I've been doing a lot of reading lately -- history and science as well as material that's directly relevant to my book. Right now I'm reading On the Origin of Time by Thomas Hertog, who was a student and then a collaborator of Stephen Hawking. I would definitely recommend it if you're into that sort of thing. And I've read a few more books recently on physics and cosmology, as well as biology, which I can also recommend if anyone is interested..
I think I get why there is so much denial of science. I forget who it was who said something to the effect that the more we know about the universe, the more pointless it seems. Confronting the utter indifference of the universe to our existence, which is completely accidental and less consequential to the entirety of the universe than a speck of dust is to us -- most people just can't go there. And it all seems like a lot of gibberish anyway. Quantum superposition, cosmic inflation, warping of space-time -- WTF does any of that even mean? And grasping the reality of evolution requires grasping the reality of deep time -- some intuitive grasp of how long 3 billion years really is.
I can understand why there's no room in most people's lifeworld for all of this. God is just a lot easier to deal with intellectually, even though the concept is internally contradictory and contradictory to observable reality. You just don't have to think about it. People have enough cognitive burden with the demands of daily life. Still, I would like to get through to them. Reality may be a harder place to live in some ways, but it's also empowering. We're the only earthly species that can transcend the limitations of our senses and understand more and more about how the world is really constructed, and really works. For me, that makes up for the loss of faith and the kind of meaning that comes with it.
4 comments:
There are several constants such as the speed of light, the charge of an electron, the gravitational constant G, the planck constant, and a whole shitload more that are too numerous to list. And if any of them were a C-hair different that what they are, this universe would not be possible. What are the odds of that happening? I'm not sure there's a number large enough.
Because of this, the theory of the multi-verse was born to explain it. That there are infinite universes and we're just the lucky bastards that got it right. Problem is, there is no actual evidence of the multi-verse.
So, we're all left with a belief system.
And yours is also a belief system, too.
Not so. It's a hypothesis, not a belief system. Science is not like religion -- cosmologists don't just make up an explanation and start believing it. The multiverse is considered one possible explanation, but Hawking was very uncomfortable with it because he didn't think it was susceptible to empirical testing. Cosmologists argue over the possible explanations for the properties of the universe, but they don't take anything on faith. I don't know whether the multiverse explanation is true or not, and I'm willing to live with the uncertainty.
With a hypothesis, you generally have a clue, something, that points that it may be true and worth testing.
The multiverse theory proponents have nothing, nada, nine, niet, that would point them in that direction.
That may be correct, which as I say is why Hawking was dismissive of it. But nobody believes it on faith. Science is not like religion.
Post a Comment