The Grand Design (Book)
There has been some talk surrounding the latest book from Stephen Hawking called The Grand Design, because he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow believe that we can finally prove there is no need for a god to explain the origins of the universe. I borrowed the book from a friend and made my way through it [...]
There has been some talk surrounding the latest book from Stephen Hawking called The Grand Design, because he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow believe that we can finally prove there is no need for a god to explain the origins of the universe.
I borrowed the book from a friend and made my way through it in two nights. It was an easy read. The authors speak in clear layman’s terms defining and explaining essential scientific theories, laws, and models while giving a brief history of physics from Thales of Miletus (ca. 600 BC) to modern day.
I enjoyed reading this concise walk through of modern physics and feel I have a better grasp of the main tenets of the prevailing model for the theory of everything. Indeed, the answer given is not an easy 42, but the authors explain this network of theories that form M-theory in terms that are definitely more accessible to the common man than the research papers from which the theories have formed. As usual, I really liked hearing about the mystical and mysterious nature of quantum particles and how these challenging concepts have far-reaching implications upon the macro-sized world. The explanation of model-dependent realism is certainly a fun mental exercise exploring our concept of what we know as reality and how we can be sure of such things.
While I did enjoy the book, there were subtle problems that bothered me – biases towards certain presuppositions, unscientific leaps of faith, models lacking “good model” criteria, vital theories built upon other as-of-yet-unproven but widely accepted theories, and “well that’s close enough” solutions. These nagging bits give me doubt about the final conclusion being made. (Also, a recent article in The New Yorker raises some questions about how reliable our scientific method really is.)
Another troubling pattern is that the authors seem to be on a crusade to invalidate many fields of study and make science the supreme field over all others. On the first page of chapter one, the authors declare philosophy dead and throughout the rest of the book they continue their abasement of various fields including philosophy, psychology, and religion, as well as belittling numerous respected historical figures, cultures, and heritages from around the world. In general, the book has lingering odors of Richard Feynman fanboyism and scientific elitism.
[SPOILER ALERT] When reading a book titled The Grand Design, one would expect a fantastic finale, but the underwhelming final chapter (a mere 12 pages) concludes that because gravity exists the universe naturally and spontaneously created itself.
Seriously? I felt let down. I was hoping for something far more grand. At least, I was expecting something scientifically elegant, something that met the criteria for a good model, something that didn’t leave some large doors of logic standing wide open. Instead, this grand crescendo ended with the wave of the magician’s wand and a sputter, not a bang. I was reminded of one of my favorite books from my childhood, The Monster At The End Of This Book. I don’t want to spoil that story for you, so you’ll have to read this classic children’s book for yourself.
UPDATE: The Monster At The End Of This Book has been made into an iPad app. Get it now while it’s only $0.99 USD.
In “The Grand Design” Hawking says that we are somewhat
like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and
warped by the kind of lenses we see through, “the
interpretive structure of our human brains.” Albert
Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of
quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is
distorted. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the
surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed
from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will
seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at
different lengths, and clocks will run at different
speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity
of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this
Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which
might be considered the same “eternal” event, viewed from various
historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with
different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This
might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports
of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the
“seeing” which differs. In some sciences, all
existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism,
only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy
about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine
essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter
(mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised
to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and
beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted
from http://www.suprarational.org on comparative mysticism]