HERE IS the quote from Hawking's Grand Design, again
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.
The first amazing thing is the claim that "the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic," when his motive is to claim the creative power of "self-consistent mathematical theory" when that mathematical theory could not in any way be distanced from the logic necessary not only to arrive at that theory but all of its supporting mathematics right down to those at work in the primitive arithmetic of the set of counting numbers. The mathematics cannot be separated from the operations of logic that, first, proved the next levels of mathematics, going back to provide a logical basis for (though not ultimate and complete foundation of) basic arithmetic.
It's less shocking that wanting to make up jillions of universes out of equations so as to win the God argument - which seems to be the primary motivation of a lot of the more decadent physics and most of the cosmology done in the post-WWII period - Hawking demanded that physics be freed from "physical principle" by which he certainly means, but doesn't include, the principle that scientific imagination be reigned in by actual measurable observation of nature in this, our only known universe in order to actually do science so as to achieve reliable results. It's less shocking but no less decadent than him and his colleagues insisting that the mathematical models he wanted to win his argument with not have to cohere to logic when it couldn't exist without having a foundation in quite a bit of very rigorous though often attenuated logic.
------------------------
I remember having a discussion with a mathematician friend in which I told her I was extremely skeptical about an equation I'd seen conjured up in the social (so-called) sciences that used the fourth power of pi as a constant. I told her I was skeptical that any aspect of social behavior was determined by the forth power of pi, she said she was skeptical that pi, itself, could have any relationship to what was real about something so removed from the shape of a circle. I wondered later if maybe the fetish for making curved lines on a graph, believing that added explanatory power to an academic paper might have had something to do with it while having nothing to do with what was really happening. I might look her up and run that idea past her. A good part of current scientific-political racism is based on just that from a Harvard Psychologist and a racist political hack.
That would be interesting to investigate, the extent to which this kind of seeming mathematical coherence might actually be an illusion, though, considering how easy it is for the most bogus of soc-sci to be adopted and to assert itself, however temporarily, into the common received wisdom of the academic field it's inserted into, you'd probably never convince them that they were teaching an illusion, publishing and, so, becoming self-interested in the adoption of illusion within that field. I think that's common place in the non-observational sciences, it's so telling that the scientistic atheist materialists want to bring that standard not only to biology through the degraded practices of psychology and sociology and, worst of all economics, but, also to physics. That they might find their greatest success in the non-observational aspect of that in the Lords of Creation style of cosmology might not be that surprising.
--------------------
It's not surprising that self-sacrificing generosity is such a huge problem for the Darwinist treatment of evolution to deal with whereas depravity is no problem at all for it. Darwinism being founded on the depraved, Brit class system based, and so based not in nature but in the laws of the gangster ruling British elite, economic theory of Thomas Malthus. As I've pointed out any number of times Marx astutely pointed out not only the defects of the theories of Malthus and the man himself but also that Darwin turned those theories on their head to impose the British class system on all of nature. Marx, alas, was a far better critic than he was at coming up with something better. Though I think he may have been more bothered by the results of his theories than either Malthus or Darwin were theirs. He did tell people he was not a Marxist, after all.
Malthusian economics made the artificial, man-made laws erected by the English then British elites to allow them to steal the property of and the product of the labor of the lower classes. Malthus turned science into a weapon to further promote robbing the poor and destitute of the benefits of morality and so to cost them their lives. That he did so while a Parson of the Anglican Church shows what a low point that institution was at during the "enlightenment" period.
That his depraved "enlightenment" theory was adopted by the academic elite, almost to a man members of the upper classes wherever they were, needs little explanation. Why they were and still are allowed to misrepresent an entirely artificial situation set up by gangsters to benefit themselves as being some aspect of "nature" is less clear now that so many members of the lower classes have attained university credentials is less clear. Darwinism, today, natural selection retains all of the coarser motives and defects of its parent ideology. Maybe it's part of logic being a sometimes thing even within science such as goes right to the top of physics these days in support of the ideological motives of the atheist-materialists. Maybe that idea has some explanatory power.
Update: It occurs to me that I should look to see if any of the multiversers creating universes of one dimension has ever used statistical curves to peddle their claims, which would strike me as sort of ultimately ironic.
No comments:
Post a Comment