Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design has no free will
8October 30, 2010 by styagi68
I recently completed reading the book titled “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov. The book is a fascinating read. Very well written, crisp and also maintains a playful tone while dealing with some really complex issues (“multiple suns are helpful for tanning”). I even liked the paper on which the book is printed….nice book, I highly recommend it.
However, the thesis of the book is to state that universe (and the laws within it) is a result of quantum events at a very early stage of the universe. These quantum events follow the planck’s constant in terms of uncertainty so within that uncertainty many many alternate universes could exist. Because we observe the universe in a particular way it determines what happened in the past. Yes you read it right–observation now determines the history.
There are some very interesting details about an experiment that John Conway did. It is called the Game of Life. It essentially suggests that “intelligent” and “self determining” life form can be composed of really simple deterministic elements (in this example about a trillion simple blocks!). So his contention is that human beings may not have free will but simply appear to have free will. The reproduction and sustenance of life is but a mechanical process which follows deterministic natural laws. Our inability to predict the next state precisely is simply a lack of computational ability, not a lack of determinism.
(He also talks about “model based reality.” This means that all reality is based on our perception of reality and a “model” that we create in our mind of what we perceive. This is quite close to the philosophy of monoism which states that there is no reality except the observer or Self and that all the reality is created by the observation of the observer.)
I have a basic issue with the conclusion of the book (that universe can be fully explained through deterministic physical law).
It fails to recognize anything beyond the physical world and even negates free will. This is OK but then how do we answer the very first question of WHY? If we have no free will, then there is no need to do anything since there is no purpose or objective of our life. It leads us down a path of saying there is no right or wrong (since there is no benchmark for right or wrong). Hitler is the same as Mother Teresa since both were simply following a deterministic path and can’t individually be held responsible for their actions.
A world without free will is a world not worth studying. Since we can’t change it. It is like going on a ride in a train versus driving your car. Some people do think about where the train is going and how it will get there, but really isn’t it pointless!
So Stephen Hawking’s style of description is captivating and persuasive but I continue to work with the assumption that is incorrect. It is incorrect because the observer has self-will and ability to change things. That given an initial state and infinite computing power we can’t still predict precisely what is going to happen next.
Analytical Faith 
I thought Conway proved a theorem that said that if humans have free will then fundamental particles have free will as well and vice versa. He then went on to prove that fundamental particles have free will in the sense that the state may not be pre-determined. So, I’m not sure if it is correct to say that he was a determinist. OTOH, Hawking might be a determinist (I haven’t read this book).
“This is OK but then how do we answer the very first question of WHY?”
Well, how are you going to answer (and prove that your answer is correct) that question any way (whether one is a determinist or not)? Why is this question important to answer for a viable theory?
Indeed. John Conway did proved that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
The reference in the book is about supporting the view presence of “intelligent” looking beings is not sufficient proof for an intelligent designer.
I can’t answer whether there is free will or not. But I can believe that the answer is there is. The reason is that if there is no free will then whatever I believe does not matter as “I” am not making a choice. However, if there is free will, then I want to chose to do what I believe is right. So the belief that there is free will is at least as beneficial as the belief that there is no free will.
Sandeep is not convinced by the principle of deterministic physical law endorsed by Stephen Hawkins due to the presence of uncertainties and unlikeliness of absence of free will. I challenge neither Hawkins or Sandeep, but would like to mention that uncertainties are largely composed of ignorance and existence of free will may just be wishful or illusory. So, let Sandeep think how certain is uncertainty and how real is free will.
The great design is a grand book for the all ready convinced atheists.
Such a book wasn’t really necessary to convince the all ready convinced, that only logic rules the universe and one’s personal life.
The Spock syndrome (with A Darlick voice) is to believe that emotions , creativity, and belief can be ruled out just because the universe can be explained without God. Bones would say that’s human to Spock.
What Hawking does, then, is really just rename what most other people call “God.” You can do this in a million ways. “I don’t believe in God,” you can say. “I rather believe in a giant universe-creating machine, which itself is uncreated.” You can even fantasize about a “flying spaghetti monster,” as some smart alecks have mockingly done.
What rules our personal lives is not logic, but mostly irrational motives such as love and hatred, envy and jealousness. One can’t explain why he is in a suffering state and as there is no answer for suffering, he has to rule out God. No one is a Darlick, we all have our own supertitions. Wheb i take the bus or the underground, I put my faith in the driver otherwise if i was suppose to be scientific in every field of my life, i would have to stop loving my wife and my son because love is not scientific nor compassion. One can be perfectly logic without emotions and behave like a Hitler or a Staline, they had their own atheist convictions.
As for Dr. Hawking’s “theory,” I have respect. Every faith, after all, deserves some.
just one thing, Stephen Hawking kinda did admit that we have a certain level of free will for similar reasons stated in mg’s response. by that i mean that the Hawking admits to a certain degree that the “state may not be pre-determined” as it would take billions of years to calculate what that state was
Philosophy is dead. Is Logic dead also?
How did the scientists come to know that an entire universe could come out of nothing? Or, how did they come to know that anything at all could come out of nothing? Were they present at that moment when the universe was being born? As that was not the case at all, therefore they did not get that idea being present at the creation event. Rather they got this idea being present here on this very earth. They have created a vacuum artificially, and then they have observed that virtual particles (electron-positron pairs) are still appearing spontaneously out of that vacuum and then disappearing again. From that observation they have first speculated, and then ultimately theorized, that an entire universe could also come out of nothing. But here their entire logic is flawed. These scientists are all born and brought up within the Christian tradition. Maybe they have downright rejected the Christian world-view, but they cannot say that they are all ignorant of that world-view. According to that world-view God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. So as per Christian belief-system, and not only as per Christian belief-system, but as per other belief-systems also, God is everywhere. So when these scientists are saying that the void is a real void, God is already dead and non-existent for them. But these scientists know very well that non-existence of God will not be finally established until and unless it is shown that the origin of the universe can also be explained without invoking God. Creation event is the ultimate event where God will have to be made redundant, and if that can be done successfully then that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does not exist. So how have they accomplished that job, the job of making God redundant in case of creation event? These were the steps:
1) God is non-existent, and so, the void is a real void. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist, it cannot be concluded that the void is a real void.
2) As virtual particles can come out of the void, so also the entire universe. Our universe has actually originated from the void due to a quantum fluctuation in it.
3) This shows that God was not necessary to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, as because there was no creation event.
4) This further shows that God does not exist.
So here what is to be proved has been proved based on the assumption that it has already been proved. Philosophy is already dead for these scientists. Is it that logic is also dead for them?
Actually it is all about math (physical theory) and then the interpretation of that, for example, many-worlds, etc. There was no need to be present at the big bang or non-bang. As to what it has to do with “God”, that is pointless since “God” is defined very differently, from Vedic to corner store front holy roller church, and even a non-personal God appears in Buddhism. I don’t follow your “proof”. Besides, maybe the ever-transcended Flying Spaghetti Monster’s Will cause the fluctuations of the Void, which is Himself. 🙂
[…] https://analyticalfaith.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/stephen-hawkings-grand-design-has-no-free-will/ […]