The Accidental Universe (2014)
Four Stars out of Five
Alan Lightman
159 pages
Alan Lightman is a theoretical physicist that has taught at
Harvard and is the first professor to be hired by MIT with posts in both
Physics and Humanities. He has six books to his credit, one other of which is a
collection of essays. In The Accidental
Universe, Lightman discusses over the course of six essays topics as varied
as whether a belief in God is incompatible with science to whether or not the
pervasive presence of cell phones and the modern connection to the internet is
changing the nature of Man.
In the first essay, “The
Accidental Universe”, Lightman discusses the concept of the multi-verse; that
is to say the idea that the totality of reality consists of an infinity of
parallel universes. The concept derives in part over the vexing problem of
whether our universe with its set of physical laws must be of such exact values
or life (or indeed the universe itself) would not have formed. Are these values
then the only values possible for an as yet undetermined physical reason, or
are there other values out there in other unreachable universes? A
sizable portion of modern physicists would greatly prefer the former scenario
where there are fundamental reasons for Planck’s constant or the weak atomic
force to have the values they have. They spend their lives searching for such a
fundamental set of laws to explain these values and to prove why they are
unique.
Another group growing in size and influence, the parallel
universe group prefers (or has in frustration settled on) the anthropocentric
view as first proposed by Brandon Carter in 1968. They state that had the
universe we inhabit not have the values for these fundamental laws that it
does indeed have; we would not be here to ask the question. Had there been a
single universe with a single set of fundamental laws where the values were inconsistent
with a stable universe or one where molecules such as water were not possible
due to incompatible values for the weak atomic force, then the question would
be beyond moot. Adding fuel to this point of view are some of the theoretical
implications of the String theory and of the inflationary acceleration now
confirmed to be the case for the expansion of the universe.
Now of course, the two contending groups of scientists
outlined above are also joined by a third group; the group that sees the hand
of God behind these fundamental laws and their life-giving values. This group
ably represented by NIH director Francis Collins feels that the fine tuning
needed for these laws can only be explained by some variation of the Intelligent Design proposition. Such a
reach for a metaphysical explanation does not appeal to Lightman, or indeed to
most scientists. But this currently unsolvable conundrum provides an interesting example of how highly intelligent and educated people have reached
a point in the debate where there are insufficient facts/experiments/calculations
to resolve the issue. So, what is the next step in this type of discussion?
Should the discussion’s participants fall back to their religious convictions
for answers to such questions, or should they continue to gather facts, ponder
new hypotheses, plan new experiments?
This kind of dichotomy of belief systems is addressed from a
different direction by Lightman in his third essay: “The Spiritual Universe”.
Following his second essay on “The Temporary Universe”, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, and whether a truly immortal being would have to be defined as
God/Creating Force, Lightman begins a discussion in “The Spiritual Universe”
where he tries to define what a scientist is and how he thinks by elucidating a central thesis to scientific thought. This point of
view is one I share: “All properties and events in the physical universe are
governed by laws, and those laws are true at every time and place in the
universe”. Such a thesis does not mean that we currently know all these laws or
that as we gather more data and experimental results that we won’t revise some
or even all of these laws. It means that given sufficient time and energy,
these laws are knowable. An implication from this thesis is a question; a question based
not so much on whether God exists or not, but one on whether He plays a role in
our Universe (the question of his existence is of course a sub-set of the latter
question).
To be sure, the world and the world views on how God
interacts with the Universe exist on a spectrum that ranges from Atheism to
Deism to Immanentism to Interventionism. This spectrum describes whether God
ever existed or acted to one where He acted in the beginning of time to one
where He continues to act/intervene up to this day. The difference between deism
and immanentism is a very interesting philosophical point and really germane the
following discussion: deists believe that God acted originally but no longer,
while immanentists believe he acts still, but uses the Universe’s laws to do
so. Where do most scientists fall on this spectrum is question raised obliquely
by Lightman but not really resolved. And while some
scientists (see Francis Collins below) on occasion will essentially reject the central theme of the scientists’ belief
system outlined in the previous paragraph by maintaining a belief that God does
act in an interventionist manner occasionally, most scientists would seem to fall into one
of the other categories.
Lightman moves onto the part of the book that I found the
most enlightening: are all questions answerable? This question might on the
surface seem the same as the previously central theses to a scientific point of
view regarding the laws of the universe; but there is an important distinction.
That distinction is whether or not in Lightman’s words, the problem can be
stated as a “well-pose problem: can the
question be stated with sufficient enough clarity and precision that it is
guaranteed an answer?”. For example, can the rate of a falling apple be measured;
can the question of its acceleration rate be posed as a clear and repeatedly
measurable answer? That it can be so, is pretty clear. But what about (say)
the motivation of a fictional character in a movie or book: did Philip Seymour
Hoffman as Father Flynn in 2008’s “Doubt” have an illicit relationship with an
altar boy or not? A brilliant movie and performance by Hoffman, but can this
question be phrased in such a manner that science can answer it? The answer is
as clearly a “no”, as the answer to the apple’s acceleration rate question is an
equally clear “yes”.
And so we come back to the actions of God. Until He acts in
a manner that breaks the Laws of the Universe, He and his existence fall into a
category of topics that cannot be addressed by science. Per Lightman, one can
falsify the arguments based on Intelligent Design or morality for God’s
existence, but this is not the same as falsifying the proposition of God’s
existence. Lightman goes on to assert his atheism, his disappointment in some
of the arguments made by one today’s most vocal atheists, Richard Dawkins. But
he concludes by re-stating the whole point of the well-posed question. That is
to say, that some questions are best addressed by scientists because they can
be answered, and other questions best left to the artists, the poets, and the religious
as they are best fit to explore such regions of thought.
In any event, in these essays and the three that follow,
Lightman brings his expertise in physics and science to bear on topics of
interest to both scientist and non-scientist alike. In all probability, his
views will not align well with some members of both of these groups, but the
strength of this book is that he brings an open mind to the question; that is,
the hall mark of the scientist, an open mind. Despite some jarring segues
in his writing, I enjoyed this book for the topics raised (the first three
essays are the strongest) and I encourage any with an interest in the topic of
the knowable, the unknowable, and how they can coexist in the mind of a
scientist to read this book.
No comments:
Post a Comment