Rather, this post is about the content and subject-matter of this old post and this one. Specifically, it's about my claim and argument that "a whole may never be greater that the sum of its parts" and about William Vallicella's (the 'Maverick Philosopher') refusal even to consider what I had said to that point (and to let it stand on his blog) or to let me further explain to his friend my objections to and criticisms of his (the friend's, and perhaps Vallicella's, though I'm not sure about him) belief in 'emergence' or 'supervenience' as truly being an aspect of reality.
As I was listening to a YouTube "video" (here, on Glenn People's blog) of William Lane Craig discussing some of the public claims about the content/argument of the recently published (at the time, not yet released) book by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow ('The Grand Design'), a realization (and simplification) came to me concerning the concept of 'emergence.'
First, I'll present my transcription of part of Dr Craig's talk, starting at the 2:58 mark:
... So, there's nothing that I can see, so far, that is really different or new in this book, 'The Grand Design.' So, what I would encourage readers to do is to first read 'Reasonable Faith' [a book by Craig], where I interact with Hawking's views on the origin of the universe and the 'fine-tuning' of the universe, and then in light of that discussion ask yourself the following questions as you look at Hawking's new book:The realization/simplification which came to me is this: the belief in 'emergence,' and the belief that "a whole may indeed be greater that the sum of its parts," is *precisely* the belief that "'being' can arise from 'non-being'."
Number one, what new developments, what new theories are featured in this new book; is it simply a re-explanation of the Harting-Hawking Model and the 'Many Worlds' hypothesis, or is there something new here? If there is not anything new, that's fine, but then we want to ask, how has Professor Hawking then responded to the criticisms of his earlier work that have been issued in the interim. There have been many responses in the literature to Professor Hawking's earlier claims, so does he respond to those criticisms, and if so, how?
Secondly, with respect to the claim that the universe came into being spontaneously from nothing, Professor Hawking writes in the Wall Street Journal article, "As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the 'laws of gravity' and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. 'Spontaneous creation' is the reason there is something, rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." End quote.
Now, what we need to ask Professor Harking here is, how is the word 'nothing' being used in these sentences? Does he mean by the word 'nothing' what the metaphysician or philosopher means, namely, 'non-being;' does he mean literally 'nothing' in the sense of 'non-being?'
And if he is using it in this philosophically correct sense, then he needs to address the metaphysical problems of how 'being' can arise from 'non-being.' If his theory suggest that 'being' literally originates from 'non-being,' without any sort of cause, then that, I think, is metaphysically problematic and requires an explanation. One problem that would be raised is, then, why it is that only universes of this sort come into being from non-being? Why not anything? Why not bicycles or Beethoven? Or root-beer?
If universes can pop into being from non-being, without a cause, then why can't anything and everything just pop into being from non-being without a cause? You cannot say that it is only due to certain quantum gravitaional constraints, because if there's truly 'non-being' then there is no quantum gravity, there is nothing, and nothingness cannot be constrained because nothingness isn't something, it is 'non-being.' ...
Now, I had always understood this ("in my gut," so to speak); I had always understood the term/concept 'emergence' to be philosophically and logically specious, to be a word on a par with 'abracadabra!,' which is why I oppose (and mock) the belief. I had always understood 'emergence' to be the belief that something can indeed just pop into existence (which is why I oppose, and mock, the belief). But I had not understood it, and my opposition to it, articulated in just this simple and direct philosophical manner.
10 comments:
>"I had always understood the term/concept 'emergence' to be philosophically and logically specious, to be a word on a par with 'abracadabra!,' "
As a software engineer I am of the same opinion, no matter how much programming I do the machine the program runs on is still at most turing complete. Trying to cripple the turing completeness and then finding out that you failed to do so is not impressive (ie the game of life being found to be turing complete via "emergent features")
What people call emergence appears mostly to be an interpretation about systems where some potentiality that was already a part of the system gets noticed as unexpected when bought into actuality, that is a fault of the interpreter not being sharp enough to expect it, not something wonderfully new and impossible to predict about the system.
"What people call emergence appears mostly to be an interpretation about systems where some potentiality that was already a part of the system gets noticed as unexpected when bought into actuality, that is a fault of the interpreter not being sharp enough to expect it, not something wonderfully new and impossible to predict about the system."
Exactly (I'm also a "software engineer" ... or, at any rate, I'm a computer programmer).
As I had tried to argue on Vallicella's blog against his friend's assertion of 'emergence' as truly being a principle of realty and against its wordier expression as "a whole may be greater that the sum of its parts" (as here and here), when people point to a property or state and say, "Oh! That's emergent," or when they believe they have found a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts, what they are really doing is noticing something they'd previously overlooked (whether intentionally of not), but which was in fact there all along.
Valicella is kind of an ass at times, and I honestly think your big sin was A) your tone (only Bill Valicella is allowed to dismiss people the way you do), and B) that you directed it at Peter Lupu, a close friend of Bill's.
Mind you, I'm kind of an ass at times too, so I don't hold it against Bill too much.
I don't think I dismiss people ... but I *do* call foolishness -- the disinclination to reason correctly -- foolishness. Even when I rudely tell someone that he is a fool, I don't think I am dismissing him, but rather asserting a moral claim about his behavior (and hoping that he will change that behavior).
My "tone" was partly response to minor patronization ... and mostly Vallicella's imagination.
But, of course, that was then. Now, my "tone" is, "Vallicella, you're a fool."
Well, maybe I do dismiss some persons, like [redacted] ... er, certain of the 'atheists' who buzz around Reppert's blog.
Don't the atheists usually just argue that gravity is eternal and that the universe is eternal and that gravity and the universe are basically a god?
Granted, I'm told that current cosmology actually contradicts the idea that the universe is eternal (the idea that successive big bangs can occur), but I do seem to remember Hawking using that argument in A Brief History of Time (Chapter "The Arrow of Time").
Drew,
Not that I recall. Hawking agrees that the universe had a beginning - what he tried to do was argue something related to "imaginary time" (you can see WL Craig's and other's responses to that).
As for Hawking himself.. here's one of his lectures. Of note:
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition.
From my understanding, even multiverse talk does not get around this. Hence Hawking trying to talk about how the "law of gravity" will make something pop out of nothing. But as you noted, this isn't about him really having an atheistic revelation - the man's a very conscious and obvious promoter. Even the apologists rushing to point out the flaws in his thinking will build book sales, I'm sure he reasons.
Actually, I guess the universe and gravity can't both be eternal if gravity is what creates the universe. So I guess Hawking is switching from his old position (whatever it was) to now arguing that (only) gravity is eternal, and that gravity created time and therefore began the universe -- which from our perspective is 15 billion years old or whatever the current mythology says. So only gravity is the uncreated god.
And as that article Ilíon previously linked to points out, I still don't really see how gravity could create the universe if there was no mass around to create gravity -- but whatever.
@Crude, I do know that he at least argued that the big bang was going to collapse in on itself and therefore reverse time. But yeah, maybe he didn't actually believe in the big bang cycles like I suggested.
Keep in mind a point Mike Flynn made in his analysis of these supposedly new "theories" -- that the word 'universe' is being used equivocally. He didn't explicitly use that word, but that what shakes out when one thinks about it:
"... At one time the term "world" meant the universe. Then "world" was restricted to "planet" and the universe was called the "universe." Now Hawking [and others] is not talking about the universe, that is, the collection of all things that exist. He is talking about
[quoting] a single, self-contained physical structure, comprising a “spacetime manifold” and particles and other things moving around in that spacetime. [/quoting]
IOW, the term "universe" is now being restricted to a "space-time continuum" within a structure of many such manifolds. Call the larger structure "a system of universes." ..."
These "new" "theories" are really just another way of advancing the age-old atheistic claim that "the 'universe' is eternal and uncaused."
These "new" "theories" are really just another way of advancing the age-old atheistic claim that "the 'universe' is eternal and uncaused."
My reading of Flynn is that he's saying Hawking is claiming to explain how "the universe can come from nothing". Now, by "nothing" he means a pre-existing system, and by "universe" he means what the quote said. But according to him (and according to William Lane Craig, who just put up a text response talking about Hawking's book) Hawking is still arguing for an "absolute beginning of time and the universe". The multiverse and the going on about the law of gravity doesn't get around this.
I'd actually suggest reading WLC's latest Q&A on this. The impression I walked away with was "Hawking doesn't explain much of anything. There's nothing new here, other than the M-theory question, which only touches on fine-tuning arguments." If I were Vilenkin, I'd be pretty ticked off right now, as all indications are Hawking basically wrote the same book he did but got much better press.
Post a Comment