Print

Print


Thomas Merton used to say it was Catholicism and Communism.
I guess he didn't see the curious wedding of Regean and JP2,

I dunno if materialism is the right word anymore because science
is loaded with energy forces rather than solid matter.
I dunno whaz the matter wih matter.

P.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken Armstrong 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 7:12 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: Cold case solved? Study probes riddle of sinking beer bubbles


  Tom,

    Your post below is a real tour de force. Not commenting on the Ig Nobel, it
seems fair to say that Hawking represents the side of the materialists in
Eliot's statement (from memory) that ultimately there are two and only two
tenable hypotheses about life, the catholic and the materialist. If I'm reading
your argument right and other commentators such as Stephen Barr, the rising spin
of activity of the "new atheists" (materialists) likely corresponds to the end
of the phase of materialism they represent, "scientism." As any student of
McLuhan knows, things only gain force and names when they have become obsolete,
and it appears that is is science that is undercutting scientism. 

  Ken A


  On 6/30/2012 8:03 AM, Tom Gray wrote:

    If the Ig Nobel is meant as a spoof of academic arrogance then it is 
serving as a very useful purpose.  However that is not how it is portrayed in
the press. 


    I've just watched a documentary in which the physicist Stephen Hawking
explains the meaning of life. You see it is really quite simple, Everything
exists in nature and therefore is a result of the laws of physics and the
science of physics is able to extract the basic laws of nature that define
everything including the meaning of life. Philosophy is dead and only physics
remains. Our lives come from our brains which are just complex systems whose
behavior, while seemingly complicated and unpredictable, is just the result of
physical interactions which can be explained by reference to the basic laws of
the science of physics. The science of physics provides the explanation for all
things. There are a set of basic laws which are necessary and immutable and the
science of physics can discover them. Everything else comes from that. The
poetry of T.S. Eliot is simply an expression of these basic laws and nothing more


    Sounds pretty good doesn't it. Everything is derivative form the necessary
laws of physics. Well, maybe things are not so good after all. It turns out the
physics models that Hawking touts depend on the values given to 23 basic
constant ( the charge on the electron, gravitational constant etc.).  The odd
thing about this is that if these constants were not tightly constrained to very
precise values (to parts in 10 to the 20th or more) then the universe as we know
it could not exist. Why is it a fundamental necessity that the values be what
they are and not something else? String theory was one of the attempts to devise
the laws that would explain these values. However current string theory shows
not one solution but 10 to 100th solutions to the basic values. It offers no
explanation why the specific set of constraints that our physics measures are
the only one of this beyond vast number to be the correct and necessary ones.


    So perhaps what we are seeing is not the death of philosophy but the death
of physics. If what string theory and similar theories  predicts is true then
our universe is the way it is because it is the way it is.  The basic laws and
constants do not define the structure of the universe but the structure of the
universe constrain and define what these laws and constants must be. With string
theory, it can be seen that universe with any set of fundamental constants and
laws may be created. However only those universes which give rise to intelligent
life can create the science of physics. So the science of physics does not
discover the laws that created intelligent life but the laws that intelligent
life defines and compels. The basic physical constants and he laws that they
define are the result of an evolutionary selection process that is driven by the
necessity of intelligent life.


    So physics is dead is as a means of discovering the  necessary and
fundamental laws. The necessary and fundamental laws are defined not in the
basic interactions of fundamental particles but in the high level interactions
that define and compel them. So Hawkings is quite wrong. It is not physics that
can explain the meaning of our lives but that the meaning of our lives defines
and compels the laws of physics and that the science of physics is derivative of
that.  Basic physics has come to an end. Its conceit and the conceit of tis
academic practitioners was that it could discover the one basic truth. It turns
out that there is no one basic truth but an essentially infinite number of basic
truths. So any attempt of physics to go beyond string theory (or one of its
rivals) will fail. It can explain nothing since it can never select between any
of an infinite number of possibilities.


    Physics is dead and the conceit of physicists has been shown to be hollow.
Philosophy is fundamental. Physicists should not attempt to explain
philosophical questions in which they have no expertise. 


    If the Ig Nobel is a way of telling physicists and others that they too are
mortal then it is a very good thing. However I do not see that this is the point
that is presented to the public.



----- End forwarded message -----