Stephen Hawking has a new book coming out (The Grand Design, with Leonard Mlodinow). Among other things, he points out that modern physics has progressed to the point where we don’t need to invoke God to explain the existence of the universe. This is not exactly a hot flash — I remember writing an essay making the same point for a philosophy class my sophomore year in college — but it makes news because it’s Hawking who says it. And that’s absolutely fine — Hawking has a track record of making substantial intellectual contributions, there’s every reason to listen to him more than random undergraduates waxing profound.
This issue is, of course, totally up my alley, and I should certainly blog about it. But I can’t, because I’m on hiatus! (Right?) So, as an experiment, I made a video of myself talking rather than simply typing my words into the computer. Radical! Not sure the amount of information conveyed is anywhere near as large in this format, and obviously I didn’t sweat the production values. I fear that some subtleties of the argument may be lost. But if we’re lucky, other people elsewhere on the internet will also talk about these questions, and we’ll get it all sorted out.
Let me know if the Grand Video Experiment is worth repeating and improving, or whether it’s just a waste of time.
Something that I should have said, but didn’t: there doesn’t need to be some sophisticated modern-physics answer to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The universe can simply exist, end of story. But it’s still fun to think carefully about all the possibilities, existence and non-existence both included.
If no universe exists, there is NOTHING “fluctuating”, nothing upon which the uncertainty principle can be said to apply to, no notion of “energy”, no notion of time or time, no notion of space, therefore no notion of “metric”, there is just NOTHING.
When you talk about “[set] of possibilities” for quantum mechanics, well that assumes an already existing universe. We have absolutely no reason to think that if we start with nothing, then there is a finite probability that we will have spacetime from NOTHING. Maybe there is a 100% chance that from nothing will come nothing. In fact, that’s very true. If there is nothing, there are no “laws of physics”, etc., from which a universe can spring into being. Laws of physics make absolutely NO SENSE outside a universe. That’s what science is all about. The laws are principles which seem to describe our observable world accurately. They have no meaning outside a universe.
Paul,
Lots of tacit assumptions in your little spiel.
What I’d like to know, if ‘God had something to do with it’ is:
What caused god?
What caused the rules by which he functions?
You are not allowed to declare by fiat: he’s god, therefore the rules don’t apply to him!
Several commentators rightly pointed out that Hawking’s claim about God is ridiculous, and I would like to add one more argument that Hawking is wrong. Namely, Hawking’s assumption is that a mathematical theory, i.e. M-theory, describes the Universe completely and hence there is no need for God. However, Goedel’s theorems from logic imply that there is no a complete mathematical theory which contains aritmethics, and a theory of everything must certainly contain it, and hence there is no complete theory of everything. Note that this argument was first introduced by Fr. Jaki, and amusingly, even Hawking used to accept it.
A related point is that many people do not understand the difference between science and metaphysics. When they proclaim that science can explain everything, they are opting for a specific metaphysics. However, this metaphysics is poor one, because the Goedel’s theorems imply that it can never describe the world completely. The only way to avoid the Goedel’s theorems is to proclaim that there are no natural laws, which then essentially boils down to the metaphysics where everything happens randomly. Although logically consistent, such a metaphysics is ridiculous, and it is of the same flavor as solipsism.
Oh…. #49 and #50 are from a different Paul. Let’s call myself Paul_prime.
The Great Kabuga,
I don’t know what caused God. Maybe God doesn’t have a cause. I don’t know what “rules” God by which God functions. All I was getting at was that if you have nothing, you will get nothing. You can’t have laws of physics acting to do things if there isn’t an already existing universe. Laws of physics outside an already existing universe have no meaning. So you can’t just say that the universe was born from a “quantum fluctuation” of nothing into something. Even if you can get a universe from nothing, why THIS universe? That’s why you have to invoke either some sort of supernatural being (God if you will), or a pre-existing multiverse, for which we have no real evidence for. Therefore, I don’t see anything incorrect about attributing the existing of our universe to the act of a divine being.
Mikovic wrote:
Namely, Hawking’s assumption is that a mathematical theory, i.e. M-theory, describes the Universe completely and hence there is no need for God. However, Goedel’s theorems from logic imply that there is no a complete mathematical theory which contains aritmethics, and a theory of everything must certainly contain it, and hence there is no complete theory of everything. Note that this argument was first introduced by Fr. Jaki, and amusingly, even Hawking used to accept it.
This is a very simplistic view. For a more nuanced view, see: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612253
He argues that Godel’s Theorem has implications for what one may predict by formal manipulation of the mathematical structures resulting from a ‘final theory’ ; such a theory is not rendered impossible by the theorem.
And as he points out, the axioms of a physical theory (what people call ‘laws’) are given, not defined within a formal structure.
My own explanation on why there is no god dazzles me with it’s brilliance! I don’t know why it isn’t the “accepted” explanation.
Here goes…. Hemmoroids, cancer, diarrhea,back aches, toothaches, ….all the obvious little failings clearly present in us, ” … In God’s image.”
If you were omnipotent, absolutely unlimited in any way, couldn’t you have designed something better than us? I know I could. Evolution,with it’s stops,starts, detours, and simple bad constructs produced us, not some magical, mystical, super being. It is so obvious.
Bill,
I’m sure we all know evolution produced us. But what produced our universe and the laws it appears to run according to?
Paul,
So, in essence, to explain what we have evidence for, you invoke an hypothesis whose properties are ill-defined, and possibly unknowable and ask me to take this seriously?
At least even if a ‘final’ theory invokes a causally-adrift multiverse, it will still make predictions about our own Universe, which may be tested.
And speaking of multiverses, I can imagine a few scenarious which would severely undermine your assumptions.
Paul_prime: “But what produced our universe and the laws it appears to run according to?”
We don’t know and we might never know.
But invoking god doesn’t help in any way, it just shifts the question to what created god. Invoking laws of physics doesn’t help either and for the same reason.
The Great Kabuga,
I’m not asking you to take it seriously, I’m just saying it’s a POSSIBILITY, along with the possibility that our universe came from a parent universe. For the latter, you need laws of physics capable of describing a situation whereby a universe can be created from a pre-existing universe. You can’t make a universe from NOTHING. Laws of physics make no sense outside an already existing universe.
I think God or whatever you want to call a supernatural being is a possibility if there is no multiverse. If you can show that there are laws which describe everything about our universe at the energies we can reach now, plus the energies all the way up to the Planck length, and if these laws have the possibility that new universes can be made, then you can have a multiverse, and no need for a creator. Of course, you are still left the problem of why these particular laws, or why this particular fundamental theory?
If your laws do not admit the possibility of making new universes, then there is no reason to think that there are other universes besides our own. So if you assume our universe had a clear beginning, “before which” (whatever that means) there was nothing, then you need something other than the laws of physics (which have no meaning outside a universe) to make that universe out of nothing. That’s what I’ve been saying above. What is that something? Well, something supernatural.
Interesting, although maybe you can have a grad student type up your vblogs so we can read them too.
Of course this doesn’t disprove anything. You can always ask who made the laws of physics. For example why QM holds? What is its origin and its physical explanation since it is postulated and it’s not self explanatory? Same reasoning hods for other first principles. Currently there is no explanation and without explanations there is always room for God. A supreme being outside the natural world may have imposed these laws having a specific plan in mind etc…
Such petty attempts to disprove God’s involvement in the genesis of the Cosmos are indeed laughable.
Much appreciated. I’d hope for longer videos, but this was interesting nonetheless.
I agree with the conclusion: No God needed to light a fuse. I still think Wilczek says it best:”Nothing is unstable”. Our intution is inverted because the second law leads us to make an inaccurate extrapolation that roughly equates “somethingness” with structure and order which is ever fleeting. Does this settle the issue with respect to God? Well it falsifies a certain image of one. But I disagree it disposes of the issue completely. Nothing can really do that. Just because we come to the end of a chain of logical reasoning doesn’t imply we have exhausted reality.
As much as I think Hawking is right, its worth pointing out the enormous change in view point from his original view point.The hope for a single unifying set of laws has been replaced with an ensemble of origins and histories. Well, looking back on our experience with Darwin and Copernicus we probably should have expected this. But we didn’t, and we are in the process of changing our minds in what we mean by the universe itself. I don’t deny the religious person the right to do the same with God.
Sean, I’m afraid the argument you give (or better still your summary of Hawking’s argument) for self-creation of the universe does not register at all with me and a lot of other posters here.
You use sentences like “if you wait long enough it will happen”, but “waiting” presumes the existence of time. Also, as pointed out by others, the argument as you state it, presupposes the laws of nature. Either you have smoothed the edges of the real argument too much in trying to bring it across on video to my little brain 😉 or there is no argument at all. I would appreciate a little commentary of you on this since the comments show a need for some more detailed explanation. Not in the least because this indeed is a question that keeps bugging little brains all over the planet.
I do very much like the video format as it makes it easier to get someone else to actually pay attention to it. Also you speak quite well.
I believe in God. I believe he created the universe with the laws he wished it to have. I am not a good person, I don’t do good things to please my God. My God did a good thing for me by sending Jesus to save me, and I do good things out of the thankfullness for my price he paid on the cross. I love you all with your different opinions and ideas. Thinking is an amazing quality. Just don’t dismiss God because of your ideas, he is after all the one who gave you the intelect to think them, but it is your choice how you use them.
I was more interested in trying to identify each of the books in your book case. But the resolution of the video is too poor. Next time use HD.
This video is shocking. It is shocking not because the content is manifestly false to anyone who knows something about the subject, which it is, but because it seems to involve a professional cosmologist saying something he must know is false in order to support an ideological viewpoint. The most charitable interpretation seems to be that he was in a hurry and fluffed his lines.
To be clear: there is *no* understanding in modern physics as to how the universe came into being. Not in general relativity. Not in quantum gravity. Not in string theory. This is not a remotely controversial opinion, just a statement of fact. Go and look at the arxiv, go and look at the papers people write and the questions they answer.
Saying that questions like ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ are answered by modern physics is dishonest, plain and simple. All those cheering on this video should ask themselves whether they would likewise cheer on a video saying that brontosaurus was in the stable next to baby Jesus.
Distorting science for ideological purposes is *never* right.
Sorry, I definitely prefer to read.
I have so many issues with going out as scientists and telling people whether god exists or not when in reality as of this moment and to best of my knowledge as a cosmologists it is still out of the jurisdiction of our work.
I am completely for educating people when religion and science start to overlap say earth is not 3000 or 6000 years old or whatever it is according to the bible but that is because we have overwhelming evidence for that. I am also fine with smart people such as Hawking or Weinberg claiming as their personal opinion that they do not see any need for god to exist. However to go out and use credit from science for something which is not yet part of science is really a dangerous path to walk and can come back and hurt us the most.
Furthermore playing the devil’s advocate, the argument presented here in fact is in favor of some interpretations of god in Islamic mysticism and philosophy where a human observer on this earth can never comprehend the full extent of what god is and those who even develop the potential to partially understand it can hardly explain it to others but there can be no distinction between concept of god, nature, its laws or gravity! So I doubt until Hawking proves universe could come to existence without the laws of physics, he can convince people the no need for god.
well congrats… your brilliant scientific minds have finally agreed upon a theory of everything (for now anyway… I’ll check back later to make sure). Without a shred of real evidence and no way to possibly prove it, you’ve discovered a(nother) suitable, theorized explanation for how, without the existence of an intelligent designer (call Him God if you like), the incredibly complex, riddled with vastly intelligent design features, incomprehensibly finely tuned universe came into existance by itself. Well done! You can now go on living your life free from guilt, without any fear of consequences of the possibility of there being a God to hold you accountable. But before you do, let me me remind you of these words…
“…the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:18-22
and…
“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Cor 1:18-25
Where to begin?
I really liked the post that you had written at the link that “it’s okay for the universe to just exist.” I wish I had read that when you posted it originally.
Not being a cosmologist, I guess I can’t speculate very effectively at the notion about whether any state of reality is more natural than another. However, I have one additional thought which relates to this quote here. Even though we have observations like “expansion” and “entropy” do we even necessarily have any understanding of what “nothingness” actually is? The universe is known to be full of a lot of something, whether it’s dark matter, dark energy, energy or conventional matter… we have therefore never ever made even a single measurement of true “nothingness.” Our definition of nothingness is the lack of somethingness that we do measure. But there is something everywhere and a lot of it we can’t even observe!
Having never actually observed or measured it, suppose that nothingness is the only thing that doesn’t actually exist, then there would be no need to magically pull anything out of it since everything would just already be there to begin with, if not in the form we currently know it, with those parts of the form that we can currently measure. Maybe I’m the only one who thinks we have no way of supposing there’s a way to be outside the universe looking back at it, which is what we would need in order to compare what we have, and don’t even necessarily know we have, with what we don’t have, which is the absence of everything (both observable and not). We definitely don’t know what the absence of a universe even is… we just have a “whatever there was before this” which is why people want there to be a God to begin with.