Mon 27 Sep 2010
Stephen Hawking Declares Philosophy Dead: Is He Right?
Posted by Matthew Konieczka under Matthew Konieczka , Philosophy Department Blog , Weekly Word[6] Comments
What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator?… Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. – Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design[i]
In his new book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, together with co-author Leonard Mlodinow, argue that the quest to find the answers to life’s biggest questions is no longer the charge of philosophers, but scientists. But why would Hawking, a renowned physicist, sound the death knell for a field of study that he has no expertise in?
Ultimately, Hawking understands the history of intellectual discovery as a progression from mythology, through philosophy, and finally to science. On his view, philosophy was a step in the right direction in that it involved a rational attempt to make sense of the universe. That rational attempt to understand the universe, however, often goes wrong. For instance, Hawking points to the disagreements among ancient Greek philosophers for whom, “there was no objective way to settle the argument” because they didn’t yet have the scientific method.[ii] Moreover, philosophers are stuck with a classical view of the world and have not “kept up” with modern physics. According to the classical view, objects exist at one place at one time and every object has a definite history. But these views are not true, at least on the atomic level. Quantum mechanics implies that subatomic particles behave in ways that, according to the classical view, are impossible, seemingly popping in and out of existence as we observe them.
Hawking paints a picture of a world where life’s biggest questions are finally being understood by physicists. Our universe is merely a quantum fluctuation that resulted in a specific set of physical laws, but is only one of many universes in the “multiverse.” What is more, our understanding of quantum mechanics and general relativity allow physicists like Hawking to claim that there was “no beginning of time” and therefore no need for a God to start the chain of causation:
The issue of the beginning of time is a bit like the issue of the edge of the world. When people thought the world was flat, one might have wondered whether the sea poured over its edge…. Time, however, seemed to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone (i.e. God) to set the trains going…. However, once we add the effects of quantum theory to the theory of relativity, in extreme cases [like the Big Bang] warpage can occur to such a great extent that time behaves like another dimension of space.[iii]
On this view, time, like the shape of the earth, is not “flat” but “curved” in such a way that the concept of the “beginning of the temporal series” makes as much sense as the concept of the “edge of the world.” For Hawking, this implies the multiverse is a closed system which does not need any explanation from outside of itself. As Ockham’s razor suggests, where there is no need to posit the existence of a supernatural being, one should not. The universe, then, is simply the product of purely physical laws. Hawking claims, then, that physics is finally providing answers to three historically philosophical questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other?”[iv] Given this new role for physics, philosophy is not so much dead as it is obsolete.
But, has Hawking really shown that philosophy is obsolete? I think not. A charitable reading of The Grand Design would grant Hawking the point that philosophers need to take some of the more bizarre implications of modern physics seriously. But there are a number of philosophers who do take science seriously and attempt to base their arguments on firm empirical grounds. Perhaps Hawking hasn’t spent a lot of time with his colleagues in the department of philosophy at Cambridge.
But the best interpretation of Hawking’s arguments, I would argue, is that he himself is doing philosophy in this book. One common way of distinguishing philosophy from science is this. Science attempts to use observation and mathematics to discover the empirical truths of the world (i.e. the underlying physical laws, states, and processes) while philosophy , attempts to draw rational non-empirical conclusions from empirical, logical, or other basic truths. As soon as Hawking begins to infer non-empirical conclusions from quantum mechanics and general relativity, he is in effect, practicing philosophy. And, just as the philosopher would be required to empirically verify or experimentally test any empirical conclusions he or she makes, Hawking is subject to the methods and measures of good philosophy when he engages in philosophy.
The Grand Design is an excellent book in that it explains cutting edge physics in a way that is understandable for the layman and because it provokes a number of important philosophical questions. One should be weary, however, when interpreting his conclusions. As with any argument from authority, we should trust it only when it pertains to the author’s domain of authority. When your pharmacist tells you not to take medications A and B together because they will have an unfortunate side effect, we should trust that advice. When your pharmacist tells you to vote for candidate C because of that candidate’s economic policies, we have no reason to trust that advice. Hawking is, by all accounts, one of the most brilliant scientific minds living today. Nonetheless, many of the philosophical conclusions in The Grand Design are not empirically verifiable, but rest on philosophical assumptions such as “model-dependent realism” which could certainly be false. We should trust the scientific claims made in the book, but question the philosophical ones. Philosophy is not dead, but very much alive, as demonstrated by Hawking himself in the book and hopefully by the reader as he or she reads it.
[i] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Random House, 2010), 5.
[ii] Ibid, 22.
[iii] Ibid, 134.
[iv] Ibid, 10.
Love the post. I’ve been trying to get my hands on his book and will definitely have to get around to it now. Interestingly, the media has not picked up on this claim at all. Rather, they’ve focused on his claim, ‘God is not a necessary condition of the universe’. I find the claim against philosophy to be more compelling and controversial, and you’ve elucidated the hypocrisy underpinning his claim very well.
Having read four or five reviews of Hawking’s book, as well as the book itself, I would say this is the most substantive review I’ve seen. It is a good book, as an explanation of recent scientific cosmology, fascinating and beautifully illustrated. But it’s not cutting edge philosophy; rather Hawking gives us Bertrand Russell warmed over, without Russell’s careful distinctions. Philosophy still has her domain. Remind ME never to write about physics!
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
- Stephen Hawking in “The Grand Design”
“As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
– Stephen Hawking in the same book.
Here three questions can be asked:
1) Which one came first, universe, or laws of gravity and quantum theory?
2) If the universe came first, then how was there spontaneous creation without the laws of gravity and quantum theory?
3) If the laws of gravity and quantum theory came first, then Hawking has merely substituted God with quantum theory and laws of gravity. These two together can be called Hawking’s “Unconscious God”. Therefore we can legitimately ask the question: Who, or what, created Hawking’s unconscious God?
Not only this, but there are other problems also. If the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes spontaneously appearing from nothing, then initially there was nothing. Then wherefrom appear those laws of gravity and quantum theory to allow universes appearing spontaneously from nothing? In which container were those two laws of nature?
Now regarding the M-theory: I have already written something on multiverse theory (not yet published anywhere). There I have come to the conclusion that if there are an infinite number of universes, then only within that infinite number of universes there will certainly be at least one universe in which life will emerge. If the number of universes is only 10 to the power 500, then it is very much unlikely that any one of them will support life, because no universe will know which set of values the other universes have already taken, and if everything is left on chance, then there is every probability that all the universes will take only those set of values that will not support life. There will be no mechanism that will prevent any universe from taking the same set of values that have already been taken by other universes. There will be no mechanism that will take an overview of all the universes already generated, and seeing that in none of them life has actually emerged will move the things in such a way that at least one universe going to be generated afterwards will definitely get the value of the parameters just right for the emergence of life. Only in case of an infinite number of universes this problem will not be there. This is because if we subtract 10 to the power 500 from infinity, then also we will get infinity. If we subtract infinity from infinity, still then we will be left with infinity. So we are always left with an infinite number of universes out of which in at least one universe life will definitely emerge. Therefore if M-theory shows that it can possibly have 10 to the power 500 number of solutions, and that thus there might be 10 to the power 500 number of universes in each of which physical laws would be different, then it is really a poor theory, because it cannot give us any assurance that life will certainly emerge in at least one universe. So instead of M-theory we need another theory that will actually have an infinite number of solutions.
Philosophy is dead. Is Logic dead also?
How did the scientists come to know that an entire universe could come out of nothing? Or, how did they come to know that anything at all could come out of nothing? Were they present at that moment when the universe was being born? As that was not the case at all, therefore they did not get that idea being present at the creation event. Rather they got this idea being present here on this very earth. They have created a vacuum artificially, and then they have observed that virtual particles (electron-positron pairs) are still appearing spontaneously out of that vacuum and then disappearing again. From that observation they have first speculated, and then ultimately theorized, that an entire universe could also come out of nothing. But here their entire logic is flawed. These scientists are all born and brought up within the Christian tradition. Maybe they have downright rejected the Christian world-view, but they cannot say that they are all ignorant of that world-view. According to that world-view God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. So as per Christian belief-system, and not only as per Christian belief-system, but as per other belief-systems also, God is everywhere. So when these scientists are saying that the void is a real void, God is already dead and non-existent for them. But these scientists know very well that non-existence of God will not be finally established until and unless it is shown that the origin of the universe can also be explained without invoking God. Creation event is the ultimate event where God will have to be made redundant, and if that can be done successfully then that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does not exist. So how have they accomplished that job, the job of making God redundant in case of creation event? These were the steps:
1) God is non-existent, and so, the void is a real void. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist, it cannot be concluded that the void is a real void.
2) As virtual particles can come out of the void, so also the entire universe. Our universe has actually originated from the void due to a quantum fluctuation in it.
3) This shows that God was not necessary to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, as because there was no creation event.
4) This further shows that God does not exist.
So here what is to be proved has been proved based on the assumption that it has already been proved. Philosophy is already dead for these scientists. Is it that logic is also dead for them?
Hi, Charles Myro here,
No, Hawking hasn’t answered the question. Given his assertion that gravity made the universe spring up spontaneously or whatever exactly his reason be, one may further ask, why should there be such a thing as gravity or the spontaneous or whatever there was before the bang?
And if a reason is given for that, then why should that be? and if a reason given for that, ask again why.
This process is endless and endlessly unanswered and unanswerable unless, as Hawking does, one simply refuses to entertain any further questioning. The great mystery of life remains.
Hawking is brilliant in physics but physics originates from the wider world, from the wider life and existence, and not the wider life and existence from physics. What there is is larger than physics.
Physics, and science generally, merely assumes that there is nothing more beyond its assumptions, lab findings and notions and reduces the wide world to it. I find the conceit parochial and naive.
There is nothing in a bubble chamber that will tell you why there should be such a thing as a game of poker.
As Shakespeare wrote, and I think it applies well to Hawking and to all of science: “there is more in heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy”.
Hi, Charles Myro here,
I think what Hawking says may be summarized thus:
We know the answers and if you have
a question that we cannot answer,it is not a valid question. Our point of view is the only point of view that is valid; what exists is what we say exists and nothing else exists.
What Hawking expresses is the quintessence of scientific arrogance.
That formal science can be useful is
plain; that therefor only its point of view and process can be useful and valid—is a presumption. There is no scientific experiment that can verify such an assertion, and equally so with any other assumption science makes; for instance, that there is no other conception of things or approach that could be even more materially useful than its own.
Further, science, to make progress must presume and does presume that its scheme of things is provisional and always in transition. The scheme can and will change over time, otherwise how may progress be made? As Newton was replaced by Einstein, science will change. But science also assumes there is only one reality. No stable point of view about reality and yet there is only one reality— but the former belies, cancels, the latter. Again, this scheme of science is a philosophical surmise–not determined by experiment.
Philosophically, if what reality is, in the scientific view, can change over time then what reality is, is not fixed and not a monolithic thing. So science’s claim to be the sole arbiter of some kind of monolithic truth of the real, is misplaced.
It is important to remember that science presumes a particular point of view–the materialistic point of view–and that this is a philosophical notion–not determined by experiment–but an assumption. The results of science do not eliminate the possibility that the world may be better understood by a different point of view, a different scheme.
It is not shown by scientific experiment, for instance, that it is not possible that awareness or mind or being generally is what gives rise to the world of matter–a la Berkeley– rather than awareness or being from matter.
Another scientific conceit is that there is a clear distinction between what is “objective” (as in objective evidence)and what is “subjective” and therefor science, being the “objective” observer, has greater validity than anything it claims is merely subjective. But there is no such clear distinction. What theory holds true in science is, it can be argued, determined subjectively or intersubjectively—as much as objectively; any posit of a world and its character, is a mental thing at least as much as physical.
To try to escape this conceptual trap,
science simply says that mental is an epiphenomenon arising from the category of physical matter– mind is only neurons firing and nothing more than that–and not to be considered a separate phenomenon.
This illustrates clearly that its point of view –its philosophy–is strictly materialism; matter primary and mental secondary or derivative
—whereas one could argue that it is just as legitimate to say that mental and physical are aspects of a wider thing– experience or events or some such. Thus the view of science is a particular philosophical stance.
There is no experiment that can show their stance is the only one that is valid. To claim that experiment can show such a thing is to simply presume a definition of understanding and validity that allows no other point of view to be valid.
And this presumption is what Hawking has so arrogantly adopted.
It is clear to this writer that formal science is one context in the world-one aspect of a wider life, a wider existence. It is this wider life, wider existence, that births science, not science that births the wider life. Most of life does not involve formal scientific thought or process and the world is much wider than any particular context, and is not prdedicted by what science studies and produces; the multiplicity of life and thought and activity is not accounted for by science.
Thus, it is an assumption that atoms account for everything. There is nothing you can see by splitting an atom that predicts there should be something like the game of poker.
And further, science does not, contrary to Hawking’s assertion, show why there should be such a thing as a universe at all. Hawking simply ignores the true import of the question and posits another physical law as an account. But the true import of the question is that there is no final answer to it. One may always ask—why?—why Mr Hawking, should there be such a
thing as a physical law or principle and a thing such as a person named Hawking to spout it?
To any answer–including the scientific—one may ask why similarly.
Hawking’s answer shows that science does not consider it even a legitimate
wonder, to wonder such a why–to seek such a fundamental.
What is a legitimate question? To Hawking it is a question that has a scientific answer. It is the physical, material scheme of science which accounts for everything, in his presumptuous view, and any question that does not start with that philosophical position–is not a legitimate question.
Why there should be such a thing as a scientific answer or a scheme that posits the material point of view as the only legitimate view—he has not the imagination or independence of mind to consider. There is no wider life to Hawking containing his scheme–his scheme is all and all there is.
And this is why Philosophy will never die–because Philosophers do often have such independence of mind and analysis in the face of dogma, be it scientific, religious or commonsensical, to seek a wider human understanding.