Posted on 08/10/2002 7:52:40 AM PDT by It'salmosttolate
An interview with Nicolo Dallaporta one of the fathers of modern cosmology.
To get away from this evidence, cosmological scenarios are offered that in one way or another repropose a form of the old principle of plenitude ("everything that can exist, does exist"). The existence is thus postulated of an infinity of chances, among which "our case" becomes an obvious favorable case (today the most popular form is that of multi-universes). What is your view on this?
It is very possible, but it is not physics. It is a metaphysics in which recourse is made to a chance that is so enormously limitless that everything that is possible is real. But in this way it becomes a confrontation between metaphysics in which chance collides with purpose. This latter, however, seems much easier to believe! Physics up to now has been based on measurable "data." Beyond this it is a passage of metaphysics. At this point I compare it with another metaphysics. Those who sustain these viewpoints (like Stephen Hawking, for instance) should realize that this goes beyond physics; otherwise it is exaggerated. Physics, pushed beyond what it can measure, becomes ideology...
Today the emphasis in the world of research and also in the university is to go to extremes in the pursuit of details…
… Often it happens that each person is pushing one little channel and doesn't know anything but that. The great themes have very little resonance. But the problem is that today scientists no longer have time to think. Physicists have "thought" up to the generation of Hesemberg and Shroedinger. After that, there has been no time for this. The quantity of knowledge and information has grown so fast that it is increasingly difficult for a scientist to have a view of the whole…
Professor, if you had to start out today with a new research project in cosmology, what would you choose?
An important theme is the generalization of what we were saying before. Until now the effort has been made to study the effects of the structure of nature and its laws by considering the variation of only one physical constant at a time, and the criticality of this was discovered. I would try to go more deeply into this, studying the effects of the variation of more than one constant at the same time. It is demanding, it requires very complex calculations.
That concept has always struck me as being profound, similar to the concept that solid matter has only the "appearance of permanence." Maybe the principle of plenitude should be updated to: Everything can exist and does exist.
There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence.
The multiple universe theory is asserted by Stephen Hawking. It offers a theoretical basis for believing that - due to quantum fluctuations - all possible universes actually exist, howbeit we cannot detect them.
It is presented as Physics but, as Dallaporta observes in the above interview, it pushes beyond what can be measured and thus is ideology. That doesn't bother me except that Metaphysics, or bridges between Physics and Metaphysics, IMHO should be clearly labeled to avoid confusion for the readers.
Moreover, in my view, we must rely on science (like our judicial system) to be as objective as possible - so whenever a theory broaches Metaphysics the peer review should be most demanding.
On the surface, the "multiple universe" theory only tries to explain away the extraordinary improbability of the existence of our physical universe by random change, i.e. an attempt to get rid of an intelligent designer at the Big Bang. It is not the pure, Descartes style, debate of (alternate) reality v. thought.
Please accept my apology for my snippy post last night. Hugs!
There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist...
"Want" or "desire" is a powerful force in humans that can "make" things happen. It drives us to do things (good or bad), to satisfy feelings (good or bad) or quench "thirsts" (good or bad). It may be desire instead of love that makes the world go 'round.
...it pushes beyond what can be measured and thus is ideology.
True. Is an ideology a theory that hasn't been proven (yet)?
...we must rely on science (like our judicial system) to be as objective as possible - so whenever a theory broaches Metaphysics the peer review should be most demanding.
"science (like our judicial system)" bothers me a little bit. Our judicial system seems to exist only in the abstract — a fading abstract (ideology?). Our "legal system," on the other hand, can not be objective, I fear, as it intrudes more and more on all aspects of our lives. Amen on the peer review.
I certainly agree that want can make things happen. In science where so very much information is involved, the want can skew the results and they must be especially careful.
For instance, in the September 2000 attempt by CERN to find the Higgs boson, the scientists were enthused. But the results were not clear, so the search continues at Fermilab. Finding the Higgs boson is critical to the Standard Model; without it, there would be great difficulty in explaining much of the mass in the universe.
I look at ideology as a worldview. It could be a prejudice in favor of socialism, capitalism, etc. In this context, an ideology could be that "physical events or things that can be observed are all that there is" – e.g. an atheistic or naturalist point of view. Another view would be predisposed to an intelligent designer, e.g. a Judeo-Christian view.
Obviously where there are such counter-indicative prejudices – heated debates ensue. We see it all the time here on evolution v. creation threads. The scientists, IMHO, carry the heavier burden. Nobody expects a Theologian to be objective, but we rely on scientists to be objective. So whenever I sense an unprovable scientific theory being proposed for no apparent purpose other than to debunk the opposing point of view, it disturbs me.
IMHO, the “multiple universes from multiple quantum fluctuations” theory is an example. In a vacuum, virtual particles come into and out of existence. And my understanding is that phenomenon allows for such theories. But a vacuum is not a zero in the context we are discussing on this thread. Either a zero (Ayn Sof) or higher dimensional dynamic could effect a different theory, with or without multiple universes.
From my layman’s point of view - the multiple universe theory leads back to the “steady state” concept of the universe, the very prejudice that caused Einstein to propose the cosmological constant which he later discarded. When Hubbel’s work showed that there was a beginning, thinking changed to a Big Bang, a beginning, and the Theologians were joyful. Too joyful it seems. Further complicating the issue, the actual observations didn’t hold true to the expansion rate of the theory, so a type of cosmological constant was proposed as an adjustment.
And now, as science has vastly improved, it is obvious that the physical constants of our universe are so improbable as to point to an intelligent designer. That of course is an abomination to the naturalist worldview, so enter the multiple universe theory (all other universes also exist but cannot be observed) which again creeps back to what I would characterize as a steady state philosophy, something without a beginning, a vacuum which allows for quantum fluctuations.
I realize that it is impossible for a judge on a bench to be utterly without prejudice and it must be just as difficult for a scientist. But I do expect them to try harder than anybody else – and if they venture into such territory, to let us know the difference. It is a matter of trust to me.
They will come up with something or explain it away or come up with a new model sooner than they would have otherwise. They may even get it right. That would be great.
We see it all the time here on evolution v. creation threads.
I tend to stay away from those threads because I think the two concepts are either too far apart or are different names for the same one thing, whatever that one thing is.
I try to not mix science and religion because by doing so dilutes them both, I think. Mixing religion with politics serves only to bring religion down to the level of politics. In a couple of generations, the clones might figure it out.
I'm sure you are right that they will come up with another theory if the Higgs field doesn't pan out. Hopefully, they are already entertaining some thoughts on it.
It seems to me that as long as the battleground is the public school, and classwork infers ideology of any kind, there will be no peace between science and religion.
When the speed of light slows down to fifty miles per hour, we'll probably have to find something else to blow up entire cities.
Vintage science topic.
See previous post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
