Brian Greene, the people's physicist, is everywhere these days. He's appearing on behalf of his new book, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Indeed, if we take him at his word, he may be making an infinite number of appearances to promote it. That ought to please his publisher.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Brian Greene | ||||
| ||||
But it should not necessarily please us. The ideas at the heart of Greene's book are both unproven (as he cheerfully admits) and corrosive. They violate what I call "The Moral Principle." Not to worry, I will explain. But first, some context.
Big Ideas, such as Newton's universal gravity, Darwin's descent with change from a common ancestor, and Einstein's relativity, are tremendous achievements in science. More than monuments in intellectual history, they make everyday life better. Newton laid the framework for flight; Darwin's theory makes new cures possible; and Einstein's relativity enables GPS, to name a few "apps."
All the same, Big Ideas have a way of filtering into popular culture, where they sometimes mutate and do harm. The prime example is eugenics, a mishmash of Darwin's theory of evolution and Herbert Spencer's political philosophy.
Invented by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin's, this pseudoscience caught the imagination of many powerful nonscientists, ranging from Theodore Roosevelt to Adolph Hitler. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for people in power to imagine that they know bad genes when they see them. The harm that followed was appalling. Forced sterilization, institutionalization of "morons," and, some say, the Holocaust.
Opponents of evolution like to argue that Darwin's theory was responsible for all these ills. This is demonstrable nonsense, but even if the charge were valid I would resolutely defend the teaching and application of evolutionary theory for one simple reason: all the evidence supports it. Evolution, as an explanation for the diversity and common ancestry of life, towers above other major scientific theories as the best supported, most coherent and most fruitful of them all.
Contrast that with the conjecture of parallel universes. It grows out of quantum physics. That's a problem to begin with: Quantum theory, though experimentally verified to an astonishing number of decimal places, is incomplete. Something in our understanding is wrong, because it doesn't fit with the also verified theory of general relativity. Quantum and gravity theories mix like oil and politics.
Greene and many others believe that string theory may resolve that conflict. Indeed, it might. But string theory exists entirely in dense mathematics. None of it can so far be tested, and much of it lies beyond confirmation in principle. Yet, from these mathematical speculations arise conjectures of parallel universes set in an infinite multiverse. It's quite a leap.
Let's get specific. There are numerous varieties of parallel universe conjectures. The late Hugh Everett III created the Many Worlds theory to explain how quantum "choices," such as whether a beam light will be a wave or a packet of particles, are made. He argued that at every decision point, the universe splits in two, with the decision being realized in opposite ways in each new whole. Possible, but profoundly absurd.
More recently, the mathmanauts who explore string theory have found hints that the gigantic bubble we inhabit may be just one of an infinite number of such bubbles, each a random dice-roll of particles and laws. That's where the trouble starts. For, if true, it means that every possible variation exists, and not only exists, but exists an infinite number of times. So, as in Star Trek, there are worlds where the Roman Empire never fell, worlds where Hitler won and so on. But there are also worlds that are precise duplicates of ours -- indeed, an infinite number of such worlds.
Though there be method in it, that way madness lies.
Enter, the Moral Principle. It states that we should resist accepting any proposition that tends to disable moral reasoning, unless and until the scientifically interpreted evidence compels us.
I honed this principle in the context of my critique of religion, but it applies, for example, to the secular idea of the philosopher's zombie. The Moral Principle prevents us from accepting the idea that anyone else is a zombie who appears to be just like any other person, except that there's no real consciousness inside. If we were to accept that idea, there would be no moral barrier to torturing or murdering "zombies." In fact, it would be much like Hitler's dehumanization of the Jews.
Now, please don't think that I am accusing Brian Greene of any such intent, let alone any misdeed. He seems to be a likable man, and he's clearly brilliant. His ideas are sound, and he is careful to qualify his claims.
The danger lies in how they take root in popular culture. If we come to believe that choices do not matter, that any action is matched by its opposite somewhere, we risk losing our capacity for moral reasoning. History shows that, inbuilt though that capacity may be, ideas can short-circuit it.
In short, what I am saying is that those of us who are NOT so brilliant as to be able to follow the math need to resist being seduced by visions of parallel bubbles in a multiverse. They may exist. Indeed, I think it likely that they do.
Whether they exist in untrammeled profusion, however, is another question. It is one that has to be weighed against the possibility that, orderly as our universe generally is, there may be a higher order to the arrangement of the multiverse. In fine, lacking definitive evidence we need to keep alive the possibility of a moral order. If there is indeed a multiverse, it may yet prove to be but a part of the ultiverse.
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
Robert Lanza, M.D.: Is There a God or Is There Nothingness? New Scientific Paradigm
Brian Greene on string theory | Video on TED.com
NOVA | The Elegant Universe | PBS
What is the significance of Brian Greene's work? - By Amanda ...
Kind of reminds me of the 'logic' behind the idea that gay marriage somehow harms heterosexual marriages. Just a weird, bizarre, unfounded leap.
What's troubling about this article is not the fact that xians will inevitability misuse scientific discoveries, but that a universal ethic has been slipped in apparently unnoticed behind all the excitement of zombies, bubble-verses, and Russian roulette. Like post modernism (including Castaneda, et.al.), and all universals proposed by man, there is always the lurking inherent fatal flaw.
"The Moral Principle: States that we should resist accepting any proposition that tends to disable moral reasoning, unless and until the scientifically interpreted evidence compels us."
This Moral Principle would have us "disable moral reasoning" based on scientific evidence. Suppose it is scientifically determined that because of the very small slice of reality the ego is capable of processing it will ALWAYS behave destructively, irreparably corrupting it's environment and all life forms due to greed and self interest. Since self destruction is already assured (Scientific Fact!), wouldn't the moral thing be a gracefully exit allowing the world and other life forms evolve as they will? Racial su*cide anyone?
Or should destructive beings be exempt from Moral Principles?
Your counterargument ignores this, and goes on to make a hypothetical argument that contains its own contradiction: if we *always* behave destructively out of greed and self-interest, then there is zero chance that we will take moral action to stop it, particularly if it involves suicide.
Regards,
Clay
"My point here is not that exploring the possibility of a multiverse is bad science, but that adopting speculation as truth is bad culture. We must indeed insist on supporting data. I am not disputing Greene. I am warning against the mutation of a conjecture into a socially constructed "fact" in popular culture. Left in the wrong hands, ideas can kill.
My argument specifically states that we should accept the evidence of science. I am warning against facile assumption that conjecture = truth, simply because the math adds up. It can have harmful consequences, not the least of which is to create a false perception of science. My point was that that instinct can be overcome by insidious beliefs, whether they come from religion, politics, or science. In this case, my concern is that speculations about an infinite multiverse in which every possible choice plays out will give rise to a pop-culture belief that choices don't matter, and that therefore any action can be justified (because all the alternatives will play out anyway). there are good reasons not to leap to conclusions. Don’t diminish the importance of decision-making. I only say that we should be *agnostic* about the possibility and arrangements of parallel worlds."
(continued)
The question is, is the Moral Principle (Platonic Ideal) from a level 'higher' than science? Can it be inferred as existing by its consequences--mediated by responsive humans--in this world?
My argument, below, following JG Bennett, about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is that the use of Values reverses 'decay' and is something a bit more 'real' than a top-down Platonic Ideal.
There is an old Zen story, where a son peers off of a balcony and sees his father being beaten by an angry mob. Not being able to bear to watch his father suffer, he hides his face. After the mob has dispersed, he rushes to his father's side. His father asks him, "Did you see what happened?" The son replied, "No, I could not bear to watch". His father---also a Zen practitioner--rebuked his son with a terse, "WE DO NOT TURN AWAY."
The lesson here is that NOTHING is served by turning away from a truth simply because we do not like it, or its implications are painful. To declare certain ideas (which have significant scientific underpinning) to be "off-limits" or somehow "out-of-bounds" because we don't like the moral implications of potential ABUSES or MISAPPLICATION of that knowledge is as backwards as the Roman Catholic Church persecuting early astronomers for declaring that the Sun was the "center of the Universe" because they feared that it would encourage "Sun worshipping".
Human beings, definitely have a moral problem. In that the expansion of our knowledge has out-stripped our evolution as moral entities. But that is not the fault of knowledge. That is the fault of the fact that we have not dedicated as much energy to understanding ourselves and our emotions, as we have to mastering the physical universe.
I agree. But to use the term "truth" in relation to conjectures of parallel universes is to fall into the trap that Greene himself avoids. I am NOT advocating denial or disregard of evidence; I am warning against facile assumption that conjecture = truth, simply because the math adds up. It can have harmful consequences, not the least of which is to create a false perception of science.
Regards,
Clay
They are the result of the theoretical/mathematical integration of scientifcally sound physics and astrophysics. The only reasons why they are not being actively tested in the laboratory as we speak are due to technological constraints...and "mathematical elegance" is a valid (though limited) form of evidence.
Yes, getting out ahead of evidence can have harmful consequences...but so can being so concerned about the intellectual dirty bathwater, that you chuck the baby out along with it.
My point is that---from where I'm standing---you are simply advocating for the flipside of the same coin the very problematic thinking that you are condemning.
You don't put out a fire by standing around waving at the smoke. You put out a fire by putting out the fire. You don't deal with the failures of human character---and the irrational and destructive ideas that they generate---by going after sound (if unsubstantiated) ideas. You deal with them by going after them directly.
Our energy is better spent developing a better understanding of mental illness/human evil...and how to treat/contend with it...rather than trying to play thought police.
Most commenters in this thread use the common assumption that morals/values are products of the mind and are thus variable with community and religion. Better the reverse—the Platonic Ideal that Values are the absolute and our actions are a result following these, or not.
That being said, morals and values ARE a product of mind...but they are not a product of the RATIONAL/THINKING part of the mind. They are product of the Feeling, non-rational part of our mind. A part of the human mind that is just as valid as the rational mind...but just plays by different rules, and is best suited for different things.
The problem is that we live in a society that has in essence "deified" Reason...and dismisses the Non-rational. In its rush to characterize the physical universe, and give us technology, the abuse of science has lead to wide swathes of the human experience being "delegitimized". It is condemnation of this, that imo, Mr. Naff is (with good reason) really trying to communicate....
The Rational is necessary to give us a good framework by which to understand the Nature of the Universe. Trying to use the non-rational (religion) for this is an invitation to ignorance and superstition.
The Non-rational is necessary to give us a good framework by which to understand what we should value most...and how we should best live. Trying to use the rational (Materialism) for this is an invitation to emptiness and despair (at best), or malignantly destructive narcissism (at worst).
We have to go with the evidence that we have which is that people bend over backwards and jump through hoops in order to justify their belief that there is no God.
There is all kinds of evidence of our Maker and there is no evidence of evolution. Evolution does not save any lives. The variation of species is not evolution. It is variation that is by design and you cannot use design as evidence of no design.
Please provide "evidence of [the] Maker" without reference to "machine parts."
I dissociate myself completely from your comments. You are wrong about evolution, and you are wrong about evidence of design. If you wish to know why, you are welcome to read my previous posts, as well as many fine books about evolution. Try Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable, for example.
Regards,
Clay
What's more interesting is the problem of the moral zombies and what to do about them. Of course the philosopher's zombie is a black and white straw-man, everybody knows that all zombies are not created equal but in shades of gray. The question is, which particular shades of gray zombies needs to be round up and...
NEED to put their religion on the backburner, because if they dont, they will be the death of progress.
What a peculiar concern. Choices wouldn't matter -- to whom; where/when?
*OK. I'm contemplating assaulting this old lady and stealing her purse, and while I might otherwise not be inclined to do so owing to some evolved instinct as to what constitutes unacceptable behavior in bipedal ape social groups (in other words, suboptimal behavior in terms of reproduction), I'm *justified* in doing so, because I will have elected not to do so in some other space/time line to which neither I nor anyone else I ever encounter will have access.*
No, doesn't "make sense"; these ideas are just too exotic to have any effect on our moral reasoning.
Yes, we have moral instincts -- or evolved cognitive/behavioral heuristics which underly our moral sensibilities -- many of which really _ought_ to be overcome by culturally transmitted, "insidious beleifs," e.g., modern manifestations of the outgroup suspicion/fear heuristic need a good ongoing dose of "racism is bad," and "scapegoating minorities is bad," ...that sort of thing. One's time is better spent addressing the more unsavory parts of our simian heritage than prescribing what sorts of speculative scientific hypotheses ought or ought not be popularized.
If the very worlds are separated bubbles, though, then it is not clear why one would think that what I do here affects what happens anywhere else. In the quantum mechanics case, the worlds emerge from splits from a single world and so they do have a kind of common causal such that doing right here is matched by doing wrong there. That does not seem like it would be the case in Greene's hypothesis.
Wharf is true.
Scientists, as a group, are just more willing to admit when they are wrong...and correct their map of reality accordingly.
In my experience, when religious people find that their "map of reality" no longer matches the "territory"....they either....
a. Deny that there is any mismatch.
b. Attack the character of anyone who suggest that there is a mis-match (which is what you are doing right now)....
c. Get out the Earth-moving equipment and try to force the territory to match their map (which is what suicide-bombers and other religiously-motivated terrorists try to do).
There appears to be an argument that `many worlds' is an amplifier of the fear of superstitious enforcement of good behavior, for individuals and communities so inclined.