Philosophy is dead...?

Castiel

Castiel

Castiel

Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ic-science-written-its-last-word-2075053.html

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have attempted to answer the ultimate questions of the Universe and Humanity.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why do the Laws of Nature exist and not some other?

Basically Hawking and his co-author feel that Philosophy is dead and that Physics can and will answer the why as well as the how. This has made the news because their upcoming book The Grand Design conjectures that the Universe could have spontaneously come into existence and that God is unnecessary.

They base this on the as yet highly theoretical M-Theory, which attempts to create a unified theory out of a myriad of other theories related to Quantum Mechanics, Super-string theory and Super-mavity among others. The theory puts forward the idea that the Multi-verse is made up of 11 dimensions which allow the laws which govern existence to create spontaneously the conditions we need to exist. Because of this spontaneity Hawking states that God is surplus to requirements.

Russell Stannard, former Physics professor seems to disagree, He thinks and conjectures in his book The End of Discovery that we will reach the end of what the human mind can explain before we can really state that we have cracked those fundamental questions. He calls it the End of the Scientific Age.

Far be it from me to refute any of these eminent scientists, but I feel that they are ignoring an important factor in dismissing God from existence. We do not understand the nature of God, we as a species have created a myriad of anthropomorphic personifications for God, whether they be monotheistic or polytheistic, but what if the Universe and God are one and the same, does that mean we are explaining God when we are explaining the Universe. The implication for religion is enormous, but for philosophy the questions are boundless, so do I think that M-theory means Philosophy is dead, not at all, I believe just the opposite, Philosophy has come of age.


Opinions?
 
Me and my brother were pondering this very question earlier. I don't really think I could put myself on one side of the fence just yet.

I would point out that Hawking has considered the universe and God to be one and the same, all you need do is read a page of Brief History of Time to appreciate his pantheistic use of the word 'God'.
 
I think (and I'm not knocking religion here) that it is a real shame that God has been brought into this. I don't have anything against religion and, unlike some people here, will not try to disprove the existence of a deity. However, the introduction of religion at the fringes of this question haspretty much guaranteed that this thread will devolve into a religious debate, which is a shame; the question of whether the advance of science means the death of philosophy is a fascinating one in its own right, and does not need religion to be involved. I appreciate that this is not your "fault", as it was Hawking and not you who brought religion into this, but it's still a shame.

Is philosophy dead because science suggests that it is now aiming to answer (and claims that it can answer) the why as well as the how? In short, no. Why is this?

1. Science is underwritten by philosophy. Scientific method lies in the realm of the philosophy of science, rather than within science itself. Science owes itself to philosophical principles, such as the law of the excluded middle and, of course, Ockham's Razor.

2. The findings of the philosophical field of epistemology, and the related problem of transcendental solipsism, are essential to science. If we exist solipsistically, with no objective world at the centre of our minds (if, indeed, multiple minds exist), science cannot apply. Science bases itself on perception, and cannot therefore show anything about the validity or otherwise of perception itself. Again, this requires philosophy.
 
Castiel said:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why do the Laws of Nature exist and not some other?
Click to expand...

Those are philosophical/theological questions NOT scientific ones. Philosophy isn't dead, it's just that it's fashionable for physicists (especially string theorists!!!) to start talking about philosophy rather than science.
 
naffa said:
Me and my brother were pondering this very question earlier. I don't really think I could put myself on one side of the fence just yet.

I would point out that Hawking has considered the universe and God to be one and the same, all you need do is read a page of Brief History of Time to appreciate his pantheistic use of the word 'God'.
Click to expand...

Indeed he did, with his knowing the Mind of God statement. He seems to have moved away from that position however.

I will read both his and Stannards books with relish.
 
Castiel said:
Indeed he did, with his knowing the Mind of God statement. He seems to have moved away from that position however.

I will read both his and Stannards books with relish.
Click to expand...
Likewise, I can't wait.

I found out the other day, finally, how Hawking actually communicates... I didn't realise that he can barely average one to two words per minute. :eek:
 
Castiel said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ic-science-written-its-last-word-2075053.html

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have attempted to answer the ultimate questions of the Universe and Humanity.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why do the Laws of Nature exist and not some other?

Basically Hawking and his co-author feel that Philosophy is dead and that Physics can and will answer the why as well as the how.
Click to expand...
Has Hawking really said that? I haven't seen the book, but the only quote I keep seeing reads:

Because there is a law such as mavity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

The meaning is very clear: that scientists have developed a theoretical model that is capable of accounting for the beginning of the Universe.

The media, and lots of newspaper readers, seem to have attributed far more to this statement. But I guess that's how things work in the media.
 
The three creative forces in the universe are the only three things not understood or explained by Physics.

mavity,
DNA,
The mind,

Explain those three and I might go Athiest
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
Huh? DNA is a chemical. It's perfectly well explained by normal descriptions of chemistry.
Click to expand...

Ahh well that expains exactly how 4 proteins can somehow contain the instructions to build a 3 dimentional living and breathing animal with the infinite complexities of it's organs and brain.

We don't have a good explanation of mind yet, but there's a huge abundance of evidence that suggests that dualism is utter bunkum.
Click to expand...

Don't forget those 4 chemicals also create the mind. Dont you find it's odd that the whole brain is all made from the same material yet does so many totally different jobs, where as the other organs of your body are tailored to a physical ability.
 
Last edited:
MookJong said:
Ahh well that expains exactly how 4 proteins can somehow contain the instructions to build a 3 dimentional living and breathing animal with the infinite complexities of it's organs and brain.



Don't forget those 4 chemicals also create the mind. Dont you find it's odd that the whole brain is all made from the same material yet does so many totally different jobs, where as the other organs of your body are tailored to a physical ability.
Click to expand...

Seriously, before you come out with utter tripe like that, please get a basic understanding of basic biology/chemistry.
 
MookJong said:
Ahh well that expains exactly how 4 proteins can somehow contain the instructions to build a 3 dimentional living and breathing animal with the infinite complexities of it's organs and brain.
Click to expand...

They are amino acids, not proteins. They don't contain instructions, they have chemical properties which govern the charge states on the molecules such that they are attracted to their opposite base to form DNA helices. Every part of biochemistry can be explained as a balancing of entropy.


MookJong said:
Dont you find it's odd that the whole brain is all made from the same material yet does so many totally different jobs, where as the other organs of your body are tailored to a physical ability.
Click to expand...

Think about steel, its all the same material but we use it for a number of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom