First of all, thank you for providing this service.
I've been reading JCPs books for 25 years, and it's great to see the
rationality of faith clearly explained. Could you please help me with
some questions I haven't been able to unravel for myself?
It's often said that symmetry
explains regularity of process. ie if a specific particle-particle interaction
is given by a specific group operator, that explains why each particle pair always
interact in the same way. Ie. a reason for the lawfulness of natural
process. My question is simply this: is it logically necessary that
symmetry should apply in this way, or could the universe have worked in any old
way? ie. did God have a choice in the matter?
Now to Victor Stenger's
argument. He starts with Noether's theorem, to show that conservation of
energy, momentum and angular momentum follow necessarily from temporal, spatial
and angular invariance, respectively. Later he shows how the
fundamental-force laws follow from the imposition of gauge invariance. He
generalises gauge invariance to what he calls "point-of-view
invariance", and argues that quantum mechanics -- including the
uncertainty principle -- follows from point-of-view invariance. He missed
out steps in his explanation of this, and I didn't understand it anyway.
I think he's saying that given the uncertainty principle there's bound to be a
quantum vacuum, ie. there can be no "nothing" as such. Does
that follow? And then from the vacuum springs the univ. as a quantum
fluctuation. The v. early universe was smaller than the Planck length, a
regime in which space and time are not defined, he says. Hardly
surprising then, he continues, that temporal, spatial displacement and
rotational invariance apply in the universe today, along with the abstract
symmetries which generate particle-particle interactions. Is this
justified? But if space and time are not defined for the v. early universe,
how could the uncertainty principle apply anyway? But you can see his
punchline. He's saying that the universe as we find it is logically
necessary, thereby removing the need to infer to a Creator-God. Your
advice would be much appreciated....
Hawking used to say that there was
only one possible universe, ie. only one self-consistent and without
infinities. Is it logically or physically necessary that the universe
must follow the one fundamental theory that's finite and self-contained, or
could the universe have been any old way?
Now Hawking says there is a
multiverse of 10 to the power 500 universes, answering the fine-tuning
question. I'd be interested in your opinion. Am I right in thinking
that Hawking's multiverse theory takes as given anthropically necessary
features like quantum mechanics, gravity and regularity of process itself?
Response: Well “point of view invariance” implies that here are observers
embedded in the universe who have points of view. So it’s not surprising that
you can, with some handwaving, infer from this that the universe must exist and
be such that there can be observers. But it doesn’t answer the problem of
what/who “breathes fire into the equations” at all.
PS for a systematic debunking of Stenger, who is basically a scientific fraud in his writings on God, see this excellent, though rather technical paper by Luke Barnes. I've blogged about this here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment