A couple of things here: this is a good example of scientific development. A theory which is apparently all done and dusted still has a niggling soemthing about it which prompts a rethink and debate and perhaps the loss of a bet. The latter seems to remind us of the psychology of it; we can be certain -but is reality convinced? Little solace here for linguistic relativists [default position of dyed-in-the-wool postmodernists], but support for critical realists.
The other thing that makes all sorts of connections with mystical thought [and probably mostly of the connections turn out to be bogus, be warned!] is the way that 'information' seems to be becoming recognized as some kind of ultimate aspect of reality. Shades of the Word ... ?
21 July 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
4 comments:
Wow! This is fascinating!
I've mused in the past concerning the link between postmodernity and quantum physics. What you've brought to our attention has profound implications (philosophically and in other ways) for postmodernism and for "what's next".
Did you by chance notice the "ancient-future" nuance in Hawkings remarks?
"A black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell inside. So we can be sure of the past and predict the future."I've got to go and think some more about this...
Andii, can you tell me a little more about your comparison of "linguistic relativists" and "critical realists?"
Hawking: "...so we can be sure of the past and predict the future" -seems to me that maybe this gives the game away: he's uncomfortable with a universe with uncertainty; we have to ask how far this science is ideologically driven.
With the thing about information and msytical thought based on the Word [cf Stoic and immanentist philosophies] we have to be careful: there's a lot of spiritual writing that co-opts scientific terms and ideas and produces some lovely mystical ideas but which do an injustice to the science [Fritjhof Capra is a notable one such]. However, I do recommend a book by Russ Thompson called "Holy GRound" which does seem, to me, to do a good job on this front though be warned, it is not always easy to get you head round.
Linguistic relativists tend to say that language is the detrmining human reality and directs what we perceive, thus we can never know truth only interpretation whereas the critical realists can acknowledge that there can be a huge subjective element to human knowing but nevertheless point out that it is possible to have one's perceptions corrected by brushes with reality that is not contingent on human perception [John Searle's work on this is particularly helpful, I think]. In this little narrative of Hawking revising his theory, it seems to me that the CR position is shown to be operating. Though it is still interesting to note the possible role of a prevening theory or take on reality that drove a wrestling with the problem long after it appeared to be settled [and of course it still isn't settled].
Thanks, Andii. The additional insights are helpful.
Post a Comment