A Voyage through Stephen Hawking’s Universe, Inevitably Emerging out of Nothing by Physical Law (3)
Reflections
4) Is it time to celebrate/mourn the theistic God’s death?
Before considering this question, it would be appropriate first to see how The Grand Design (TGD) interprets scientific knowledge (epistemologically): its validity on the world around us and the question of God.
Ontological status of laws: TGD (39-59)argues that neither does modern physics seem to agree with the position that a concrete universe exists independent of us, the observers (ontological realism) nor is it compatible with the stance that there is no external universe and all that exists merely exists within our minds (subjective idealism or anti-realism). Therefore, TGD is written in context of “model-dependent realism.” The term is coined by the authors to convey that what we see as a chair, for example, is actually only a picture or a model created by our brain as it interprets the visual data about the chair. There is no way we can reach the actual chair (if any) independent of our brain-model to pass any verdict about its ontological status: we cannot tell whether the visual data is originating from a real chair existing independent of us out there (and is modelled sufficiently well by our brains) or the data is fed into our brains through some other source[1]. Therefore, it is beyond the limits of our knowledge and, hence, futile to ask ontological questions.
In addition to the automatic models that our brains create as a routine, we also make models (i.e., theories or laws) in science to explain observations and make predictions. One such model is the famous equation based on Einstein’s special theory of relativity: E=m× c2, where E represents energy (potential to do work), m mass, and c the speed of light[2]. This elegant (concise and simple) model explains the relationship between mass and energy of matter and has the ability to explain complex observations and make scientifically useful predictions. For example, if we want to know how much energy an object of a specific mass will contain on Mars, we can confidently employ this equation. TGD suggests that all scientific models should be discussed in the framework of model-dependent realism. That will demand us to avoid ontological questions about scientific models[3] and encourage us to judge them on the basis of their elegance,[4] utility to explain existing observations, and ability to make experimentally testable predictions. If two or more models live up to this criterion while attempting to represent the same situation, they will be accepted as equally valid. To illustrate the point, TGD asks us to think of fish kept within a spherical bowl. Due to the curved surface of the bowl, the fish will have a distorted view of the world outside the bowl; for example, an object moving in a straight line will appear to the fish to take a curved path. But if one such fish happens to be Newton, it can still formulate laws of motion from its point of reference that will agree with observations of moving objects from within the bowl and also make correct predictions about their motion. The laws of motion formulated by the fish will be different to ours; nonetheless, they will be completely valid from the fish’s perspective, and leave, at least, the realist fish with no reason to doubt its picture of reality. Our laws and the fish’s laws of motion both will model the motion of same objects effectively but from different frame of references, and both will be useful and valid – ours outside the bowl and that of the fish from inside it. TGD also uses this example to make the point that even if we ourselves happen to be inside some invisible spherical bowl distorting our view of ‘reality’, it will have no bearing on the validity of our laws if we consider them in the perspective of model-dependent realism.
Model-dependent realism leaves no room for truth or ontological claims. First, model-dependent realism is a rather misleading term because, as mentioned above, TGD does not take as real or absolute truth what our mental and scientific models tell us. Rather it takes an idealist approach where neither external reality is negated nor affirmed [Lennox (2011, 57)refers to TGD’s position as anti-realism]. So, when it makes ontological or truth statements, model-dependent realism restricts us not to take them literally. For example, when TGD (59, 136, 153, 154, 165, respectively)claims that: “every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously,” “in fact, many universes exist with many different sets of physical laws,” “planets of all sorts exist,” “our own knowledge of our existence,” “the fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes,”it is bound by model-dependent realism not to suggest that all these existences are out there in an external reality. All it is allowed to say is that, within our perception or scientific models, things exist in such and such manner. As for reality, model-dependent realism implies that our scientific tools might be showing us a completely false picture of it – so, under this view, it is completely plausible that, in reality, God might be standing right in front of us.
Need for revelation: It should, however, be acknowledged that the issue of realism versus anti-realism is one of those that are humanly impossible to settle. Only God, if He exists, can tell us whether the world we see around is real or not. Such helpless situations cry out for the need for revelation and, therefore, invite us to give due importance to the religions that claim to be revealed by God. Next, we should turn to what TGD has to say about the concept of God. We will go through important passages of the book on the issue and discuss them along the way.
God or multiverse?
“Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way. Many people would like us to use these coincidencesas evidence of the work of God.” (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 162-163)
“But the discovery, relatively recently, of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer… That is not the answer of modern science. …Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine-tuning. It is a consequence of the no-boundary condition as well as many other theories of modern cosmology. But if it is true, then the strong anthropic principle can be considered effectively equivalent to the weak one, putting the fine-tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat – now the entire observable universe – is only one of many, just as our solar system is one of many. That means that in the same way that the environmental coincidences of our solar system were rendered unremarkable by the realization that billions of such systems exist, the fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes. Many people through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and complexity of nature that in their time seemed to have no scientific explanation.”(Parentheses mine; Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 164-165)
There are top-level modern scientists who, rather than rejecting “the old idea”[5] of God on the basis of scientific evidence, use this evidence to argue for God (Lennox 2009 has extensively referred to such scientists throughout his book). Therefore, the statement that God “is not the answer of modern science” is misleading as if it is a well-established fact within the scientific community. Also, it is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific hypothesis, that the fine-tuning[6] of the universe is a coincidence.
From a scientific perspective, multiverse is far from being verifiable. A prominent quantum theorist John Polkinghorne writes:
Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual responsibility – and to my mind greater economy and elegance – would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so. (Polkinghorne 2007, 95)
But even if the idea of multiverse is accepted, it neither explains the fine-tuning[7] of the universe nor does it remove the need for God as the ultimate explanation of all that there is. Let us use an analogy to elaborate this. If among 10500 heaps of stones (whatever that number means), one happens to be an automatic plant producing the latest generation of Mercedes Benz, would it not immediately remind us of some highly sophisticated work of engineering behind it, even if there is no such engineer anywhere to be seen? Will the brilliance exhibited by that plant be explained away or become “unremarkable” by the presence of a huge number of worthless heaps of stones around? I think not. Now, how various processes in that plant work will be a subject of our scientific inquiry, and science may reveal that the plant slowly self-assembled (evolved) over time from some primitive material. However, what science would not explain is why, in the first place, primitive material carried all the extraordinary potential within it that enabled it to turn into an awe-inspiring automatic plant, and why all the other conditions and factors were timely present for a harmonized evolution of the plant to take place. What is beyond science, nonetheless, is not necessarily beyond rationality. If through abduction (inference to the best explanation), one infers an intelligent mind behind the plant, of course, it will not be “the answer of science,” not because science has invalidated it but because the answer is beyond the scope of the scientific method. Also note that the inference here is made after understanding the plant through science, not out of ignorance of science.
In the above analogy, it was assumed that only one out of 10500 heaps of stones happened to be a brilliant plant; however, regarding 10500 universes that are postulated, it is by no means obvious that they are useless or not fine-tuned for some other kind of life. In that case, rather than explaining away God, multiverse will make God much more certain.
Why is there something rather than 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. (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 180)
But TGD has not answered why there was a quantum vacuum rather than nothing! A “god of the gaps”[8] is not intended here. If not spontaneous creation, there must be some other mechanism through which God brought this universe into existence from nothing. For a theist, science has enormously improved the understanding of how God works in nature. We now are certain that He works through “automated” mechanisms, rather than building a universe like a mason. But why God? That is because the nature of the universe is such that it requires ultimate explanation, which is not available within the universe. One can explain, for instance, a cake in terms of physics and biology, but the very presence of something as wonderful as a cake points beyond itself to an agent (Lennox 2009, 41-44). The universe is far more marvelous than a cake, and it is our knowledge of science, not ignorance, that compels us to look for an intelligent agent behind it. Take, for example, the presence of information in our universe that is a precursor for life, i.e., the “DNA database of digital information” (Lennox 2009, 182). Since “the only source we know of such language-like complexity is intelligence,”this serves as apointer towards a mind of immense intelligence behind this universe.[9]
Who created God?
It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this view it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God. (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 172)
The question “who made God?” is synonymous to jumping the gun. The immediate question is whether the awe-inspiring makeup of our universe and life therein is self-explanatory or not. Since it is not, that is what compels us to look for an agent like God (Ghamidi 2012, 97). Tables and chairs from their very makeup demand a carpenter, no matter if the carpenter himself is created or not. In Abrahamic religions, God is considered to be self-explanatory and unlike anything that we know of. If He happens not to be so, we will look for His creator too. But before discovering the being of God, the question of his creation is an irrelevant presumption. The physicist Edgar Andrews[10] (2012, 25)in his book Who Made God writes:
Cause and effect do indeed reign supreme in the physical realm – both science and normal life would be impossible unless they did. But why should they operate in the same manner in a spiritual realm (if such exists)? We have a choice. Firstly, we can assert a priori that there is no such thing as a spiritual realm – that nothing exists that is not physical and open to scientific investigation. On this basis we can proceed to claim, with some logical justification, that every possible effect must have a cause, because that is how the physical world works. But what we cannot do is use this claim to disprove the existence of God on the grounds that he doesn’t have a cause! Why not? Because our argument would be completely circular. We begin by assuming that no spiritual realm exists and conclude by ‘proving’ our initial assumption.’
Before closing this essay, I would like to say that if it is truth that we are after (as many of us claim), then we ought to scrutinize religious texts also with the same zeal that we have scrutinized TGD’s arguments here. Especially, the interpretations of religious texts that make people do or support evil in the name of God must be critically reviewed; for example, demanding to kill someone who changes one’s religion, “jailing” women within the walls of the house, persecution or subjugation of people of other faiths, and so forth.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Rani Lill Anjum and Dr. Fredrik Andersen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, for stretching my rigid scientific brain to witness a wonderful world of philosophy. Thank you for excellent discussions, useful advice and, above all, for your extremely kind and caring hearts!
References
Andrews, Edgar. 2012. Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything. Darlington: EP Books
BioLogos. Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God? 2014. Available from http://biologos.org/questions/god-of-the-gaps.
Ghamidi, Javed Ahmed. 2012. Islam: A Comprehensive Introduction. Lahore: Al-Mawrid
Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. 2010. The Grand Design. London: Bantam Press.
Lennox, John C. 2009. God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford: Lion Books.
Lennox, John C. 2011. God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway? Oxford: Lion Hudson.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2007. One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology: Templeton Press.
[1].For example, as for a chair we see in a dream, its data is not fed into our brains from what we call the external world. Similarly, while being awake, we might be conscious characters in a dream-like (or, say, a simulation-game like) situation, who are fed with mere data (without any concrete reality behind it) that our brains interpret as chairs, animals, our friends and family etc., as if existing physically in a ‘real’ external world.
[2]. E = m ×c2 implies that the amount of energy in an object is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared; for example, if we want to know the amount of energy in a stationary stone with mass of 2 kilograms (kg) we can find it out using this equation:
m= 2 kg
c= 299,792,458 meters per second (m/s)
E = 2 kg × (299,792,458 m/s)2= 599,548,916 kg ×m2/s2
Since 1 kg ×m2/s2 = 1 joule, a 2 kg stone will contain 599,548,916 joules of energy in it.
[3]. For E = m ×c2, for example, it will be irrelevant to ask whether mass and energy are entities or properties of entities present in the real external world. Instead, we will start our discussion from the point that the relationship between mass and energy is so according to our perception.
[4].Elegance here refers to simplicity and conciseness (of the sort we find in E = m ×c2). It further implies that the model need not be adjusted on ad hoc basis (to fit with observations) and contain only a few (if any) arbitrarily adjustable elements. E = m ×c2 would have been an inelegant model if, for example, the value of c needed to be arbitrarily changed to fit with or explain observations.
[5]. Lennox (2011)correctly points out that the word ‘old’ here gives a wrong impression that the idea is wrong and replaced by something better.
[6]. To get a glimpse of how remarkable the fine-tuning is that has made possible the universe and its sentient beings, see a sub-section devoted to this issue in Lennox’s (2009, 68-73)book God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford.)
[7]. It should be appreciated that the “miracle of fine-tuning” is not the occurrence of only a few extremely improbable events that have made possible the universe and life therein; instead, it is a tale of countless such events.
[8].God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.(BioLogos 2014)
[9]. If science points to a mind behind the universe, one may ask, why think of the theistic God? Why can it not be a work of some deistic god, a team of gods, or aliens? Since the Bible and the Qur’an were revealed in a pagan background, they answer this question in detail. Once again, a sincere seeker is expected to do a critical analysis of the arguments and evidence provided by the scriptures in this regard.
______________