a destructive dilemma for Steven Hawking

This in response to his claim that our universe is the result of a fluctuation in a quantum field, and that this dispenses with the need for a Creator.

Question: can this field also go out of existence? [did SH say quantum field or quantum law?]

(A) If no, then quantum field is a necessary being. In that case, I will argue, the quantum field will exist always and everywhere, that is, in every possible universe.

Let me demonstrate (or try to demonstrate) that point by indirect argument. Suppose the quantum field simply must exist but it exists in some universes and not in others. If I ask Hawking can give no answer. For as the points out, the field is prior to matter. So there is no difference in the "environment" inhabited as it were by diverse quantum fields. To put it in scholastic language, there is no matter to individuate this (quasi-) form called the quantum field. So it is either everywhere (that is, in every possible universe) or individuated.

Next premise in my argument is that IF the quantum field is a necessary being AND (just established-->) it doesn't vary from universe to universe, then neither do the laws of nature. This argument assumes that these laws are a function of quantum field.

In that case, there will not be a multiplicity of universes with diverse laws of nature. It will follow that there is no "lottery" that would make it likely that some universes are not life friendly while many are not. One will not be able to argue that our universe is life-friendly simply because we won the lottery. Instead it will seem that the multi-verse is as finely tuned as our universe.

(B) 2nd horn: If yes (that is, our universe's quantum field is capable of going out of existence), then wouldn't the same be true for all universes? And given an infinite amount of time, wouldn't all quantum fields go out of existence? In such a case, wouldn't it be impossible for any matter to come into existence? And if the multi-verse is eternal, wouldn't it be extremely highly probable that every universe has already gone out of existence. In that case, nothing would exist right now.

But since things DO exist right now, it is evident that (B) the second horn of this dilemma cannot be true.

But that leads to the following destructive dilemma If (H) Hawking is correct, then (AvB) A or B is true; but (~A*~B) both A and B are false; therefore (~H) Hawking is incorrect.

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level. No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies. None of them thinks about the whole as such. And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist). None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well? And why not parts of these parts, et...

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...

If the universe is eternal and determinism is true, then...

...in that case it would be possible in principle to retrodict the past ad infinitum. The present would either contain an infinite amount of information or the universe would be cyclical, albeit (methinks) in a manner analogous to the plot of the Lorenz attractor.

The Human Question

Search This Blog