Expert: Philip A. Stahl - 9/16/2008

Question
Hello,

I would like to know what is your thoughts about the origin of the laws of nature ? By that I mean where do you think the constants of nature come from ? I give you a few examples: consider the speed of light, it is always the same, but that begs the question of why out of an infinity of possibilities it is almost 300,000 km/s ? Why not say 400,000 or 100,000, or anything ? The same is true I guess for other universal constants like the Planck volume, or more generally how come the quantum ? Another example that I find curious has to do with the form of the equations themselves: why E = mc^2, and why it is not E = mc^1/5 or E = mc^12 ?

Could the multiverse hypothesis really explain this all ? I personally doubt it. That seems like pushing the problem to a higher level rather than solving it. Then the question would be: where the "meta-laws" governing the multiverse come from ?

On the face of it, one tends to believe that there must be some deep principle at work to "choose" these relations and constants, something that "decides" what should exist and what shouldn't.

So I put the above question to you, since you're a scientist (and a naturalist I assume, so I guess I'm asking the right person). I would be greatful if you could give me in brief your personal conviction on this.

Thank you, I really appreciate the time you take for answering my question.  

Answer
Hello,

Okay, I will play this game - but first a few "ground rules". My personal opinion is a subjective response not an objective assessment - hence it will be impossible to rate me on something like knowledge (though I suspect "clarity" may still be in play).

Second, it is well to note that not all atheists (or naturalists) for that matter, agree on the same things in concert. I am sure if you asked five different experts on atheism, you could get five different answers. (And this again, is likely tied to the inherent subjectivity).

That said, as a naturalist -atheist my opinion is that whatever "laws" exist are inherently part of the cosmos from its inception. In other words, as the cosmos evolved to its current state those "laws" came with it - part of the total package. They were not, in other words, conferred extraneously by some outside or exterior agent.

Science is a vehicle for the pursuit of knowledge, pure and simple, full stop. If it was at all interested in the "whys" and "wherefores" it would cease to be science, and become philosophy. Thus it is that scientific knowledge has been amassed not by pursuing 'why' questions, but rather 'how' questions.


Asking 'Why do the stars shine?' never got us anywhere. Never illuminated a thing. However, when we asked 'HOW do stars shine?' we attained practicable answers in terms of nuclear fusion reactions (e.g. proton-proton cycle) in the solar core. Further, no astrophysicist in his or her right mind queried the origins of the laws used (say arising from statistical mechanics or nuclear physics) to explicate the sources of stellar energy.

The word for this approach, which merely uses laws as recipes and doesn't question their origins, is called "positivism". In this sense, science remains strongly positivist and not given to law origin speculations or conjectures - which is also where I stand. (I actually came to this position after I took my first course in quantum mechanics).

This also allows me to go to sleep at night without fretting why the constant c = 2.998 x 10^8 m/s and not 3.998 x 10^8 m/s. Or churning over why G = 6.7 x 10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2 and not 7.7 x 10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2. In a word, all such causal ruminating is seen as a hollow pursuit that doesn't advance the SCIENCE.

Many people, especially students I have had, are appalled at such sterility. I try to assuage their misgivings by getting them to realize science is a knowledge-generating machine, not a "mysteries of life's purpose" solving edifice.

Sometimes that knowledge will be edifying and useless (e.g. knowledge that we are in the midst of a dark matter-energy cosmic acceleration), at other times its applied manifestations may translate into something useful - as in providing disabled folks with the latest prosthetics, new surgeries to permit sight without eyeglasses or carbon nano-tube wires for optimal electrical conduction. At other times, the knowledge may be used or applied to no good end, such as E= mc^2 leading to A- and H-bombs.

At the end of the day, empirical science - given it's a wholly naturalistic enterprise- MUST exclude the existence of WHYs which by nature also excludes teleonomy (inherent purpose) and further, any postulation of any ultimate "lawgiver"  or God from its inquiry. It does so because that postulate adds nothing to the quality of science itself, or its predictions and indeed may well retard the progress of science.

As for "choosing" specific relations, again no magic here. We are merely looking for recipes that "produce the goods". Thus, we may not understand all the laws, principles of quantum mechanics but we use them because they deliver - and support and confirm our predictions (e.g. that the hydrogen atom has so many spectral lines in a particular series, e.g. Balmer series of lines)

As for the "multiverse", to me that is bare speculation, since no one has even remotely shown there is a demonstrable basis for it.

Hopefully, you will have found these answers enlightening on where I stand....though not necessarily 'why'!