No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe

Stephen Hawking, noted theoretical physicist and cosmologist, is one of the smartest guys in the world. He's also an astute marketer, as shown by the title of his newest book, "The Grand Design" (which I finished reading this morning).

Hawking and his co-author, physicist Leonard Mlodinow, are going to sell quite a few copies to clueless religious folks who see "design" on the cover and think, Ooh, great, some scientific proof for intelligent design!

They'll be disappointed when they get to the final chapter and read:

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. 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 torch paper and set the universe going.

Well, I'll offer a godless Amen to that.

It's nice to have someone who understands the nature of the universe so well speak so clearly and boldly about the utter vacuity of a God hypothesis. That said -- because it's true -- I do have to take issue with the contention that Hawking has explained why there is something rather than nothing.

Actually, the cutting edge M-theory which forms the conceptual centerpiece of "The Grand Design" only explains why there is the something called Our Universe, not why existence exists at all.

That second question seemingly is unanswerable, so this probably is why Hawking assumes that "why something rather than nothing?" pertains to the universe, not to the cosmos (taking "cosmos" to mean everything that exists).

In the book Hawking says that God has been used by religions to explain how the universe came to be. But this simply pushes the why? question back a level, leaving it unanswered, since we now have to ask "How did God come to be?"

So if something always has existed, it makes more sense to presume that this is the cosmos, of which our universe is a part, rather than some unseen, unprovable, and unknown mystery called "God."

"The Grand Design" doesn't break much new ground that I hadn't already trod in my reading of other books about the current state of scientific cosmology.

But Hawking has a knack for saying things simply and clearly. Since he has to speak through a voice synthesizer after laboriously typing out his thoughts, it's to be expected that he would have developed a taste for crisp conciseness.

The Big Idea in this book is the notion of a multiverse. It's what makes the supposed fine-tuning of the laws of nature a non-miracle. Sure, it's amazing how our universe is so well-suited for the appearance of living beings like us.

Hawking describes how neither the universe as a whole, nor the conditions necessary for carbon-based life, would exist if certain constants in nature's laws were just a little bit different from what they are.

Religious types see this as a Creator's intelligent design. Hawking, through M-theory, views the situation much differently.

If there is an infinity, or near-infinity, of "bubble" universes in the cosmos, then anything can and will happen -- including a universe with the laws of nature that we observe. Obviously we live in such a universe, or it wouldn't be possible for me to write, and for you to read, a statement on a blog post saying "obviously we live in such a universe."

The same reasoning applies to why we find ourselves inhabiting a planet, Earth, that orbits a star, the Sun, in a fashion that is Goldilocks-like. For example, we aren't so close to the Sun that we'd boil, or so far away that we'd freeze.

The temperature here, by and large, is just right. But of course it has to be, or we humans wouldn't be here, able to ponder why we're here.

There's a lot more in "The Grand Design" than the multiverse theory, lots of it utterly fascinating. At less than 200 pages, this is an excellent overview of modern scientific cosmology.

Here's some excerpts that talk about why an all-encompassing Theory of Everything probably isn't in the cards.

Hundreds of years ago people thought the earth was unique, and situated at the center of the universe. Today we know there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, a large percentage of them with planetary systems, and hundreds of billions of galaxies.

The results described in this chapter indicate that our universe itself also is one of many, and that its apparent laws are not uniquely determined. This must be disappointing for those who hoped that an ultimate theory, a theory of everything, would predict the nature of everyday physics.

...We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. 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. That may not satisfy our human desire to be special or to discover a neat package to contain all the laws of physics, but it does seem to be the way of nature.

(There are many thoughtful reviews of "The Grand Design." Some that I came across and read via a Google search are here, here, here, and here.)

Comments

[Willie R.]

I just finished reading "The Grand Design" - which I purchased based upon hints of it's existence obtained right here in Brian's blog.

I find myself in concurrence with Hawking and Mlodinow's primary conclusion: the universe spontaneously appeared out of nothing, without cause.

That makes the universe (everything that exists) nothing's kissing cousin.

Nothing exists.

[Ron Krumpos]

In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate, but never completed. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

[Roger]

Ron,

Very good post. That said, how would anyone know that the 'mystics' have a 'supposed' fourth power of suprarational consciousness?
You may want to expound on this topic further.
Best wishes, Roger

[Ron Krumpos]

Roger, ask a mystic or read my free e-book. I was introduced to mysticism by a Nobel physicist in 1959. Since then I have met 18 other mystics in 12 countries. 20 religious leaders and scholars across the USA were consulted prior to posting it on the Internet

[Roger]

Ron,

"True mystics had direct experience in divine union. Within these essays, oneness,
union and unity all mean to be consciously in the unifying divine essence. These
are some terms which are used in mysticism most often, but they are simply words.
What is is not changed by what it is called. People’s opinions too often distort it."

---Is the unification within the 'divine' essence, a self-wareness consciousness?
And, is divine essence better than just 'plain' essense?

---Yes, people(you and me) can often distort meanings of words. If there are 'true' mystics, then there must be 'false' mystics.

Does a 'true' mystic require the 'mystic' title? Would mystic Bob be offended it I called him by his name Bob only?

Thanks for some replies. I'm not finding fault with you. Your information is good.
Best wishes Roger

[Roger]

"The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter."

---Could a 'ditch' digger intuit through
sense perceptions, intuitions, and realizations the non-conceptuality of various perceived matter? I'm guessing they could. They could view 'divine' essense as just another gimicky term, and then go back to the digging of their ditch. These ditch diggers are totally KOOL.

[Ron Krumpos]

Roger, you are very close to getting it. "Divine" is a superlative adjective for the underling essence of all existence. Most "mystics" don't like to be called that (too much misunderstanding) and a ditch digger can be a mystic (as can the CEO of a global bank).

Again I suggest that you read the book. It is only 100 pages and you can finish it before we exchange any more blog posts. It was written to assist those who are interested in mysticism, not to convince those who think it is nonsense.

[Roger]

Ron,

I did scan through your ebook. I don't think mysticism is nonsense. Mysticism makes great conversation. Your ebook, imo, is a nice enclycapedia of mysticism. Yes, it could assist those who are interested.

Are you aware of a mechanism that describes the "direct experience" that 'true' mystics understand and use? If so, write something.
Thanks Roger

[Arnaud]

Very fine comments here in a great explaination of Hawkings latest book but with a critical eye and not all this grand admiration, wow for such a scientist who claims the great design as a natural masterpiece. From nothing appeared the "Mona Lisa". It was just the atoms working togetther, no creator is needed. "The same reasoning applies to why we find ourselves inhabiting a planet, Earth, that orbits a star, the Sun, in a fashion that is Goldilocks-like. For example, we aren't so close to the Sun that we'd boil, or so far away that we'd freeze."

Well argued.

For a scientist who claims there is no intelligence beyond the grand design, he forgot the chaos theory, he wanted to make it secure but an atheist view point should make us feel insecure and without a universal balance and harmony, we should be soon a victim of chaos. It should have been his conclusion.