![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's hard not to read a text by a purported genius with relatively high expectations, but I've found myself questioning a lot as I carefully read Hawking's most popular work. I'm wondering if my questions are arising because he's had to simplify his mathematically-laden physics knowledge to such a significant degree that nuance has been lost - or if he's just simply not that good at writing for an average person and so there are bumps and "plot holes" that he thinks an average person can just glide over or leap over in the faith that he's leading us in a good direction. Or maybe he thinks we won't notice?
Maybe some combination of all of the above.
So, I present those bumps and gaps here - generally without being able to answer my own questions, so I don't know how useful this'll be to anyone else.
It occurs to me that I won't be nearly this hard on the creation stories and myths that I intend to read - mostly because it seems those factor in their own metaphorical nature whereas this hardcore rationalist approach refuses to do so. Anyway, onward!
First, I've noticed that he brings into his explanations a lot of unstated assumptions, if not outright beliefs. Obviously some things are going to be untestable (or are proven to be allowable assumptions only because as no contradictory evidence has ever (yet) been found). For example, he states "the universe is governed by a set of rational laws that we can discover and understand."
Ok, but is it ONLY governed by such a set of laws? Is there not any part of the universe governed by non-rational factors? How do we know the entirety of the universe and is he implying that we puny humans can discover and understand all of the universe's laws (not to mention it's "un-lawed" aspects, if any)? That's certainly something worth thinking about before grand claims are made, I'd think. I guess he's just running with the ball though (hey, we've discovered everything we've ever discovered, so far, so we must be unstoppable!).
He spends a fair amount of time enthusing about how recently discovered correspondences "between apparently different theories of physics" provide a "strong indication that there is a complete unified theory of physics, but they also suggest that it may not be possible to express this theory in a single fundamental formulation. Instead, we may have to use different reflections of the underlying theory in different situations."
In other words, there may be something meaningful about all of the cosmos, but we might not be able to cram it into one mathematical formula and we might just have to continue as we are, using piecemeal abstractions to reflect the fantastic complexity of "IT ALL." I don't know if there'd be any utility to a unified theory, to be honest. Isn't the universe actually revealing its own unified theory in different reflections? Or it's own multitude of theories, un-unified? I think he errs by thinking that theories are complete and accurate representations (and I question why there's a need for a "unified theory" it'll just always and forever be partial since the universe is the whole?).
He quotes Richard Feynman, who observed, "We are truly lucky to live in an age in which we are still making discoveries [as if it's possible to ever stop making discoveries?]...The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature." To this I can only suggest that if we're living in an age in which we are "still" discovering the fundamental laws of nature, then there's no way to formulate a unified theory. Such a theory can only happen after we know everything (hah!).
Gee whiz, and this is only what I found in the foreword! Am I grinding an axe, to begin with? I don't know, let's just say that I don't think physicists are the people to be telling us what the "Purpose and Relationship of Everything" is.
[Also, my youngest kid is dating a physics student - I'm going to have to find a way to bridge the divide between our respective narratives and assumptions if the two of them turn out to be serious. I wonder how I can (ethically) seed some occult philosophy into him. :)]
Ok, I think that's gone on as long as I can expect random internet readers to be willing to read on this very specific topic.
Chapter one's questions and thoughts will be up in a few days, if anyone else is at all interested.
Thanks for reading, and if you have thoughts on any of this, please leave a comment!
Maybe some combination of all of the above.
So, I present those bumps and gaps here - generally without being able to answer my own questions, so I don't know how useful this'll be to anyone else.
It occurs to me that I won't be nearly this hard on the creation stories and myths that I intend to read - mostly because it seems those factor in their own metaphorical nature whereas this hardcore rationalist approach refuses to do so. Anyway, onward!
First, I've noticed that he brings into his explanations a lot of unstated assumptions, if not outright beliefs. Obviously some things are going to be untestable (or are proven to be allowable assumptions only because as no contradictory evidence has ever (yet) been found). For example, he states "the universe is governed by a set of rational laws that we can discover and understand."
Ok, but is it ONLY governed by such a set of laws? Is there not any part of the universe governed by non-rational factors? How do we know the entirety of the universe and is he implying that we puny humans can discover and understand all of the universe's laws (not to mention it's "un-lawed" aspects, if any)? That's certainly something worth thinking about before grand claims are made, I'd think. I guess he's just running with the ball though (hey, we've discovered everything we've ever discovered, so far, so we must be unstoppable!).
He spends a fair amount of time enthusing about how recently discovered correspondences "between apparently different theories of physics" provide a "strong indication that there is a complete unified theory of physics, but they also suggest that it may not be possible to express this theory in a single fundamental formulation. Instead, we may have to use different reflections of the underlying theory in different situations."
In other words, there may be something meaningful about all of the cosmos, but we might not be able to cram it into one mathematical formula and we might just have to continue as we are, using piecemeal abstractions to reflect the fantastic complexity of "IT ALL." I don't know if there'd be any utility to a unified theory, to be honest. Isn't the universe actually revealing its own unified theory in different reflections? Or it's own multitude of theories, un-unified? I think he errs by thinking that theories are complete and accurate representations (and I question why there's a need for a "unified theory" it'll just always and forever be partial since the universe is the whole?).
He quotes Richard Feynman, who observed, "We are truly lucky to live in an age in which we are still making discoveries [as if it's possible to ever stop making discoveries?]...The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature." To this I can only suggest that if we're living in an age in which we are "still" discovering the fundamental laws of nature, then there's no way to formulate a unified theory. Such a theory can only happen after we know everything (hah!).
Gee whiz, and this is only what I found in the foreword! Am I grinding an axe, to begin with? I don't know, let's just say that I don't think physicists are the people to be telling us what the "Purpose and Relationship of Everything" is.
[Also, my youngest kid is dating a physics student - I'm going to have to find a way to bridge the divide between our respective narratives and assumptions if the two of them turn out to be serious. I wonder how I can (ethically) seed some occult philosophy into him. :)]
Ok, I think that's gone on as long as I can expect random internet readers to be willing to read on this very specific topic.
Chapter one's questions and thoughts will be up in a few days, if anyone else is at all interested.
Thanks for reading, and if you have thoughts on any of this, please leave a comment!
