source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/can-physics-and-philosophy-get-along/ via Julian Bennett.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Philosophy of Cosmology - funded by Templeton
source: http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/news__events/news/philosophy_of_cosmology_-_new_field_of_study
John Templeton Foundation (who have a 'supernaturalistic' rather than a 'naturalistic' worldview) is sponsoring a group of philosophers and physicists in an area of study 'philosophy of cosmology'. I was surprised to see Brian Greene amongst the list of physicists receiving funds from Templeton.
The press release states:-
"Philosophy of Cosmology - new field of study
Oxford and Cambridge in partnership with US cluster to establish ‘Philosophy of Cosmology’ as a new field of study. Templeton grant funds initiative at top universities in philosophy
In a new partnership between Oxford and Cambridge, researchers in physics and philosophy Simon Saunders, Joe Silk, and David Wallace at Oxford University, and John Barrow and Jeremy Butterfield at Cambridge, are to join researchers at a cluster of US universities including Columbia University, Yale University, and New York University, to establish the field of philosophy of cosmology as a new branch of philosophy of physics.
The initiative, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, is of three years in duration and will culminate in a major international conference. The enduring impact of the project will be to isolate and clarify the outstanding conceptual problems in the foundations of cosmology, to seed and stimulate future research in the subject, and to define philosophy of cosmology as a new field in its own right, with its own distinctive problems and motivations.
Chief among them, according to Simon Saunders of Oxford University, ‘is the problem of how to compensate for selection effects – of making sense of the so-called ‘anthropic principle’. Even if we knew the structure of the universe, the whole story from beginning to end, what should we expect to see from our particular corner of it? What are the probabilities? And of course that’s what’s relevant to experiments.’ The problem isn’t restricted to the distribution of stars or galaxies; it could extend to the values of supposedly fundamental constants, such as the cosmological constant --- or dark energy, as it is known.
"Explaining the value of the cosmological constant is one of the most critical problems in theoretical physics" says John Barrow, whose book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-written with Frank Tipler, set the agenda for anthropic reasoning in cosmology the last two decades. “This problem goes deeper than merely describing the accelerated expansion of the universe: it requires an understanding of the vacuum, how the quantum nature of reality impacts on the universe as a whole, and what probability means when used to evaluate observed properties of the universe.”
The initiative is being made now in part because cosmology has in recent years turned into a spectacularly successful empirical discipline. But there is another reason too. “One of the key obstacles to progress in understanding the universe as a whole – particularly the early universe -- is the lack of a realist understanding of quantum theory”, says Saunders. “There are different aspects to the realism problem. One of them is about the nature of reality at the microscopic level; another is about how to apply quantum theory to systems ‘from the inside’ – to so-called closed systems. The latter is called the measurement problem. The universe as a whole is closed in this sense.” How then is it possible to apply quantum theory to cosmology – to obtain a genuinely quantum cosmology? “There has been real progress on that front in the last twenty years” Saunders continues. “That’s where our group and the East Coast group has an edge. We are interested in exploring these questions in quantum theories that are free of the measurement problem. Physicists try to be neutral on these questions, but it’s hard to do that and make sense of quantum cosmology”.
A major component of the Oxford-Cambridge project, like that of the US cluster led by Barry Loewer at Rutgers University, is to establish a community of scholars able to engage with such foundational questions in cosmology. To that end Joe Silk at Oxford, and John Barrow at Cambridge, will host a series of lecture courses, to be given by eminent figures in cosmology. These will be filmed and archived on a website dedicated to providing research materials and teaching resources in cosmology. Another component is related to the ‘PLUS’ e-magazine, associated with the Millennium Mathematics Project at Cambridge University, which will house a series of interviews with leaders in cosmology on key questions in foundations. The three-year project will culminate in a major international conference, and the publication of a volume of papers devoted to the philosophy of cosmology.
The US cluster includes Columbia University, Yale University, New York University, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. It encompasses nine scholars: Barry Loewer, Dean Zimmerman, Sheldon Goldstein and Roderich Tumulka of Rutgers; David Albert and Brian Greene of Columbia, Tim Maudlin of New York University, Priya Natarajan of Yale, and Joel Primack of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Loewer, Zimmerman, Albert and Maudlin are philosophers; Goldstein and Tumulka, mathematicians; Greene, Natarajan, and Primack, physicists. The US cluster, like the Oxford-Cambridge partnership, is funded by a $960,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation."
John Templeton Foundation (who have a 'supernaturalistic' rather than a 'naturalistic' worldview) is sponsoring a group of philosophers and physicists in an area of study 'philosophy of cosmology'. I was surprised to see Brian Greene amongst the list of physicists receiving funds from Templeton.
The press release states:-
"Philosophy of Cosmology - new field of study
Oxford and Cambridge in partnership with US cluster to establish ‘Philosophy of Cosmology’ as a new field of study. Templeton grant funds initiative at top universities in philosophy
In a new partnership between Oxford and Cambridge, researchers in physics and philosophy Simon Saunders, Joe Silk, and David Wallace at Oxford University, and John Barrow and Jeremy Butterfield at Cambridge, are to join researchers at a cluster of US universities including Columbia University, Yale University, and New York University, to establish the field of philosophy of cosmology as a new branch of philosophy of physics.
The initiative, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, is of three years in duration and will culminate in a major international conference. The enduring impact of the project will be to isolate and clarify the outstanding conceptual problems in the foundations of cosmology, to seed and stimulate future research in the subject, and to define philosophy of cosmology as a new field in its own right, with its own distinctive problems and motivations.
Chief among them, according to Simon Saunders of Oxford University, ‘is the problem of how to compensate for selection effects – of making sense of the so-called ‘anthropic principle’. Even if we knew the structure of the universe, the whole story from beginning to end, what should we expect to see from our particular corner of it? What are the probabilities? And of course that’s what’s relevant to experiments.’ The problem isn’t restricted to the distribution of stars or galaxies; it could extend to the values of supposedly fundamental constants, such as the cosmological constant --- or dark energy, as it is known.
"Explaining the value of the cosmological constant is one of the most critical problems in theoretical physics" says John Barrow, whose book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-written with Frank Tipler, set the agenda for anthropic reasoning in cosmology the last two decades. “This problem goes deeper than merely describing the accelerated expansion of the universe: it requires an understanding of the vacuum, how the quantum nature of reality impacts on the universe as a whole, and what probability means when used to evaluate observed properties of the universe.”
The initiative is being made now in part because cosmology has in recent years turned into a spectacularly successful empirical discipline. But there is another reason too. “One of the key obstacles to progress in understanding the universe as a whole – particularly the early universe -- is the lack of a realist understanding of quantum theory”, says Saunders. “There are different aspects to the realism problem. One of them is about the nature of reality at the microscopic level; another is about how to apply quantum theory to systems ‘from the inside’ – to so-called closed systems. The latter is called the measurement problem. The universe as a whole is closed in this sense.” How then is it possible to apply quantum theory to cosmology – to obtain a genuinely quantum cosmology? “There has been real progress on that front in the last twenty years” Saunders continues. “That’s where our group and the East Coast group has an edge. We are interested in exploring these questions in quantum theories that are free of the measurement problem. Physicists try to be neutral on these questions, but it’s hard to do that and make sense of quantum cosmology”.
A major component of the Oxford-Cambridge project, like that of the US cluster led by Barry Loewer at Rutgers University, is to establish a community of scholars able to engage with such foundational questions in cosmology. To that end Joe Silk at Oxford, and John Barrow at Cambridge, will host a series of lecture courses, to be given by eminent figures in cosmology. These will be filmed and archived on a website dedicated to providing research materials and teaching resources in cosmology. Another component is related to the ‘PLUS’ e-magazine, associated with the Millennium Mathematics Project at Cambridge University, which will house a series of interviews with leaders in cosmology on key questions in foundations. The three-year project will culminate in a major international conference, and the publication of a volume of papers devoted to the philosophy of cosmology.
The US cluster includes Columbia University, Yale University, New York University, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. It encompasses nine scholars: Barry Loewer, Dean Zimmerman, Sheldon Goldstein and Roderich Tumulka of Rutgers; David Albert and Brian Greene of Columbia, Tim Maudlin of New York University, Priya Natarajan of Yale, and Joel Primack of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Loewer, Zimmerman, Albert and Maudlin are philosophers; Goldstein and Tumulka, mathematicians; Greene, Natarajan, and Primack, physicists. The US cluster, like the Oxford-Cambridge partnership, is funded by a $960,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation."
Monday, May 07, 2012
the universe, which could have arisen from nothing, has no purpose (Lawrence Krauss)
source: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/01/opinion/la-oe-krauss-cosmology-design-universe-2012040
Lawrence Krauss explains that the universe (which could have arisen from 'nothing'), like evolution, has no purpose.
"Science has taught us to think the unthinkable. Because when nature is the guide -- rather than a priori prejudices, hopes, fears or desires -- we are forced out of our comfort zone. "
"Most of the energy in the observable universe can be found not within galaxies but outside them, in otherwise empty space, which, for reasons we still cannot fathom, "weighs" something. But the use of the word "weight" is perhaps misleading because the energy of empty space is gravitationally repulsive. It pushes distant galaxies away from us at an ever-faster rate. Eventually they will recede faster than light and will be unobservable."
.... "combining the ideas of general relativity and quantum mechanics, it is possible that the entire universe, matter, radiation and even space itself could arise spontaneously out of nothing, without explicit divine intervention. Quantum mechanics' Heisenberg uncertainty principle expands what can possibly occur undetected in otherwise empty space. If gravity too is governed by quantum mechanics, then even whole new universes can spontaneously appear and disappear, which means our own universe may not be unique but instead part of a multiverse."
... ""Why is there something rather than nothing?" Even the laws of physics may be a cosmic accident, with different laws in different universes. Asking why we live in a universe of something rather than nothing may be no more meaningful than asking why some flowers are red and others blue."
.... " if we ask what properties a universe created from nothing would have, it appears that these properties resemble precisely the universe we live in."
... "Does all of this prove that our universe and the laws that govern it arose spontaneously without divine guidance or purpose? No, but it means it is possible!"
... "And that possibility need not imply that our own lives are devoid of meaning. Instead of divine purpose, the meaning in our lives can arise from what we make of ourselves, from our relationships and our institutions, from the achievements of the human mind.
... "Imagining living in a universe without purpose may prepare us to better face reality head on. I cannot see that this is such a bad thing. Living in a strange and remarkable universe that is the way it is, independent of our desires and hopes, is far more satisfying for me than living in a fairy-tale universe invented to justify our existence."
Lawrence Krauss explains that the universe (which could have arisen from 'nothing'), like evolution, has no purpose.
"Science has taught us to think the unthinkable. Because when nature is the guide -- rather than a priori prejudices, hopes, fears or desires -- we are forced out of our comfort zone. "
"Most of the energy in the observable universe can be found not within galaxies but outside them, in otherwise empty space, which, for reasons we still cannot fathom, "weighs" something. But the use of the word "weight" is perhaps misleading because the energy of empty space is gravitationally repulsive. It pushes distant galaxies away from us at an ever-faster rate. Eventually they will recede faster than light and will be unobservable."
.... "combining the ideas of general relativity and quantum mechanics, it is possible that the entire universe, matter, radiation and even space itself could arise spontaneously out of nothing, without explicit divine intervention. Quantum mechanics' Heisenberg uncertainty principle expands what can possibly occur undetected in otherwise empty space. If gravity too is governed by quantum mechanics, then even whole new universes can spontaneously appear and disappear, which means our own universe may not be unique but instead part of a multiverse."
... ""Why is there something rather than nothing?" Even the laws of physics may be a cosmic accident, with different laws in different universes. Asking why we live in a universe of something rather than nothing may be no more meaningful than asking why some flowers are red and others blue."
.... " if we ask what properties a universe created from nothing would have, it appears that these properties resemble precisely the universe we live in."
... "Does all of this prove that our universe and the laws that govern it arose spontaneously without divine guidance or purpose? No, but it means it is possible!"
... "And that possibility need not imply that our own lives are devoid of meaning. Instead of divine purpose, the meaning in our lives can arise from what we make of ourselves, from our relationships and our institutions, from the achievements of the human mind.
... "Imagining living in a universe without purpose may prepare us to better face reality head on. I cannot see that this is such a bad thing. Living in a strange and remarkable universe that is the way it is, independent of our desires and hopes, is far more satisfying for me than living in a fairy-tale universe invented to justify our existence."
Creation, cosmology, and the insights of Thomas Aquinas
Carroll argues that:
- cosmologists are using metaphysical judgements without a sound philosophical foundation (they are using science, not philosophy or metaphysics)
- the Big Bang points to supernatural cause of beginning of universe (why?)
- Thomas Aquinas 'doctrine of creation' says that all that is, in whatever way or ways it is, depends upon God as cause. (but that's just saying that God did it!)
In summary William E Carroll maintains that:-
'Claims by authors like Hawking in 'The Grand Design' and Krauss in 'A Universe from Nothing' about the explanatory reach of science are ostensibly made on the basis of developments in science, but they are really metaphysical judgments, frequently advanced without a sound philosophical foundation. If there is a metaphysical assumption lurking behind this view, it is that the mere existence of things needs no explanation.'
'Robert Spitzer in New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, claims that modern physics shows us that the past time of the universe is finite. The general argument is that an initial "singularity" [the Big Bang], outside the categories of space and time, points to a supernatural cause of the beginning of the universe.'
For Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) creation is a topic for metaphysics and theology. The doctrine of creation affirms that all that is, in whatever way or ways it is, depends upon God as cause. The natural sciences have as their subject the world of changing things: from subatomic particles to acorns to galaxies. Whenever there is a change there must be something that changes. Whether these changes are biological or cosmological, without beginning or end, or temporally finite, they remain processes. Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. Creation is not a change. To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material. When God's creative act is said to be "out of nothing," what is meant is that God does not use anything in creating all that is: it does not mean that there is a change from "nothing" to "something."
"Cosmology and all the other natural sciences offer accounts of change; they do not address the metaphysical and theological questions of creation; they do not speak to why there is something rather than nothing. It is a mistake to use arguments in the natural sciences to deny creation. Similarly, it is a mistake to use arguments in cosmology to seek to confirm the doctrine of creation."
Saturday, May 05, 2012
The Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, 2009
The Universe from Nothing - see 21' for energy in the space between quarks!
also see Jim Al-Khali's Channel 4 programme, Everything from Nothing.
Link to this 2009 video from a London Atheists post.
Listen to Krauss at 15'39" on Radio 4, The Material World.
Chris Street http://www.youtube.com/
- 10m: good explanation (by superimposing galaxies at different times) of why galaxies appear to expanding at a speed proportional to the distance away.
-16m: we are all stardust, H,He,Li were created in big bang; rest of elements were formed in star exploding; 100,000 galaxies within a dime - 3 stars (not 10) explode every night.
- 18m age of universe 13.72bn
-19.45m - energy of Nothing; if nothing weighs something it contributes a term like this. But 'nothing weighs something' sound ridiculous!
-20m - laws of quantum mechanics & special relativity at extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a time scale that you can't see them.
- 20m30s - we can't measure virtual particles directly but we can measure their effects indirectly. Empty space is not empty! Empty space is responsible for 90% of your mass.
- 22m energy of nothing Vacuum energy is 10x120 times the energy of all matter in the universe (the worst prediction in all of physics) - if that was the case we wouldn't be here! Something about zero (dont understand)
25m - Options for Universe are open,closed or flat. Weighing the Universe tells us which of these options are true.
28m - x50 is mass of stuff that doesn't shine (dark matter) v normal matter; 90% of universe mass is dark matter. Universe is flat (not open or closed)
32m - in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero - gravity can have negative energy which balances out the positive energy of matter. A universe with total energy zero means that only such as universe can come from Nothing. No deity required. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe from nothing.
40m - why something rather than nothing? The answer is, there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you always get something.
41m - before 1998 we assumed that the universe expansion was slowing down; actually found to accelerating. We live in a universe dominated by nothing. 70% of the energy of the universe resides in empty space.
43m - we (galaxies) constitute 1% of a universe that is 70% dark energy and 30% dark matter
45m - the cosmological constant aka energy of empty space is just right for us now; galaxies can form; if the constant had been bigger eg x50 the energy density of matter, then galaxies would never have formed -
46m - anthropic mania: if many universes and the energy of empty space can vary in each one, then only in those that the energy is not much greater than that, will galaxies and us, form.
47m Cosmic natural selection; the laws of physics are just an accident (not fixed and change one paramter); if they were any different we would not be here. No fundamental laws. You may find it repugant but it may true.
49m- string theory - tiny vibrating strings
51m - in a 100 billion years galaxies will be moving away from us at faster than speed of light (its allowed!) and we will not see other galaxies so we will think we are alone in our Milky Way galaxy!
- 10m: good explanation (by superimposing galaxies at different times) of why galaxies appear to expanding at a speed proportional to the distance away.
-16m: we are all stardust, H,He,Li were created in big bang; rest of elements were formed in star exploding; 100,000 galaxies within a dime - 3 stars (not 10) explode every night.
- 18m age of universe 13.72bn
-19.45m - energy of Nothing; if nothing weighs something it contributes a term like this. But 'nothing weighs something' sound ridiculous!
-20m - laws of quantum mechanics & special relativity at extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a time scale that you can't see them.
- 20m30s - we can't measure virtual particles directly but we can measure their effects indirectly. Empty space is not empty! Empty space is responsible for 90% of your mass.
- 22m energy of nothing Vacuum energy is 10x120 times the energy of all matter in the universe (the worst prediction in all of physics) - if that was the case we wouldn't be here! Something about zero (dont understand)
25m - Options for Universe are open,closed or flat. Weighing the Universe tells us which of these options are true.
28m - x50 is mass of stuff that doesn't shine (dark matter) v normal matter; 90% of universe mass is dark matter. Universe is flat (not open or closed)
32m - in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero - gravity can have negative energy which balances out the positive energy of matter. A universe with total energy zero means that only such as universe can come from Nothing. No deity required. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe from nothing.
40m - why something rather than nothing? The answer is, there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you always get something.
41m - before 1998 we assumed that the universe expansion was slowing down; actually found to accelerating. We live in a universe dominated by nothing. 70% of the energy of the universe resides in empty space.
43m - we (galaxies) constitute 1% of a universe that is 70% dark energy and 30% dark matter
45m - the cosmological constant aka energy of empty space is just right for us now; galaxies can form; if the constant had been bigger eg x50 the energy density of matter, then galaxies would never have formed -
46m - anthropic mania: if many universes and the energy of empty space can vary in each one, then only in those that the energy is not much greater than that, will galaxies and us, form.
47m Cosmic natural selection; the laws of physics are just an accident (not fixed and change one paramter); if they were any different we would not be here. No fundamental laws. You may find it repugant but it may true.
49m- string theory - tiny vibrating strings
51m - in a 100 billion years galaxies will be moving away from us at faster than speed of light (its allowed!) and we will not see other galaxies so we will think we are alone in our Milky Way galaxy!
also see Jim Al-Khali's Channel 4 programme, Everything from Nothing.
Link to this 2009 video from a London Atheists post.
Listen to Krauss at 15'39" on Radio 4, The Material World.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Could we observe the multiverse? - Brian Greene
 |
| Brian Greene |
"Any theory in physics stands or falls depending on whether its predictions agree with the data. But how can we verify the existence of other bubble universes?
Is the multiverse theory unscientific, because it cannot be tested, even in principle?
Surprisingly, observational tests of the multiverse picture may in fact be possible. A collision of our expanding bubble with another bubble in the multiverse would produce an imprint in the cosmic background radiation—a round spot of higher or lower radiation intensity. A detection of such a spot with the predicted intensity profile would provide direct evidence for the existence of other bubble universes. The search is now on, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that a bubble collision has occurred within our cosmic horizon."
This is the point that Brian Greene spends 1 minute making (@16 mins 45 s) http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/brian_greene_why_is_our_universe_fine_tuned_for_life.html & http://blog.ted.com/2012/02/28/the-multiverse-in-three-parts-brian-greene-at-ted2012/ (video transcript)
"explaining how it might be able to actually detect OTHER universes because of temperature differences in the cosmic macro-background radiation. Could we ever confirm the existence of other universes?
Brian Greene says
'The Big Bang would have been so intense that as space stretched, tiny quantum jitters would have stretched from the micro to the macro world, creating a distinctive fingerprint across space - which powerful telescopes have now observed.
Similarly, we might be able to detect if one universe collided with another, we might one day detect those temperature differences."
Greene published 'The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the deep laws of the cosmos' in 2011 and the Penguin paperback in Feb 2012 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hidden-Reality-Parallel-Universes/dp/0141029811/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335814001&sr=1-1
Monday, April 16, 2012
Atheism UK argument against bishops in House of Lords
source: http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/04/13/atheism/lords-spiritual-atheism-uk-responds/
The atheist argument, against bishops in the House of Lords, is simple:-
- They derive their position from God.
- There is no God.
- Therefore, there should be no bishops in the House of Lords.
Atheism UK response to the Cabinet Office consultation:-
House of Lords Reform Draft Bill – Lords Spiritual
http://www.atheismuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Lords-Spiritual.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)