December 25, 2011
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
Alan P. Lightman in Harper's:
The history of science can be viewed as the recasting of phenomena that were once thought to be accidents as phenomena that can be understood in terms of fundamental causes and principles. One can add to the list of the fully explained: the hue of the sky, the orbits of planets, the angle of the wake of a boat moving through a lake, the six-sided patterns of snowflakes, the weight of a flying bustard, the temperature of boiling water, the size of raindrops, the circular shape of the sun. All these phenomena and many more, once thought to have been fixed at the beginning of time or to be the result of random events thereafter, have been explained as necessary consequences of the fundamental laws of nature—laws discovered by human beings. This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.
It is perhaps impossible to say how far apart the different universes may be, or whether they exist simultaneously in time. Some may have stars and galaxies like ours. Some may not. Some may be finite in size. Some may be infinite. Physicists call the totality of universes the “multiverse.” Alan Guth, a pioneer in cosmological thought, says that “the multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes to understand the world from fundamental principles.” And the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots. As put to me recently by Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg, a man as careful in his words as in his mathematical calculations, “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.”
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:56 AM | Permalink






















Comments
So now we may surmise that 10 to the power of 500 universes may dance upon the head of a pin?
Posted by: Erich | Dec 25, 2011 11:07:42 AM
Great post! To update the Buddhist koan, would our universe exist if we weren't around to see it? Does consciousness play a role in shaping the anthropic universe?
Posted by: Sam | Dec 25, 2011 3:41:14 PM
Not even wrong
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 25, 2011 7:32:51 PM
Disappointing. At the end of the piece Lightman brutalizes the term “faith,” by cross-threading it onto the utterly mismatched pitch of science in that familiar and banal way that conflates for the credulous and their patrons the unequivocal and orthogonal distinctions between the practice of science and theology .
Posted by: secondlaws | Dec 26, 2011 3:40:14 PM
So I suppose the take home message here is that "faith" when you are a scientist is acceptable, but only for scientists?
The older I get the more I realize that Kuhn was spot on. Science is just a series of revolutions, with the theories only able to advance once old practitioners die off.
Posted by: jkc | Jan 3, 2012 3:01:00 PM
The multiverse seems to be the only theory that can explain the fact that we happen to live in a universe perfectly tuned for life. Our existence would seen unlikely, but in a world of infinite possibilities, our existence is actually inevitable.Science appears to be the only way we can get a glimpse of the truth - that there is no god and no purpose and we are a random event. I prefer the truth-driven life to a "purpose-driven life"
Posted by: reader | Jan 3, 2012 3:50:53 PM
Post a comment