• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God and the Laws of Physics

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am interested in reactions to the following passage from a paper ("Universe from Bit") by the eminent physicist Paul Davies and published in P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (Cambridge University Press). I apologize for the abrupt start but I wanted to quote as short a portion as possible for brevity's sake:
"Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, how do we know the laws are immutable and unchanging?
...It seems to me that after three centuries we should consider the possibility that the classical theological/Platonic model of laws is an idealization with little experimental or observational justification."
(p. 91-3; emphases added)
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
For those interested, I've attached the paper from an earlier edition of the volume (if I notice any changes between the paper from the earlier edition and this one I will let others know). In this edition, the quote comes mainly from p. 71, with the last bit coming from p. 73.
 

Attachments

  • Universe from bit.pdf
    184.1 KB · Views: 177

Yerda

Veteran Member
It strikes me as more likely that both grow from the same source. Theology and the laws of physics are results of the same drive for meaning and order.

Edit: Sorry, I haven't read the paper yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Can we have a list, and some explanation if deemed necessary, of the laws that are taken for granted?
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can we have a list, and some explanation if deemed necessary, of the laws that are taken for granted?
I can't supply such a list (it would be made up of conservation laws, mostly, but more generally the mathematical models that govern the dynamics of any system in physics and physical systems; however, I don't want to speak for Davies), but if you read the paper you will find some context on this and that the author argues this is a theoretical matter. Part of his point is that there is are tacit, implicit assumptions about the nature of the "laws" that govern physical systems regardless of what these laws are or how they change. For example, even after the fall of Newtonian mechanics the new quantum mechanics that replaced it changed many of the "laws" (as did relativity), but not the conception of physical laws. Another main point is that, rather than make such assumptions w should attempt to formulate a theory or theories of physical laws. For example, "To illustrate a possible agenda along these lines, I want to concentrate on one aspect of the standard theological model of laws that is most vulnerable to falsification: namely, the assumption of infinite precision. The laws of physics are normally cast as differential equations, which embed the concepts of real numbers, and of infinite and infinitesimal quantities, as well as continuity of physical variables, such as those of space and time. This assumption extends even to string theory, where the link with the world of space, time, and matter is long and tenuous in the extreme. As any experiment or observation can be conducted to finite accuracy only, to assume infinitely precise laws is obviously a wholly unjustified extrapolation – a leap of faith. To the extent that it may be a technical convenience, that is all right. But as I shall show, there are circumstances where the extrapolation may lead us astray in a testable manner."
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I am interested in reactions to the following passage from a paper ("Universe from Bit") by the eminent physicist Paul Davies and published in P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (Cambridge University Press). I apologize for the abrupt start but I wanted to quote as short a portion as possible for brevity's sake:
"Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, how do we know the laws are immutable and unchanging?
...It seems to me that after three centuries we should consider the possibility that the classical theological/Platonic model of laws is an idealization with little experimental or observational justification."
(p. 91-3; emphases added)

I agree with the passage, and really happy just to see someone pointing it out. (And I mean that in the jumping up and down, waving my hands up in the air "happy" as it is so often overlooked). This is a problem that came up directly in Soviet Science (notably controversies over Physics, Qauntum Mechanics and the Big Bang Cosmology). In the early 1900's Lenin was already trying to find a way to redefine "matter" from atomic particles given that some people were speculating on the "dissapearance of matter".(See Chapter 5. The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism for deatils). His book, Materialism and Emprio-criticism became the standard text which all Soviet philosophers and scientists had to reconcile their discoveries with. Sadly, there are a very limited number of texts that deal with these issues because they generally are not translated into english. Those that are a expensive, so I haven't been able to read them. [This link is the only online source I have that deals with the subject as it is so obscure.]

It's one of those areas which I know a bit about, but obviously lack depth and specialised knowledge in which to present the arguments that would have been made and compare them to current scientific data (it is however sort of an ambition to be able to do so).
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In the early 1900's Lenin was already trying to find a way to redefine "matter" from atomic particles given that some people were speculating on the "dissapearance of matter".(See Chapter 5. The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism for deatils). His book, Materialism and Emprio-criticism became the standard text which all Soviet philosophers and scientists had to reconcile their discoveries with. Sadly, there are a very limited number of texts that deal with these issues because they generally are not translated into english. Those that are a expensive, so I haven't been able to read them. [This link is the only online source I have that deals with the subject as it is so obscure.]
Thanks for the links! I've never connected the history of Soviet scientific research/development (which I know about only tangentially) with the interpretational and metaphysical issues inspired by the paradigm shifts of modern physics. I checked out the references on the paper you linked to and ordered some books I found there that (fingers cross) might fill this gap in my knowledge somewhat. I also cheated and used my access to electronic databases to download a few papers that I will comb for more references and use to find more sources tomorrow (technically, today, as it is~3AM where I am). Thanks so much!
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Thanks for the links! I've never connected the history of Soviet scientific research/development (which I know about only tangentially) with the interpretational and metaphysical issues inspired by the paradigm shifts of modern physics. I checked out the references on the paper you linked to and ordered some books I found there that (fingers cross) might fill this gap in my knowledge somewhat. I also cheated and used my access to electronic databases to download a few papers that I will comb for more references and use to find more sources tomorrow (technically, today, as it is~3AM where I am). Thanks so much!

You're very welcome. I'm glad to see someone who share's my interest. :D

Feel free to ask if you need some help with the philosophy (the dialectics takes time to get your head round). If at some point you want to do an indepth discussion, swapping my knowledge on marxist philosophy for your knowledge of natural science, that would be extremely welcome. I know how where to start on the questions, but don't know where to start on the answers as I don't have the background knowledge for it.

I have a copy of "Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars". it's the only one on the list of references I have got (many of which I could get second-hand). It won't tell you much theory (which was what I was hoping for and so was dissapointed for that), but is an excellent text which focuses on the history of science and the interplay of politics and science in the USSR during Stalin's final years. A series of conferences were held in the early 1950's to settle a "party line" in various on-going scientific disputes (e.g. political economy, linguistics, agricultural sciences, etc). [it's possible it resembles the catholic church in its approach to reconciling science with philosophy/religion but I don't have the background knowledge to be sure and comparision have limited value given the nature of the differences.] They didn't have one on Physics even though it was proposed because Stalin and co. appreciated that value of giving scientists autonomy to build better atom bombs. from a history of science point of view it's very well-written and researched. I am also happy to say that it has a strong grasp of the ideology, even if it doesn't go into the level of deatil I was looking for.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Seldom are scientists so committed to a belief in a supreme being that they find him/it lurking in the recesses of their work. Looking around a bit, Paul Davies is one of the exceptions. Overwhelmed by the "WOW" of the universe, he feels an examination of its properties will make it possible for science to offer a surer path to God than religion. A theology grounded in science as it were. And this is the "theology" he speaks of; one that hangs its hat on the laws of the universe, rather than on any holy book, revealed communication, or mythology. Davies has his god and is attempting to demonstrate its existence through science. Well, science and some philosophical tap dancing as it appears. So, as far as he's concerned the evidence is in, and all that remains is the packaging and a convincing sales pitch.

I'm saving my money for a Whopper with cheese, medium fries, and a Coke.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
My physics teacher when I was still studying at least didn't accept laws of physics as immutable. Instead his opinion was that they had changed, but from our limited timeframe it was practical to consider them as immutable and unlikely that we would be able to observe any changes in our lifetime.

He is a believer in the big bang theory and his view was that the "laws" had their greatest changes during that event.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Seldom are scientists so committed to a belief in a supreme being that they find him/it lurking in the recesses of their work. Looking around a bit, Paul Davies is one of the exceptions.
Davies is one of the popular science writers I've used to help me better write for popular audiences (along with Smolin, Susskind, Greene, and a few others I feel do this well, or at least far better than I). Yet I've never encountered anything in his works, including those like God and the New Physics, which actually contain statements of Davies' beliefs concerning the "big questions" he finds interesting or of any claim of truth in religious beliefs, dogma, or "god". If you know of a counter-example (where Davies explicitly states what he believes or even that a divine creator exists), I would be grateful.

Overwhelmed by the "WOW" of the universe, he feels an examination of its properties will make it possible for science to offer a surer path to God than religion.
He certainly feels the "WOW" you describe, and that science offers a surer path to understanding than religion. But this is typical of scientists, particularly theoretical physicists and cosmologists (and there are popular works like those of Davies by atheist and agnostic physicists). I don't see that any of his works actually claim that science offers a path to god, as even when his popular titles explicitly refer to religion or god, the actual works don't claim that physics or science lead there.
A theology grounded in science as it were.
There are scientists, philosophers, and theologians that assert this or propound such a cosmology: Polkinghorne, Amoroso, Rauscher, Koperski, Collins, Peacocke, Clayton, Ward, Schroederm, etc.; such authors are more or less the opposite of those like Strenger, Weinberg, Krauss, etc.). Davies has contributed to many a volume, academic conference, and similar proceedings which concern in some sense the interplay, relationship, and/or nature between science and religion. But he has developed no theology at all, still less a scientific one. He has spoken of theology, but so have agnostics/atheists like Susskind, Weinberg, Penrose, Carter, and just about every theoretical physicists/cosmologist since Einstein.

And this is the "theology" he speaks of; one that hangs its hat on the laws of the universe, rather than on any holy book, revealed communication, or mythology.
Actually the "theology" he speaks of is an historical matter. It concerns rather simply the origins for the conceptualization of physical laws by those who begat them and those that are at the origins of both physical laws and the sciences. It concerns history.
Davies has his god
Could you please point me to a statement by Davies asserting HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN GOD??? I have been looking for one. Thanks!
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I've always been uncomfortable with the apparent (and sometimes explicit) faith in mathematics as an existing Platonic world of perfect forms that at least some science writers exhibit, and from what Davies seems to be saying, many physicists seem to subscribe. Which doesn't imply that I am comfortable with Davies' alternative here...I've less of a grasp of QM and the like, but I do like that his argument asks us to forego a "higher" external place that imposes the rules of nature. I'm going to have to digest the article a bit more to have anything else to say.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Could you please point me to a statement by Davies asserting HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN GOD??? I have been looking for one. Thanks!


"In The Mind of God (1992) Davies elevates the laws of nature to the point that he claims they are "universal" [23] (in the sense that they apply everywhere), and "absolute" [24] (in that they do not depend on anything else). The laws are "eternal" [25] (since, as defined above, time is uncreated). Moreover, they are "omnipotent" [26] (nothing escapes their influence) and "omniscient" [27] (in that they command all physical systems). Thus, if God does exist, He is inseparable with the laws of nature. This position would seem to put Davies squarely in the pantheistic camp. But Davies would strongly deny this label, for in the same book he purposefully distances himself from atheists and pantheists by indicating that he possesses a theological perspective similar to Process Theology (developed by the mathematician Alfred North Whitehead).

According to this theology God is responsible for ordering the world by "providing the various potentialities which the physical universe is then free to actualize."[28] Though God is not directly involved in the universe, He "influences and is influenced by the unfolding reality of the physical universe." [29] Such a God is not unchanging, though His purposes are thought to be timeless. Consequently, Davies asserts, "In this way, timelessness and temporality are folded into a single entity." [30] If this appears to be somewhat confusing, even Davies is forced to make the stark admission, "I confess I have had to struggle hard to understand the philosophical convolutions needed to justify a dipolar God." [31] However, he conveniently clears up the problem when he applies the probabilistic nature of quantum physics to Process Theology. With this new application, God "determines what alternative worlds are available to nature, but leaves open the freedom of nature to choose from among the alternatives." [32] It is this marriage of necessity and contingency (or determinacy and free will) that Davies finds so appealing. This theological position is actually quite similar to Deism - though modified somewhat by quantum theory. As a result, Davies, who never explicitly commits himself to any particular theological position, appears to vacillate between both pantheism and modified Deism."

source
Now perhaps Steve Surprenant, the author of the above, is out in left field here, but it left me with the impression that Davies does indeed believe in a god, albeit a very peculiar one.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Seldom are scientists so committed to a belief in a supreme being that they find him/it lurking in the recesses of their work. Looking around a bit, Paul Davies is one of the exceptions. Overwhelmed by the "WOW" of the universe, he feels an examination of its properties will make it possible for science to offer a surer path to God than religion. A theology grounded in science as it were. And this is the "theology" he speaks of; one that hangs its hat on the laws of the universe, rather than on any holy book, revealed communication, or mythology. Davies has his god and is attempting to demonstrate its existence through science. Well, science and some philosophical tap dancing as it appears. So, as far as he's concerned the evidence is in, and all that remains is the packaging and a convincing sales pitch.

I'm saving my money for a Whopper with cheese, medium fries, and a Coke.

What you describe has been around for centuries...it's called deism. :D
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"In The Mind of God (1992) Davies elevates the laws of nature to the point that he claims they are "universal" [23] (in the sense that they apply everywhere), and "absolute" [24] (in that they do not depend on anything else). The laws are "eternal" [25] (since, as defined above, time is uncreated). Moreover, they are "omnipotent" [26] (nothing escapes their influence) and "omniscient" [27] (in that they command all physical systems). Thus, if God does exist, He is inseparable with the laws of nature. This position would seem to put Davies squarely in the pantheistic camp. But Davies would strongly deny this label, for in the same book he purposefully distances himself from atheists and pantheists by indicating that he possesses a theological perspective similar to Process Theology (developed by the mathematician Alfred North Whitehead).

I own his Mind of God (along with God and the New Physics and several other popular science books by him). He describes Whitehead's process theology like he does most other theologies and worldviews in the book (and sometimes elsewhere) : as positions that others hold. In the few places where he is clear about his position, I can't find him anyway clearly saying he subscribes to process theology or any other theology, but he is fairly clear here:
"I would like to make my own position clear at the outset. As a professional scientist I am fully committed to the scientific method of investigating the world...I have always wanted to believe that science can explain everything, at least in principle. Many nonscientists would deny such a claim resolutely. Most religions demand belief in at least some supernatural events, which are by definition impossible to reconcile with science. I would rather not believe in supernatural events personally. Although I obviously can't prove they never happen, I see no reason to assume they do."
At no point in the book does he claim that there is evidence for God or any religious claims. He does address claims made about the theological or religious significance of findings in physics, but never without also addressing counterarguments. He distances himself from believers with statements. He does argue (whilst providing counterarguments that he does not agree with) that the universe has some deeper purpose, but explicitly states that he is not religious. He has, so far as I know, never once in any of his books or papers (technical or otherwise) identified the "deeper meaning" he subscribes to as "god". After all, in his contribution () to the volume God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, he writes:
"Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme? Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: “God made all this for us!” Well, I think not."
("The Appearance of Design in Physics and Cosmology", p. 152, emphasis aded)

He does subscribe, it seems, to what may be called "process thought" in that he doesn't not believe in the theologically-based conception of the laws of physics as the immutable, changeless, and god-like. In the paper, he quotes from Hawking. I have reproduced a fuller quote from Hawking for additional context out of the same source (his A Brief History of Time) :
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equation. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have another effect on the universe? And who created him?"
For Davies, the standard answer is too dependent about early Modern Christian/Deist thought, as well as Platonism.

Now perhaps Steve Surprenant, the author of the above, is out in left field here, but it left me with the impression that Davies does indeed believe in a god, albeit a very peculiar one.
I think that that it is very easy to interpret what even staunchly atheistic physicists say as implying belief in God (for one thing, it is standard for physicists even when teaching to refer to "God" giving a physical system a kick or push or to imagine systems from "God's point of view". Like the theological model behind the scientific conceptualization of physical laws, this is usually a vestigial God left over from the language of bygone days. Even when this "God-dabbling" is deliberate, it can seldom be taken at face-value to be interpreted as proposing god actual exists, as one can see in e.g., this comparison between Tipler and those like Hawking or Davies:

"Other researchers have already softened up the God-seeking audience. Physicists far more mainstream than Tipler have equated God with such fundamental entities as a set of equations or the Higgs boson, a hitherto undiscovered elementary particle. Particle physicists flock around ‘Theories of Everything’ (which claim to explain the very basis of existence) like moths around a flame. Even observational cosmologists have entered the God stakes. George Smoot, the leader of the NASA team that discovered fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, described his achievement as seeing ‘the face of God’. Paul Davies, seldom far from the forefront of cosmology, has already written two books in which the casual reader might infer that he identifies God as a quantum cosmologist. Never one to be bashful, Stephen Hawking declared God unnecessary. Hawking proposes that the universe has no boundary in space or time, rendering a divine Creator superfluous. Even experimentalists have joined the party: the US particle physicist Leon Lederman talks of searching for the God particle.
Tipler takes a very different, personal tack that carries him into uncharted territory light years beyond the other God-dabbling scientists such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and their ilk."
Silk, J. (2006). The Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the frontiers of cosmology. Oxford University Press.

Apparently, even fellow physicist Joseph Silk can't quite figure out exactly what Davies' actual position is, and neither can I. I was sort of hoping you might have known of a clear example that I wasn't aware of.​
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Apparently, even fellow physicist Joseph Silk can't quite figure out exactly what Davies' actual position is, and neither can I. I was sort of hoping you might have known of a clear example that I wasn't aware of.​
Seems similar to the problem of pinning Spinoza to a specific theistic vs atheistic category. The human eyes can see colors, but our minds still think in black-vs-white. :)
 

MARCELLO

Transitioning from male to female
Law of physics is not certain. Extra big and/or subjects behave extraordinarily while in maths everything is in accordance and calculable.

The work of God is maths, physics is what you can observe and it changes all the time.
 
Top