Cosmology Fine tuning Intelligent Design Multiverse

Stephen Hawking’s final theory scales back multiverse

Spread the love
File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg
soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From ScienceDaily:

The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory: a branch of theoretical physics that attempts to reconcile gravity and general relativity with quantum physics, in part by describing the fundamental constituents of the universe as tiny vibrating strings. Their approach uses the string theory concept of holography, which postulates that the universe is a large and complex hologram: physical reality in certain 3D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2D projections on a surface.

Hertog and Hawking used their new theory to derive more reliable predictions about the global structure of the universe. They predicted the universe that emerges from eternal inflation on the past boundary is finite and far simpler than the infinite fractal structure predicted by the old theory of eternal inflation.

Their results, if confirmed by further work, would have far-reaching implications for the multiverse paradigm. “We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes,” said Hawking.

This makes the theory more predictive and testable. Paper. open access – S. W. Hawking, Thomas Hertog. A smooth exit from eternal inflation? Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018; 2018 (4) DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2018)147 More.

Well yes, of course. It is always possible that there are other universes out there, as the scaled down theory suggests. But that is not what the multiverse is about. It is about all states being true somewhere, which means that no definitive statement can be made about whether any fact about our universe, like fine-tuning, is significant. An infinity of other universes might not appear fine-tuned, so…

In the unlikely event that we could study a finite number of other universes, if they appear fine-tuned, one wonders what explanation will be offered… Creativity is a must for the job of explaining that away.

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Hawking’s final theory is just one of “some thousand” speculations

Did Stephen Hawking discover a means of detecting parallel universes just before he died? This sounds a lot like grief talking but we’ll see.

Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

Cosmic inflation theory loses hangups about the scientific method

and

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

3 Replies to “Stephen Hawking’s final theory scales back multiverse

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Something tells me that Hawking’s new foray into string theory is not going to fare any better than his last foray did:

    ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.”
    – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip:
    Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4

    And from an interview with Larry King in 2010:

    Larry King: “If you could time travel would you go forward or backward?”

    Stephen Hawking: “I would go forward and find if M-theory is indeed the theory of everything.”

    Larry King and others; “Quietly laugh”

    Contrary to what Stephen Hawking may say in public, in his writings, via Gödel, he has acknowledged that there will never be a mathematical theory of everything:

    The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems – Princeton – 2006
    Excerpt: ,,Stephen Hawking and Freeman Dyson, among others, have come to the conclusion that Gödel’s theorem implies that there can’t be a (mathematical) Theory of Everything.,,
    http://math.stanford.edu/~fefe.....el-IAS.pdf

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.”
    Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6

    Moreover, as Steven Weinberg, (another famous atheist), notes, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video
    Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    In fact, there are an infinite number of true mathematical theorems that could have described the universe. Which makes Weinberg’s observation that ‘we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’ all the more pressing.

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    Thus even if Hawking could find a single overarching mathematical theory of everything, we still would be left, via Gödel, with the question of, “Why does that particular mathematical theorem describe the universe and not one of the infinite number of other mathematical theorems that could have described the universe?”
    As Dr. Gordon states in the following article, “the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.”

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    The forsaking of the Agent Causality of God by atheists is a far bigger problem for them than they apparently realize (or are willing to honestly admit in public).

    The forsaking, by atheists, of the Agent Causality of God, and the forsaking of their very own agent causality, in fact, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of their entire naturalistic/materialistic, (i.e. Atheistic), worldview:

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
    Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,

    Thus, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor of reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    As far as experimental evidence is concerned, there simply is no reason to, a-priori, via methodological naturalism, exclude the “Mind of God” from consideration in physics. In fact, I would hold that advances in Quantum Physics now demands that the infinite “Mind of God” to be considered very much a viable option.

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

    And when we rightly let the Agent Causality of God “BACK” into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, then an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Theory and General Relativity readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead:

    Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw

    One final note, contrary to popular belief, our best, most precisely validated, theories in science are far friendlier to Christian concerns than anyone would ever gather from the popular scientific press;

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Verse:

    Psalm 118:22
    The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    In post 1, I should have noted that Hawking has recently passed over into the eternity that he had studied for a lifetime.

    Einstein and Michele Besso
    Upon Besso’s death in 1955, Einstein wrote a letter of condolence to the Besso family—less than a month before his own death—which contained the following quote “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
    http://quotingeinstein.blogspo.....besso.html

  3. 3
    Eric Anderson says:

    BA77:

    Thus even if Hawking could find a single overarching mathematical theory of everything, we still would be left, via Gödel, with the question of, “Why does that particular mathematical theorem describe the universe and not one of the infinite number of other mathematical theorems that could have described the universe?”

    This is an important point.

    There is such a tendency among mathematicians to think of their math as the reality (and to expect the rest of us to bow to it as such). It isn’t. It is simply an attempt to describe reality using a particular set of agreed-upon formulations and symbols. Even if we had a mathematical construct that perfectly described the universe, it would not tell us anything about what caused the universe or how it came to be.

    —–

    Incidentally, on a somewhat related note, sometimes we talk of the “laws of physics” or the “laws of nature” as though they cause things to happen. One author suggested, I think with some merit, that we should not view the laws of physics as prescriptive, but as descriptive.

    In other words, what we formulate and articulate as a law of nature is really a description of reality as we understand it. What actually causes the behavior — the underlying force of nature — is something else.

    Thoughts?

Leave a Reply