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!