Has Stephen Hawking Solved the Mystery of Existence?
[UPDATE below.]
I am blogging from Vegas, here for a presentation to an insurance group. I realize this sounds weird, but I actually feel like I won too much at my first hour at the Blackjack tables. Right now I’m up $205 after 70 minutes (from playing the table minimum of $15) which is pretty amazing. But now I can’t possibly leave Vegas (three days from now) down, and so I may have to cut myself off altogether tomorrow. Life is rough, I know…
Anyway, for today’s post on religion, I want to point out a basic confusion in NPR’s treatment of the new Hawking book. Specifically, “On Point” host Tom Ashbrook interviewed Cal Tech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, who is the co-author with Hawking of the new book, The Grand Design. Here are my thoughts:
==> First, let me say that this guy is excellent. He does a superb job of taking the extremely difficult topic and breaking it down in a way that makes it understandable, yet without sacrificing precision. He comes up with some great analogies, and I “felt his pain” when Tom Ashbrook kept saying aww-shucks things and Mlodinow had to keep clarifying what he had just said quite clearly the first time. So I am not at all challenging Mlodinow’s expertise as a physicist or even as a popularizer. What I want to do, though, is challenge the philosophical spin that he was giving to the results.
==> If you’ve never heard the details of the “fine-tuning argument” for the existence of God, start listening around 27:00. It’s not just things like, “Why do we have eyelashes, if a God didn’t put them there to keep dirt out of our eyes?” It’s more fundamental things, like the charge on the proton (and other things that this guy didn’t get into).
==> At about 29:00, Hawking explicitly says that the location of other universes, relative to our own, is an undefined concept. He says we can never make measurements of them. So I am not attacking a straw man when I say the theory of an infinite number of alternate universes is non-falsifiable. Now by itself that’s not a crippling objection in my book, but it’s very ironic because a lot of the most adamant believers in the power of the natural sciences to explain everything will tell you that unless a statement is (at least in principle) falsifiable, it is unscientific. And yet the way Hawking et al. dispense with the need for God, is to rely on what they themselves are admitting is a totally unobservable and untestable hypothesis. And again, this isn’t some minor assumption. The cosmologists who subscribe to this are saying: “OK, we can observe this universe, with its apparent laws. But suppose there are an infinite number of alternate universes, with every possible permutation of laws and initial conditions etc. If you grant me that, then look at how much I can explain…” That’s rather a heroic assumption. In fact, almost by definition, you couldn’t possibly have a more heroic assumption.
==> Starting around 34:00, the physicist says (not exact quote), “We’re not telling people that there is no God, but we are saying there are no miracles. We’ve been observing the natural world for a long time, and there are no exceptions to the laws of physics.” OK, this is a basic confusion. Yes there WERE exceptions to Newton’s purported laws of physics. And there are problems with explaining “everything” just with quantum theory, or with general relativity. (I am out of my league on this part, so I can’t say much more than that quantum theory works well on a subatomic level, whereas general relativity works well at the macro level.)
But no matter WHAT physicists observe, it would always be consistent with the (newly revised) laws of physics. If all of a sudden things didn’t seem to obey the original set of laws, it wouldn’t be due to a “miracle,” it would just mean that we were wrong about what the laws really were. And notice I’m not criticizing the procedure of the physicists here, I’m merely underscoring how silly Mlodinow’s statement is. It would be akin to me as an economist saying, “We’ve been looking at price behavior for decades, and have yet to see something not explainable as an interaction of supply and demand.”
==> OK now to the part of the interview that made me decide to blog about this. Start listening around 21:00. Tom Ashbrook says that we see quasars and galaxies etc., but why should there be something rather than nothing? Mlodinow says, “From nothing, according to the quantum laws, something will appear. That’s the simple answer. You can’t put a lid on it.” Ashbrook comes back and says with some skepticism, “And that’s mathematically proved?” Mlodinow responds, “Well quantum theory is extremely well-verified over many many decades. It’s probably our most tested theory in physics. It…yes, and the fluctuations, what we call vacuum fluctuations, are extremely well verified over many experiments.”
OK there’s a lot going on here. The basic idea is, you can’t have absolutely nothing, if quantum theory is right. Most readers have probably heard of the uncertainty principle, and how it’s impossible to completely ascertain the momentum and position of a particle. Well, most physicists now subscribe to the interpretation of that result which says it’s not merely that we can’t measure (say) the exact position and momentum of an electron at any given time, but that these items don’t even exist. In a sense, these items are in limbo (statistically), and when we make a measurement of one or the other, it forces the electron to make up its mind and “reveal” part of its properties, which cannot be said to have meaningfully existed prior to the scientist looking at it.
OK, so if you buy that, then you can see how it’s impossible for us to say that a given volume of space could be empty, or totally devoid of energy. Because suppose a particle came into existence really really really briefly, before disappearing again. So long as it did it fast enough such that we couldn’t detect it, then no laws (like the conservation of energy) would have been violated. Thus, it’s as nonsensical to speak of “utterly empty space” as it is to ask, “OK, but what is the exact position and momentum of the electron right now, ‘really’?”
All right, we’re almost there kids. So what Hawking and Mlodinow are arguing is that the laws of quantum mechanics (as we understand them) would be expected to “birth” our universe. You don’t need to assume some initial “input” of a bunch of matter/energy, to which you then apply the “laws of nature” and set the clock to unwind. On the contrary, the “laws of nature” themselves are such that if you go back in time–condensing all the matter and in fact space itself into a smaller and smaller volume–eventually you’ll get to a configuration that would spring into existence on its own, just because of the way quantum mechanics work.
Whew! Some heavy stuff. So we don’t really need to invoke God to explain the existence of stars and quasars, because quantum theory alone can explain it.
And then how do we know that quantum theory can explain it? Why, because quantum theory is the most finely tested theory in all of empirical science.
But we’ve just moved in a circle. In terms of a “deep” understanding, Mlodinow has said something akin to this: “Stars exist because they do. Look, there’s a star right there. Of course they exist.” And then Tom says, “Are you sure? Can you prove it?” And Mlodinow says, “Yes I’m sure. We have been seeing the sun for all of recorded history. Look, it’s right there! Of course it exists.”
In other words, Mlodinow is “explaining” the existence of the physical universe, by reference to a set of rules the validity of which is based utterly upon its predictive power in describing the physical universe. So we have explained that the world is the way it is, because of a set of rules that we derived from our observations of the world being the way it is.
Please do not misunderstand, what Hawking and Mlodinow are doing is very elegant. I have not read their book, and even if I did I could not independently confirm what they are claiming, but if they are correct, it is a fascinating theory. But what I’m saying is that they haven’t really “explained” the existence of the universe. And when Tom Ashbrook asked if this had been proven mathematically, I think he had in mind that now we know “God isn’t necessary” as surely as we know that 2+2=4, when this is not at all what Mlodinow established.
(BTW, if any Free Advice reader has actually done graduate physics work, then feel free to correct anything above that is inaccurate. I am not claiming to be an expert on quantum mechanics itself, though I am pretty sure that I am right about the philosophical errors on display in the interview.)
UPDATE: I want to make sure everyone understands both the strength and the weakness of my critique. First, the strength: Suppose Tom Ashbrook is interviewing me and says, “But Dr. Murphy, help me out, why do politicians lie so much?” I say, “Because of Rothbard’s Law, which states that all politicians are lying scumbags.” Ashbrook says, “And that’s mathematically proved?” I answer, “Well, Rothbard had five grad students study politicians from 42 countries over the span of 300 years. And every single one they looked at was a lying scumbag. So yeah, Rothbard’s Law is about the most well-tested theory in the social sciences. We have finally solved the mystery of why politicians lie.”
OK so I hope you all see where I’m coming from, regarding Mlodinow’s answer to why there should be quasars instead of nothing. He invokes quantum theory, but if there really were nothing, then quantum theory would be wrong. (This is because the only reason we think quantum theory is right, is that it accurately describes the universe we live in–with its quasars and galaxies etc.)
On the other hand, a physicist could point out that my critique applies to the enterprise of physics itself. For example, if someone says, “Why does this ball drop when I let go of it, and why does the moon move around the earth?” then to answer, “Because of the law of gravity” is itself a “circular” argument in the way I’ve classified Mlodinow’s response to Ashbrook. After all, the only reason we know the law of gravity is true, is that we observe balls falling when we drop them, and the moon revolving around the earth.
But surely we can all agree that Newton advanced human understanding when he posited a simple set of laws to describe all this apparently diverse phenomena.
In the same way, if Hawking et al. are right, then they have indeed pushed back the boundaries of our ignorance. They can explain “everything” with fewer assumptions than before. Their current explanation of “why” is more elegant than what Niels Bohr would have said.
Nonetheless, it is foolish to claim that “we’ve finally solved the mystery of existence.” Quantum theory itself can’t explain why quantum theory should be true.
Sophisticated Spammers
Just a quick note, Free Advice has been getting blitzed by spammers in the comments lately. They used to be really easy for me to distinguish from real comments, because they would say stuff like:
johnny decided that it would be pugnacious for him to elevate the rainbow ugg boots
But today I got hit with about 15 that had designer boots or whatever as URLs, so they were clearly spam, but yet the actual comments sounded very well written. Not only that, but they were on point for the specific post!
But then I realized that they were just quoting excerpts from either my post, or somebody else’s previous comment on the post.
Anyway, my point in bringing this up is that if it looks to you like I’ve deleted your comment, it’s probably an accident, so feel free to email me or re-submit. I have only intentionally deleted about 5 comments on this blog, ever.
Patri Friedman Will Pay You to Free the World
…in the Seasteading Institute’s “Sink or Swim” contest, with a top prize of $2,500. Details here. Here’s the press release.
Wenzel and Murphy Togetha, Now You Know You in Trouble
Anyone in the Boston area on Friday, October 29 will not want to miss this… (I am appending the code from Wenzel’s blog post.)
Good news!
Fate is pushing both Robert Murphy and Robert Wenzel into Boston on Friday, October 29.
They have decided to take advantage of this alignment of the stars and heavens to hold two seminars on the date:
A lunch seminar from noon to 2:00 PM
and an
Evening seminar from 7:00 to 9:00 PM
Robert Wenzel during the lunch seminar will discuss the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, with particular emphasis on how it should be used by investors and businessmen.
During the lunch seminar, Robert Murphy will provide you with five reasons why investors should study the Austrian economists, not the Keynesians
At the evening seminar, Robert Wenzel will discuss how to talk code like the elites, so that you can get what you want, get around regulations, and at the same time stay out of trouble with the authorities. He will use real life examples of techniques he and acquaintances have used to achieve remarkable goals while others have been suffocated by regulations. This speech should be heard by all, from students, to businessmen, to investors. It will most assuredly help you lead a more enjoyable, less stressful life, while staying out of trouble.
Robert Murphy will discuss the the Great Depression and it’s relation to today’s economy
The fee for the Lunch Seminar is $30.00, but if you order now the price is reduced by 20% to $24.00.
The fee for the Evening Seminar is the same, $30.00, but if you order now the price is reduced by 20% to $24.00.
Attend both seminars for the further reduced price of $32.00.
To order the Lunch Seminar click here.
To order the Evening Seminar click here.
To order the combination package and attend both seminars click here.
Note: The seminars will be held at a to be determined location in the downtown Boston area, near Boston Common. Although food will be available to order at the venue, it is not part of the seminar price.
Principles vs. Judgment, or, Steve Landsburg vs. Gene Callahan
I used to be a hardcore materialist, and it was ultimately Gene Callahan who set me straight. (It’s not that he convinced me in the course of our argument, but rather that when I was ready to change my mind, all of his analysis was there for me to fall back upon. That’s why it’s useful to debate people, even though it never seems to work at the time.)
Well Gene has fundamentally altered my worldview yet again. Don’t worry, I’m not in favor of dictatorship. But lately Gene has been arguing that only a fool blindly follows his “principles” when they conflict with his judgment and common sense.
After much resistance, now I think Gene is right. I haven’t fully worked this out, but here’s how I’m thinking about it now: We have moral intuitions. We just know certain things are bad, like making babies cry just for sport, or robbing banks. If someone proposes a moral system that leads to the outcome that these things are actually good, then we throw out the system and go back to the drawing board.
But our intuitions are not enough. For one thing, we might not all agree with each other on what’s good or bad, once we move beyond obvious stuff like tormenting babies or robbing banks. So that’s why we develop principles. We try to come up with a general framework that matches our intuitions on the really obvious cases where we “already know the answer,” so that we can then figure out what the answer probably is on a hard case where our intuitions fail us.
Now the problem is, we have many different moral or ethical systems going at once. Each one is finely tuned in its own domain. For example, when discussing the commercial operations of a market economy, the standard libertarian view works great. But when it comes to how you should act at a family picnic, then the sermons of Jesus are fantastic.
The problem occurs when you try to apply the principles from one area in a domain that you often don’t use it. For example, it’s not so obvious how you apply some of the lessons from the Sermon on the Mount to Wall Street traders. As we all know, many Christians have thought that Jesus’ lessons “obviously” imply socialism.
On the other hand, when you apply standard libertarian analysis to things like children, you get some pretty horrifying results. I actually was arguing in my online class about whether parents would have the legal right to eat their children in a Rothbardian world. Note, I’m not saying the people who were holding this position were moral monsters, I’m just saying you can go easily astray if you focus exclusively on one set of principles to the exclusion of others.
So I believe this is what Gene has been harping on lo these many months. (I’m not all about praise here. Gene seems to have focused narrow-mindedly on the principle of, “I must remove error from the blogosphere!” to the exclusion of, “Don’t be a jerk to people you disagree with.”)
Now all of this isn’t to deny the importance of principles. And I certainly respect people who are willing to endure great hardship for the sake of their principles. But I think the broader lesson is that there are times when you will hit upon a situation where your cherished systems will give conflicting answers, and then you will have to decide which principle is more important. And in fact, maybe in light of this decision, you will revise your frameworks to come up with a more robust set of rules that can handle the previously unexpected scenario.
(For Christian readers who think I’m being blasphemous, over email Gene gave me a great example from the Bible: The case of Abraham and Isaac. When God told Abraham he had to sacrifice his son, Abraham faced a dilemma. After all, he knew “It’s right to obey God.” But he also knew, “It’s wrong to murder my son.” So this episode must have totally blown his mind.)
OK so where does Steve Landsburg come in? Look at how proud he is that his economic arguments defy moral intuitions:
All of which brings me to why I wrote this post. Last week we had a discussion about the efficiency criterion. A few days ago, I followed up by applying the criterion to the hardest of cases — Bill Gates walking through the desert and refusing water to a dying man….The point of that post…is that this is one of the rare cases in which the efficiency criterion doesn’t work very well, owing to the big discrepancy between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept.
But today’s point is a different one: Even if the efficiency criterion did unambiguously recommend that Bill keep his water (which in fact it does not), that’s not actually so horrible by the standards we apply to ourselves every day. The only difference is that we kill the distant, whereas in this scenario, Bill kills the nearby. That might quite reasonably make us want to stay out of Bill’s way, and tell ourselves we want nothing to do with him. But at the level of policy, where we really ought to care about everyone, it’s just not sign[i]ficantly more horrible than what we accept all the time.
As I said, the efficiency criterion doesn’t really apply to Bill in the desert. But it does tell us to abandon the miner. We instinctively recoil from that recommendation, which is exactly why we need the efficiency criterion. Our strongest instincts are not always our best instincts. I like the efficiency criterion because it insists that we face the hard choices. [Bold in original.]
Just to be clear, Landsburg isn’t talking about the Chilean miners. Fortunately for them, Landsburg has run the numbers and thinks it’s OK to save them: “The miners currently trapped in Chile are, most thankfully, not a good example of miners who ought to be abandoned. As far as I can estimate, the cost of getting them out is quite entirely reasonable and well within the bounds that an amnesiac would approve.” Instead, Landsburg is talking about a hypothetical miner who is trapped such that it would cost $30 million to get him out. Because that same $30 million could be spent installing guard rails that would save three lives, it is obvious to Landsburg that we should let the miner die.
One last point: Notice in the shorter quote above that Landsburg said, “The miners currently trapped in Chile are, most thankfully, not a good example…” This puzzles me.
First of all, to whom is Landsburg thankful? The great pi in the sky? (If you haven’t read Landsburg’s book, just move on; inside joke.)
But more important, why is Landsburg thankful? There are two things I can think of, one fine and the other horrifying. The first is that Landsburg feels for the miners, and is glad that his intellectual system recommends that we save them, rather than sending down the message, “Send back those iPods you free-loaders. Nice knowing you. Here’s a tip: start digging.”
The second option is that Landsburg sees that resources are being devoted to rescuing the miners, and is thankful that this is an efficient use. If that’s what he means, it is horrifying.
Incidentally, although I am trying to be cute here, there is a serious point: Why should we care about efficiency in the abstract? I can understand why I would want my resources not to be wasted, but what do I care about other people wasting their resources? I think Landsburg and others like him think they are being quite objective and scientific, yet they are smuggling in a moral principle that is completely arbitrary.
So Is the Florida Book-Burner a Fool or Clever?
Thus far I haven’t commented on this absurdity because I had nothing to add. Since (I suspect) the whole reason this pastor is doing all this is for a giant publicity stunt–he apparently said that if President Obama wanted to call him, he’d reconsider (!!)–I didn’t want to play into his hands by discussing the controversy with the hordes of Free Advice faithful.
However, now I think I have something to add. Just to bring you up to speed:
During [Thursday] afternoon, Jones canceled his plan to burn copies of the Quran, based on what he said were assurances from a local Muslim leader that the Islamic center in New York would be moved — an assertion rejected by the center’s visionary in New York.
Jones, leader of the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center, announced he will travel Saturday to New York to meet with the religious leader behind the planned center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, about a new location.
But that, too, was questioned.
Rauf and Imam Muhammad Musri, a Florida Muslim leader who appeared with Jones, said later no agreement on a meeting or relocation of the mosque had been reached.
Jones insisted the church “put a temporary hold” on the Quran burning event after he had been told by Musri of a deal to move the New York mosque.
“I am actually very disappointed and very shocked because if this turns out to be true, he [Musri] clearly, clearly lied to us,” Jones said Thursday evening.
Wayne Sapp, associate pastor of the small church, said that the Quran burning scheduled for Saturday was postponed until the proposed meeting in New York is confirmed. The church will wait 24 hours to confirm the meeting will take place before making any further decision about the Quran burning, Sapp said.
Rauf issued a statement a few hours earlier.
“I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Qurans. However, I have not spoken to Pastor Jones or Imam Musri. I am surprised by their announcement. We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter. We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony.”
The back-and-forth over the mosque location and the meeting continued into the evening Thursday. Jones insisted he had been told of a deal on moving the center, but Musri said instead he was brokering a meeting with Rauf.
“We are canceling the event because they have agreed to move the ground zero mosque,” Jones said, claiming his announcement was based on several conversations with Musri.
But the latter said he had not spoken with Rauf and was not authorized to say the Islamic center would be moved. Jones may have “stretched” their conversations to say there was a deal, Musri told CNN.
He said he believes Jones knows there was no deal on the mosque and may be using Thursday’s controversy to gain leverage on the proposed mosque.
This guy might be very clever. He achieves what he wanted–worldwide notoriety–by planning on burning a bunch of books. But I bet he was surprised at the uniformly negative reaction he got.
I myself was surprised. To their credit, even the most blowhard, USA! USA!, right-wing radio talk show hosts on the local Tennessee stations were denouncing this guy as un-Christian and dumb. I expected a much more reserved condemnation from them, but nope, they unequivocally said he was totally wrong and this made no sense from a Christian point of view.
“Well shoot, I knew Olbermann was going to denounce me, but even the right-wing talk show hosts?!” he may have thought. What to do, what to do?!
A ha! Show that’s a reasonable guy after all, by calling off the book burning. But then, accuse the dirty Muslim of lying to his face about it, and in a way that directly links it to the broader issue of the Ground Zero Vicinity Almost-Mosque.
Really, just suppose for a second that what the Muslim cleric (Musri) is saying in the quote above is true. Suppose he approached the pastor and said, “Suppose I could get you a meeting with Imam Rauf about the location of the Manhattan center. Would that placate you?”
And then the pastor went from that meeting to a press conference, announcing, “We are postponing our book blaze because Musri just promised that Rauf was relocating the center.”
Can you imagine how shell-shocked Musri and Rauf would be?
The sheer audacity of it is brilliant. The right-wing blowhards know that burning books is dumb, but NOW it’s been cast as an issue of not backing down from the Muslims. I mean, if the pastor caves in now, that will just embolden our enemies. We have to show that we’re strong.
(Speaking of war rhetoric, notice the pastor’s position: He is saying we will carry out this destructive act that does nothing to us but will horrify our opponents, unless our demands are met within 24 hours. Hmm what does that sound like?)
Stimulus? Yet Again?
The first of my weekly “current events” column at Mises.org. You will see I went out on a limb with this inaugural essay by attacking government stimulus programs. You might like this line:
Even Obama’s call for the tax-credit extension leaves much to be desired. I am always for a tax cut, period. It returns resources to the private sector, which I favor for reasons of both ethics and efficiency.
However, not all tax cuts are created equal. By giving a tax credit for “research and development” — as opposed to an across-the-board reduction in tax rates — the government is still dictating how businesses use the money that the government refrains from explicitly taking. The difference is analogous to getting $100 in cash versus a nontransferable $100 gift certificate to the Broccoli Warehouse. Most teenagers would opt for the former as a birthday present.
The Logic Behind Giving Away Book Content
In the last two months I have released my two new books as completely free, no-strings-attached PDF versions. Here is my new book (co-authored with Carlos Lara) on the relationship between Austrian economics, fractional reserve banking, and Nelson Nash’s “infinite banking concept,” and here is my new economics principles textbook aimed at middle- and high-school students.
A lot of people went into shock when they found out that Carlos and I were making our PDF available online. (They weren’t as shocked by the principles textbook, since the Mises Institute–the publisher–has been posting free books for a while now.) After all, weren’t Carlos and I destroying book sales?!
I have two main responses to this understandable reaction. First, part of the reason Carlos and I wrote the book, is to teach Americans how the central banking system is systematically eroding the purchasing power of the dollar, as well as contributing to the boom-bust business cycle. The best way to get this important message out, is to make it available to anyone with an internet connection.
Second, I challenge the very premise that our policy will hurt us financially. In terms of total revenues, we need to consider that Carlos and I are both public speakers, who get a decent fee for giving an after-dinner talk or other such presentation. Blasting our free book all over the Internet is a good way to promote that aspect of our business.
Regarding the student textbook, I am using it for my online Mises Academy course (which starts in a few hours!). So distributing the free PDF to homeschooling blogs etc. was a great way to advertise for the online class. (And to repeat, even if a bunch of homeschoolers got to read the book for free, without signing up for my class, that’s not a “loss” in my book. I want my lessons to get into the hands of as many students as possible.)
Even if we limit ourselves to the narrow criterion of book sales, let’s think about it like an economist. It’s true, by making the PDF available for free download, there might be some people who otherwise would have purchased the book, but now won’t do so.
But how many people is this likely to be? Each of the books is quite long; it would be a real pain to print them out. So if someone is really that interested in the whole book, he or she is probably still going to buy the physical book.
On the other hand, by giving the PDF away, there are many, many more people who “sample” it, who would otherwise have never considered buying it. It’s true, the vast majority of these people won’t end up buying, but most of them wouldn’t have bought in any event. Yet there will be some people who buy because they were pleasantly surprised by what they found in the PDF.
Now it’s true, maybe the numbers wouldn’t work out for, say, the latest Stephen King novel. But for my latest two books–which have a lot of material packed into them, and which require multiple readings to fully master–I think the second group outweighs the first. In other words, I think on net more people will end up buying the books, because we have made the PDFs available for free.
Think of an actual bookstore: To take the “don’t give it away for free” logic to its extreme, bookstores should wrap every title in plastic, so that customers can’t browse in the store. After all, if you let people browse, why would they ever buy the book?!
The logic here is the same. By making the PDF available online, it’s analogous to Barnes & Noble allowing you to browse to your heart’s content in their store. Sure, cash-strapped college students might end up reading the latest Harry Potter on successive afternoons without actually buying it, but the customer base in general will end up buying more total books because of the option of browsing.
Creative people, embrace the wave of the future. Give your content away!
Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from New York University. He is teaching a 10-week online class on the Principles of Economics.
Recent Comments