BUT HAWKING DID SAY THAT, in his book The Grand Design he and his co-author said exactly what I said.
It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.
So many aspects of the decadence of current materialism are condensed into that that I have to keep coming back to it, it is truly a breathtakingly decadent demand to make. And so revealing of how badly thought out that is.
How these "self-consistent mathematical theories" differ from the demiurges of some pagan systems is only a matter of nouns and adectives, Hawking was a materialist so he had to create material gods but that doesn't work "the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle." And, like the classical gods of paganism, their demiurges didn't really solve the problem of ultimate authority, their gods and goddesses were, themselves, subject to higher realms of existence.* Even the gods had their life cycles.
Hawking and his buddies, needing to have a multiverse to deny that a belief in the extreme improbability of our universe being as "finely tuned" as it seems to be (as expressed in the mathematics of probability and statistics) might suggest the Creator was a respectable conclusion, he goes every which way to make his scheme work. He even seems to divorce logic as a controlling principle in physical science and, bizarrely enough, the creative force he claims balanced equations are. How he divorces the balancing of equations from logic is something I wish someone would have asked him about.
That puts mathematics out of the realm of having been a product of the material of the universe and puts it into the role of the creator or, rather, his "Grand Design" which I don't see how he divorces from the math he also gives divine power to.
It was one of the first things I thought way back, while being introduced to the lore and mythology of the multiverses (there are many, many multiverses, no two very much alike) that I wondered a number of things about them, among them how, if they had different physical parameters how any Earth bound scientist could know that the principles of science they based their speculations on would hold in these unseeable, strange universes which could not be imagined. When they started talking about one and two-dimensional universes I thought the idea that they could know anything about such things was absurd but as the first scheme of multiverses I was exposed to was the utter and complete bullshit of Hugh Everett, in which every time anyone did anything or anything did anything a whole shitload of universes as expressions of every numerical valuation possible in his equations came into being, I wasn't surprised.
How anyone could have any strong faith that the mathematics or physics or logic in our universe that dreamed up any such one or two-dimensional universe would be applicable to any such entities in reality was another of my early questions.
I suspect that the entire thing that led to Hawking making such a decadent demand of science is no more real or relevant to reality than the mythologies that the sci-ranger fan-boys of Hawking and whatever other scientist is fashionable among them love to mock - often not getting even the broad outlines of what they're mocking accurate. And so much of it is, so tellingly, an angry, emotional rejection of the curious confluence of modern physics of the Big Bang and a literal reading of the first few verses of Genesis, Which was a huge deal among the atheist physicists right up till the turn of the century and even today. I think that ideological campaign that was allowed to be inserted right into the center of modern science has produced what may, in the future, if we have one of those, will be seen as one of the most widespread and massive areas of decadence and rot in the history of science.
Though, since you seem to take Hawking seriously, what he did certainly is based in what I said, that mathematical objects are independent of any physical substrate and, so, must have an independent existence if they can be said to exist at all. If that were not the case then Hawking's demand would be total nonsense from the get go. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he and his co-author wouldn't insist on having it every-which-way, having mathematics be both dependent on the physics of our universe and independent of it at the same time. After all, they demanded that physics be divorced from logic, freeing "laws of nature" from it and, if the passage is to make any sense, mathematics, too. If that were not the case then any mathematical calculation created universe would have to have the logical coherence to balance the equation. Or, perhaps, in his zeal to make his grand scientistic, atheist, materialist god work, he didn't understand that logic is an inherent aspect of the balancing of any equation.
* I learned a lot about that by reading an explanation of how Lwa as articulated in Vodun are under the authority of The Good God, it was a surprise to find out that a lot of so-called polytheistic religions were really monotheistic, something that the frequent association of the "gods" of African-New World religion with Catholic saints might have been a clue to anthropologists and others. . I don't believe anything about any religion until I hear an insider say it, though I never believe anyone has the last word on that.
Update: Well, I'm not the only one who believes that atheists are in the business of replacing God with their own gods, Tim Radford famously observed in his review of The Grand Design.
In this very brief history of modern cosmological physics, the laws of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but widely accepted: just like biblical miracles. M-theory invokes something different: a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere. This force cannot be identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities. It incorporates omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, and it’s a big mystery. Remind you of Anybody?
I've identified all kinds of atheist created gods to stick in gaping chasms in the explanations of science and their ideology, random chance, probability, statistics, natural selection, something they call "DNA" to which they attribute supernatural powers, super natural because they expand its role way, way past where scientific evidence supports it. As a political blogger I'd point out the catastrophic effects with enormous body counts and immeasurable pain and suffering, oppression and enslavement that natural selection on the one hand and Marx's god of the dialectic have brought to humanity.
In the United States, preceding it but then adopting Darwinism (even as it rejects evolution), white supremacy, our indigenous form of fascism has done the same while espousing an anti-Christianity in opposition to every word of the Gospel. Its adoption of Trump as their As Seen On TV messiah, it's clear that it is the anti-Christ, the only real relationship it has to Christ. In the similarly vulgar materialism of capitalism, "the market" with its unseen hand has demanded many sacrificed victims, billionaires being deified in that form of materialist deification of things.
No comments:
Post a Comment