Physics and Philosophy: Lecture Response

I found it interesting that each Philosopher attempted to give universality to the cosmos in a different way, though they were all scientists. While Owen Gingerich does this through a religious “sophistication” of the universe, Stephen Wolfram finds meaning through mathematical patterns that are present in nature. Lisa Randall, like Gingerich, theorizes about multi-verses, but does so through a purely scientific viewpoint. However, these physicists/philosophers have the common goal of finding a unified theory for our universe.

Though Owen Gingerich attempted to apply theology to physics, he failed in providing any evidence beyond speculation. The idea that the universe MUST have a designer because of a gut reaction that he has would not bode well in the scientific world. He then states that scientists are uneasy about multi-verses, because Christians have already been there. Speaking down to scientists in this manner does not provide his argument any credibility. What proof does Gingerich provide that Christians communicate with other universes, other than hearsay? The fact is, science is based upon empirical, measurable evidence. Though Gingerich attempts to connect physics with theology, he fails in providing the necessary aspects that would make his theory scientific.

Though I am not well read in the evidence for Lisa Randall’s theories, she does not seem to make the leap from hypothesis to fact. It seems that she, like Gingerich, is proposing something that is based on a gut feeling. I found her example of the sphere entering the 2-D world compelling, but her statement that we still need breakthroughs and theoretical input from others admits that she lacks real evidence for her theory. This places her in the realm of philosopher rather than scientist. Her theories are interesting, but they lack the extra strength of scientific proof.

Wolfram, on the other hand, presents his theory in a mathematical and logical manner. By starting with very small patterns, he demonstrates on a very small scale a logical pattern in our universe. These patterns are easily observable in many plants and animals, such as the mollusk. As the patterns increase in complexity and have an array of influence by the environment, it becomes evident where the complexity of life stems from. In this manner, he finds a universal formula for the universe from a simple rule.

Providing scientific proof for philosophy serves to strengthen ideas beyond the level of mere theory. We must be careful, however, not to take ideas for truth simply because they are scientific in name only. It is perfectly okay to theorize, but falsely applying physics to philosophy can be dangerous toward those who lack a critical eye.