The Grand Design

I recently completed reading The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.  It is a relatively short read at 181 pages in eight chapters.  No previous scientific knowledge is necessary and almost no mathematics used.  The theme of the book, as implied by the title, is using current theoretical constructs from physics to answer many of the fundamental questions of philosophy: How can we understand the world?  How does the universe behave?  What is the nature of reality?  Why is there something rather than nothing?

Early on, the authors made what I considered a somewhat controversial statement: “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.  Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”  While I will concede that the work of most professional philosophers (operating in academia) has been reduced to making pithy remarks about minutiae in obscure academic journals, I believe that philosophy still has much to contribute to the discussion.

The authors reviewed Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics concepts and introduced basic concepts from Quantum theory and Einstein’s relativity.  The authors’ indicated that the attempt is to understand not only how but also why the universe behaves.

Hawking and Mlodinow discussed creation myths from various cultures.  According to current knowledge, our species is approximately 202,000 years old and written language is 9,000 years old.  They discussed Ionia, a Greek colony, and its influence on the development of science.  The Ionians developed a “primitive” science, which sought to uncover “fundamental laws to explain natural phenomena…”  The authors discussed ancient Greek thought from Thales to Aristotle, and then continued the path of western intellectual development through Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton.

Given that nature is governed by laws, the authors described three resultant questions: 1) What is the origin of the laws?  2) Are there any exceptions to the laws?  3) Is there only one set of possible laws?  Humanity traditionally answered question one by invoking God (this, however, would later be revisited).  The second question was answered definitively in the negative through Laplace’s scientific determinism, though the authors augmented this hypothesis invoking a rather vague and muddled concept of free will.  The third question was addressed as the book reached its conclusion.

Hawking and Mlodinow discussed alternative reality theories including the simulation hypothesis (which I have referred to in other posts) but settled on the concept called model-dependent realism in which they frame their investigation into the nature of reality.  Model-dependent realism does not ask if a model (of the universe) is real—only whether or not it agrees with observation.  In this manner, it is a pragmatic choice for scientific inquiry.  However, I think this choice closes the door on a number of alternative views of reality for the sake of including in the picture of the universe (or multi-verse system) only those hypotheses that are testable through scientific method.  This is fine, particularly from the point of view of two eminent physicists; however, it relegates alternatives to philosophy—a field of inquiry that the authors have previously (and perhaps conveniently) declared “dead.”

As later chapters unfold, the authors reviewed the development of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, and string theory, working toward a “theory of everything.”  This theory of everything is a modification of string theory called M-theory.  It proposes that spacetime contains eleven dimensions (we simply cannot observe most of them due to their “size”).  One of the critical elements of the theory is that of supergravity which holds that gravity is supersymmetrical.  Supersymmetry, according to the authors’ definition is “a subtle kind of symmetry that cannot be associated with a transformation of ordinary space… supersymmetry is that force particles and matter particles, and hence force and matter, are really just two facets of the same thing.”

Finally, the authors discuss Conway’s gliders in his Game of Life and use it as an analog for considering life arising under a set of conditions (laws of nature) in a given hypothetical universe.  The set of physical laws that govern our known universe were such that they allowed the evolution of human life.  In fact, many more universes exist—each with different sets of physical laws and probably many of these do not allow the evolution of life similar to ours.  The authors argued that God is not necessary for our universe to exist and evolve intelligent life.  This is a subtle point and we should understand exactly what the authors have argued.  They did not state that God does not exist but that it is not a necessary condition for the creation of the universe.  Hawking and Mlodinow argue that if we say God created the universe (or the multi-verse) we have then deferred the question to that of “who or what created God?”

This is probably not a very good summary of The Grand Design but I have done my best to review most of the basic concepts encountered in the book.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, as I did Hawking’s previous books A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell.  While this text does not break a lot of new ground, it is rather bold in its assertions that “philosophy is dead.”  Despite extremely complex topics, Hawking and his co-author Mlodinow were able to present them in a clear and concise manner that any high school student could easily understand.  Any effort to put major issues in science (and I would argue philosophy!) into the hands of a mass audience is worthy of applause.  I would recommend The Grand Design to anyone—so check it out if have a chance.  Hey, it’s far more readable than my blog!  As always, happy learning!

Sci Fi Literature and Academic Lectures

In at least one previous posting I have mentioned my love for professionally recorded college lectures such as those provided by The Teaching Company. Another great source of professional quality audio and video lectures is from Recorded Books’ The Modern Scholar audio book series. I have listened to numerous courses from each company and find that almost without exception each course yields a profound intellectual experience. Although with this posting I intend to review the latest course I’ve completed, just for the fun of it I thought I would list those courses I’ve at least listened to, sometimes delving deeper into the accompanying bibliographies and suggested readings. Incidentally, I do not own most of these discs but held a state library card and was able to obtain many titles from there or other loans.

The Teaching Company list is the longer of the two, comprising 29 lecture series. In some instances I have given the brief title. I have placed an asterisk beside titles that I have found particularly interesting. America’s Religious History, The Old Testament, The New Testament, The Great Ideas of Philosophy, Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking*, A Skeptic’s Guide to American History, Christian Religion and Fundamentalism, History of the Bible, Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, Great Leaders: Winston Churchill, Historical Jesus, American Civil War, Machiavelli in Context, The Self Under Siege* (by Prof. Rick Roderick an awesome scholar who is now unfortunately deceased), Philosophy and Human Values, Nietzsche and the Postmodern* (also by Prof. Roderick), Skepticism 101 (by Michael Schermer from Scientific American), Philosophy of Mind, No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life*, Elements of Jazz*, Doctors: History of Scientific Medicine, Early Christianity, Hitler’s Empire*, Perspectives of Abnormal Psychology, Biology and Human Behavior*, The Story of Human Language, Understanding the Fundamentals of Music, Will to Power: Nietzsche, and The Art of War.

The Teaching Company titles can vary in length and depth. For example, if memory serves correctly, The Self Under Siege (my favorite lectures of all time), consists of eight lectures each approximately 45 minutes. The American Civil War, on the other hand, has sixty thirty-minute lectures in the series. The Modern Scholar list has 20 titles. Each title has two one-hour lectures on each of seven compact discs, making these offerings far more standardized in format and presentation. Another difference is that Teaching Company lectures are presented to a live studio audience while Modern Scholar lectures are not. As an aside to the above comments, I have tried to listen to The Self Under Siege at least once per year since I first bought it on cassette tape in 1998.

The Modern Scholar lectures I have completed, with asterisks by the favorites, are as follows: Understanding Movies*, Astronomy I*, Anthropology of Religion, Crime Scene Investigation I, The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, Philosophy of Religion, The American Presidency, Big Picture MBA, The Cold War, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Ethics (by Prof. Peter Kreeft), Genetics*, Jazz*, Literary Journalism*, Rock and Roll History I, Native America, Principles of Economics, Rethinking our Past (by Prof. James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me—an excellent book you should definitely read), World War I, and From Here to Infinity: An Exploration of Science Fiction Literature.

It is this last title, Science Fiction Literature that I most recently completed and would like to explore somewhat in depth in the current posting. I am always trying to expand my intellectual palate when possible, so obtaining these lectures was not necessarily a priority for me as I have never been a frequent sci-fi reader. This was more about learning what makes others sci-fi fanatics. The course is written and presented by Professor Michael D.C. Drout of Wheaton College.

Science Fiction has a focus on realism even when describing such seemingly impossible technologies such as interstellar travel. The roots of the genre go as far back as Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. But Jules Verne was the first true, great science fiction writer, imagining technology that has been realized but only dreamt when Verne wrote. H.G. Wells was another early sci-fi writer who used 19^th century technology to project future science and society and the relationship between people and animals (such as The Island of Dr.Moreau).

The 1930s saw the rise of science fiction magazines that gave rise to a new crop of writers in the genre. Amazing Stories and great sci-fi editor John Campbell’s Astounding Stories. The 1930s also introduced H.P. Lovecraft who explored occult, horror and shock within the science fiction framework. Lovecraft created a mythos by linking disparate stories to create a larger meta-narrative.

The 1940s sci-fi, argues Drout, was significantly influenced by World War Two. He looks at Isaac Asimov’s The Big and the Little and I, Robot; John W. Campbell’s Who Goes There? and (as editor) The First Astounding Science Fiction Anthology; Lester del Rey’s Nerves; and Theodore Sturgeon’s Killdozer! Characters in these stories have a militaristic orientation and there is an emphasis on scientific wonders being treated as mundane. One of the lasting implications from Asimov’s writings are the famous three laws of robotics: 1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2.A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In the late 1940s and the 1950s science fiction was dominated by what Drout labels as the “Big Three”: Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke. Each of these writers created masterpieces that shaped sci-fi literature for decades. Heinlein, however, eventually crossed over into mainstream literature and was influential not only in areas like the space program and science and engineering, as well as “children’s literature and the counterculture of the 1960s.” In 1974 the Science Fiction Writers of America gave their first Grand Master award for lifetime achievement to Heinlein. His works include The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, The Past Through Tomorrow: Future History Stories, The Rolling Stones, Starship Troopers, and Stranger in a Strange Land.

Probably my favorite lecture in the series is on 1960s and 1970s science fiction because this covers my favorite sci-fi author: Philip K. Dick. Drout refers to this era as the “New Wave” period of sci-fi. A key New Wave element concerns the increase of entropy which leads inevitably to the “heat death of the universe.” This actual abandon perspective of cosmology held that the universe is kind of “winding down” since the Big Bang, because entropy always increases. Therefore, everything will eventually “be reduced to a uniform soup of cold, dark matter.” This pessimism informs most sci-fi of the period. Philip K. Dick was somewhat influential on William Gibson who wrote the seminal cyberpunk novel of the 1980s Neuromancer which is probably my favorite sci-fi novel. Many of Dick’s novels and short stories have been adapted for the screen, most notably his story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? as the cult-classic Blade Runner. Dick’s story is more nuanced with subplots which Drout does an excellent job bringing out in the lecture.

Overall, the lecture series was very well-presented. Drout has a captivating cadence and a masterful command of the material. I was disappointed that he did not really address William S. Burroughs’ place in science fiction. Although not primarily a science fiction writer, Burroughs’ satire of science fiction motifs far pre-dates those of someone like Douglas Adams, whom Drout does discuss. Of course, don’t get me wrong, I love Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, except for any film adaptation of it. Of course, I understand how it is difficult to discuss Burroughs’ work in polite discourse on sci-fi lit. It’s pretty hard to discuss Burroughs’ work with any other human being without feeling like you need to go to confession afterwards. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, maybe you should check out Naked Lunch. Just don’t tell anyone I told you to. Sorry for the excessively long post. Anyway, happy learning!

Orwell’s Other Masterpiece

When I mention George Orwell, there are no doubt two distinct and terrific novels that immediately come to mind: 1984 and Animal Farm. I remember the fantastic impact that reading 1984 had on me in my mid-teens. It has since seemed to grow from a science fiction dystopian view of the future to a prophetic view of the present. Animal Farm was the first Orwellian novel I read, having won it in an essay contest in the 5^th or 6^th grade. I haven’t read it since but really should because I doubt that I was able to really understand the work at that age.

I was listening to an interview with Noam Chomsky on the University of California Television (UCTV) series Conversations with History when he mentioned that he thought Orwell’s best work was Homage to Catalonia and that it was very influential upon his early political thought. As an aside, UCTV is pretty awesome. It is usually offered on one of the programming tiers of Dish Network, but all content is available to stream online--just follow the link above.

Despite what your personal opinion of Chomsky and his politics might be, he does often—in that most Socratic of ways—provoke one to defend or at least examine one’s own point of view and even cherished beliefs. Thus, I put Homage to Catalonia on my “to-read” list for these reasons. In reviewing the work, I am not trying to advocate for Orwell’s political perspective. Such judgments are personal decisions and I have little interest in persuading anyone to any ideology—as I myself am unable to find any political party or paradigm of belief satisfactory. The narrative structure and Orwell’s dry humor about the direst circumstances alone are good enough to recommend the book.

Homage to Catalonia is Orwell's first-hand recollection of his experiences as a soldier in the militia during the Spanish Civil War. The first edition of the book was published in 1938 but it was suppressed in the United States until February 1952.

Orwell achieved rank as high as lieutenant in the POUM—a leftist militia, which was at first very decentralized but gradually, became more hierarchical during his service. He fought in Catalonia and Aragon from December 1936 until June 1937. In June 1937 the POUM, which was known as “the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification” was declared  illegal by the fractious government which left Orwell (and his wife who had been staying in Barcelona) something of a fugitive.

Orwell’s time on “the front line” of the Spanish Civil War did not leave him untouched. Despite a witty narrative in which he often seems to minimize the fear and danger of trench warfare, Orwell did suffer an injury to his arm and later was hit by sniper fire in a near fatal shot to his throat. Of course, none of this summary or any other description can match the dry English wit with which Orwell delivers his tales of adventure.

Homage to Catalonia describes events after World War I and during the spread of fascism prior to World War II. It is useful to place its narrative in this perspective. In this manner, Orwell’s final lines are particularly poignant: “…the men in bowler hats, the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, the red buses, the blue policemen - all sleeping the deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs."

Orwell's novel is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. He takes very seriously the battle against fascism in Spain at the time. Yet he maintains much of his dry, English wit throughout the text. This is highly recommended reading for anyone, particularly those who enjoyed one or more of Orwell's more popular works. As a non-fiction account of first-hand experiences, one can almost see the seed begin to germinate that would color much of Orwell's view of government. One thing is for certain, the book is potent and full of lessons. I suggest that you at least give the book a try.

Once again, I wish you happy learning! Keep that spark of intellectual fire alive. Let it begin to burn into a skeptical but curious world view. As always, happy learning!

Michael Faraday: Father of Electronics by Charles Ludwig

I recently finished a biography entitled Michael Faraday: Father of Electronics by Charles Ludwig. This is one of those books that you buy (or in this case someone gave to me) to read but somehow end up using as “bookshelf filler.” If you read very much, I’m sure you understand. If you have an obsession with buying physical copies of books (rather than electronic) I am certain that you know exactly what I mean.

To digress for just a moment: I am obsessed with buying books and have been for many years. However, I do not simply pull up the New York Times “Bestseller” lists and choose from these like a catalog. I do not pay very much attention to Amazon.com’s suggestions, lists, or e-mail campaigns. Nor do I get most of my books from the “Bargain Bins” at major retailers. No, I typically find my treasures at yard sales, junk stores, estate sales, and often at friends’ houses. Simply put, most of the things I like to read (non-fiction, textbooks, etc.) are things that most people are forced to buy in the first place and then get rid of when they have served their useful purpose.

The Faraday book wasn’t mine; it was my wife’s from her senior year of high school. When she moved in with me she commented that she thought I would like it. Fourteen years later, I found out she was right. Faraday was someone I find fascinating for numerous reasons.

First, a little biographical information: Michael Faraday was born September 22, 1791 in a village just outside of (and now within) London, England. He had almost no formal education. He left elementary school due to a dispute with a hard-nosed school teacher because of his inability to overcome a speech impediment in which he could not pronounce the letter “r.” (Michael later overcame this through his own hard work and the application of his brilliant intellect.) After leaving school, Michael apprenticed for seven years with a bookbinder.

Much of Michael’s “education” came by being able to seize the opportunity to learn whenever and wherever it presented itself. Apprenticing to a bookbinder allowed him to become an excellent reader, to fill himself with the knowledge (often copying and taking notes) from the volumes with which he worked, and to come into contact with many of London’s more educated citizens. He quickly developed a fascination—an obsession even—with chemistry. Michael consumed any material about science and chemistry that he could get his hands on. He even attended lectures at the Royal Institution given by Humphry Davy.

Upon completing his apprenticeship in bookbinding, Michael determined that he would be a chemist or die trying. He was fortunate to become a temporary assistant (treated more like a servant) to Davy himself; later Faraday became Humphry’s lab assistant at the Royal Institution. Finally, Michael’s brilliance began to shine through. He first made contributions to Davy’s work. Then, he began to outshine even this mentor.

Michael Faraday would go on to be called the father of the electric motor, the transformer, and the generator. He discovered benzene, improved steel alloys, and was the first person to turn chlorine into a liquid form. He took over Davy’s public lectures at the Royal Institution where he was even more popular with London society, including the Royal family. The University of Oxford granted Faraday a Doctor of Civil Law degree (honorary). Michael was quite a humble person and rejected a knighthood and also refused the presidency of the Royal Society.

What is most fascinating to me about Michael Faraday is that he was able to accomplish so much with so little. He was born into hopeless poverty. He lacked the means to obtain an education that would allow him to contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. Yet because of an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and a dogged determination to understand the principles of nature, Michael Faraday did more than most of his contemporaries who graduated from England’s finest universities.

The biological maxim from Jurassic Park (I think) was “life finds a way.” I believe a suitable analogue would likewise be, “curiosity finds a way.” Einstein, Feynman, John Wheeler—almost any scientist one could name would have one characteristic that overshadowed everything else about their life and personality—curiosity. Michael Faraday had that quality and seized whatever opportunity he could find to satisfy it.

I find that truly inspirational. Happy learning!