Replies

Hawking’s imaginary time speculation looks just as kluged to me as Einstein’s cosmological constant, i.e. faced with inconvenient evidence, what formula or factor can be used to make it “go away.” That approach is like putting the cart before the horse. A Platonist would insist that the evidence be followed to its conclusion and that whatever it is makes sense.

The Platonist would be a bad scientist. We don't dump otherwise valuable theories because of a few discordant observations; we make some sort of ad hoc assumption, and in the meantime work very hard to find out what's really going on. A classic example is the neutrino. Initial observations of radioactive beta decay indicated that neither energy nor angular momentum was conserved. The scientific community wasn't willing to dump two well-established conservation laws because of this one discordant phenomenon, so they hypothesized the neutrino, a nearly undetectable particle which carried away the momentum and energy. Had they left it at that, it would have been extremely unsatisfactory; however, they did not. Having predicted the existence of the particle, experiments were done to try to detect it, and it was finally observed.

Einstein's cosmological constant has likewise been the subject of a half-century of research; and Hawking's 'imaginary time', if it passes the tests of consistency with well-established observations, and self consistency, will undoubtedly be tested and tested again.

Thank you for your reply!

Both the Platonist scientist and the Aristotelian scientist are valuable contributors, IMHO. The Plato/Aristotle debate continued with Godel/Einstein and who could argue their contributions?

Today, the most notable Plato/Aristotle debate is between Penrose/Hawking who have collaborated various times over the years. They seem to spur one another on.

As an example, in the Penrose/Hawking debate it has been mentioned several times that the Aristotelian like Hawking, having received evidence to support a theory, is satisfied and wants to quit - whereas the Platonist like Penrose wants to continue until it makes sense.

The current such issue as I recall is the bridge between quantum and classical physics. Penrose says a new physics is needed to resolve the observer non-locality “paradox” and Schrodinger whereas Hawking is satisfied with the tools at hand.

So if Penrose wins and a new kind of physics is born in solving the problems – or if Hawking solves the problems with existing tools – either way – progress is made!

I am Platonist because the philosophy aligns closely to the Truth as I know Him to be. But I would never dismiss a theory offered by an Aristotelian.