't know, you would never guess how intelligent they are.

I would have to read it again to understand what they are saying more clearly. But, I don't want to. I find it somewhat depressing. They explain our existence in terms of physics and nothing more.

They are basically saying that according to the latest theory of physics, M-theory, universes can and do appear from nothing. We are in one of approximately 10^500 different possible universes. (They did not say anything about the possibility that there could be duplicate universes, i.e., twins. I think if there could be duplicates, then, the number of universes could potentially be infinite.)

We live in a universe which has laws which permit complex life to evolve. Since we are part of this universe, we are subject to its laws and therefore, although it may feel impossible, we actually have no free will. Our brains function deterministically. With enough computing power, our actions could be predicted in advance.

I think they are trying to say that if M-theory is correct, then, it can explain the existence of itself. (It is hard for me to express this clearly, because it is less than clear to me.) Or, in other words, in some sense, the existence of the multiverse can be explained by its existence. This seems to me to be circular reasoning. They mention quantum fluctuations and gravity as necessary requisites, but as far as I can tell, they don't indicate how those originated.

They also say that according to quantum mechanics, the past can be influenced by the future. For instance, they say that when we observe light from a distant star which has traveled for millions of years to reach Earth, our observation influences the manner in which the light left the star millions of years ago. Again, my idea about this is not clear.

In science, parts of a theory which are not necessary for the theory to make accurate predictions, are discarded. Hawking and Mlodinow argue that according to M-theory, God, is not required as a first cause, because the multiverse caused itself. Therefore, the concept of God should be discarded.

In summary, their book explains a lot. But, I think they did not make a convincing case that something can cause itself to exist - they don't say where quantum fluctuations and gravity came from. It seems to me that they were intentionally vague. So, I suspect they realize that their claims overreach their evidence.

(They also say that no one knows what the "M" in M-theory, stands for. They speculate that it may be, "master", "miracle", or, "mystery".)

[Charles Pegge]

It's all speculative but I am drawn to the idea that our perceived universe is a surface or a layer of something with many more dimensions. Light propagates across this surface at a finite speed but the phenomena of quantum entanglement seem to indicate that at some level, photons originating from the same source remain attached to each other.

You can't really talk about a creator being outside the universe, since the universe, by definition does not have an outside/inside.

Charles

[John Spikowski]

since the universe, by definition does not have an outside/inside.

Good thing as I'm sure they would be charging us by the square foot by now. :)

[JosephE]

You can't really talk about a creator being outside the universe, since the universe, by definition does not have an outside/inside.

They probably made it that way on purpose. :bom:

[danbaron]

I have switched over into my skeptical mode.

I do think that most likely the concept of the multiverse is true. In that case, there are countless universes. In some, there is no life. In some, life is very hard. In some, maybe life is easier.

Likewise, for the planets in our universe. On some, there is no life. On some, life is very hard. On some, maybe life is easier. (Just for "fun", try living on any other planet in out solar system. Mars would be by far the easiest, and its average temperature is -81 degrees F (-63 degrees C). Its atmosphere is approximately 1% the density of Earth's, and, it is 95% carbon dioxide. If I am correct, no one has found even one ounce of liquid water there, or one living organism. (I think it would make much more sense to try to live on the Moon, if only because, it is relatively so close to Earth.))

In the book, Hawking and Mlodinow do mention humanity's huge capacity for experiencing guilt. I can relate to it, the feeling that since life is so hard and unfair, we (humanity) must have done something bad. That is easier to accept than accepting the possibility that there is no God, and we exist for nothing at all, yes or no?

It also seems to me that acceptance of the multiverse may add another nail to the coffin of Christianity. I think that if the multiverse is true, then, even if God exists, He doesn't care what sentient beings suffer within His creation. In that case, from the statistical viewpoint, life will most likely be hard and unfair, not because of sin, but, because of probability. Then, there would be no need for Christ to die for the sins of Man, because, existence was hard before Man sinned, and not, vice versa. (I always thought to myself that life was "red in tooth and claw", before Man existed. For instance, consider the dinosaurs. What justification is there for that? Or, are you one of those who think "animals" are things, not beings?)

If a fundamental belief has to continually be altered in the light of newly discovered facts, then, sooner or later it dies out, yes or no?

:diablo: <-- To me, better him, than nothing.