Alan P. Lightman's essay in Harper's is highly recommended reading for the Catholic Science Geek, and everyone else interested in grappling with the actual implications of the failure of cosmology to model our Universe in accordance with its foundational ("Copernican") Principle.
Why has modern science gone crazy?
Modern science has gone crazy because it has adopted a false principle.
Modern science rejected the necessary guidance of metaphysics and theology, precisely because of the astonishing (initial) success of the Copernican Principle.
This initial success was so profound that science came to the conclusion that the guidance of metaphysics and theology would no longer be necessary, or even acceptable, since- after all- it had been proven that the Catholic Church was in error in insisting upon the Truth of Faith that the Earth was motionless and at the center of the cosmos.
This Copernican Principle is so important, that it can fairly be said to mark the precise point of historical demarcation between the Catholic world, and the modern world.
The development of a theory of universal gravitation itself is a direct consequence of the adoption of the Copernican Principle.
If all of the Earth's inhabitants were to be asked which was more certain- the existence of gravity or the existence of God- I suspect that gravity would win in a landslide.
Indeed, it would arguably win in a landslide if the poll were to be conducted at the Vatican.
But- see Lightman's essay- the truth is that our theory of gravity is so drastically at odds with observations on the cosmological scale that we must either
(a) add in 96% of the Universe by hand, in the form of unobserved, metaphysical entities (dark matter, dark energy), or
(b) admit that our theory of universal gravitation has been dramatically falsified by direct observation.
The Copernican Principle insists that (a) must be right.
Welcome to the multiverse.
Welcome to the end of science.
I look forward to Catholic Science Geek's promised engagement upon these questions.
It's the moment of Truth for science.
It is also the moment of Truth for the Catholic Church, which has in important ways adopted the Copernican Principle as if it were more reliable than the unanimous consensus of the Fathers concerning Scripture.
The theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the multiverse......... each and all of these depend absolutely upon the philosophical presupposition that the Copernican Principle is true.
It is, instead, false.
I'm a scientist (well, I used to be one) and I can't figure out the point of the Copernican Principle at all. Here's my blogged reply from the past. In short, it was hard enough to tune the constants to the point we got where we are and now you want the Earth to be the center of the Universe before you'll believe in God? That's pretty obnoxious, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteWelcome, K T.
ReplyDeleteYour blogpost situates the problem also referenced in the Harper's essay.
This problem is, essentially, the Big Enchilada.
If we adhere to the Copernican principle and its elaboration as the cosmological principle, we are left with no alternative but to suppose that this incredibly fine-tuned, non-random, highly structured Universe- which structure is, astonishingly enough, oriented on its very largest scales with the postulated "insignificant" Earth- this suspiciously non-Copernican universe must, therefore, be only a tiny "bubble" amongst an infinitude of "other" universes.
This is really the only way to salvage the Principle- that is, to assume that what we see, measure, and can experimentally test is *not in fact operative* in the multiverse.
As Lightman's essay points out (and as Dr. George Ellis has been tirelessly repeating for years)-- such a conclusion is the end of science.
If we conclude that the Copernican Principle is valid, then we must follow it to its logical conclusion- a multiverse which itself is not a legitimate object of the scientific method, but is instead a metaphysical postulate, adopted as the logical requirement of a metaphysical postulate.
Checkmate.
Science admits its powerlessness to describe its own multiverse, thus rendering its entire Copernican enterprise impotent.
There exists an alternative.
Re-assess the validity of the Copernican Principle itself.
One need not assume in advance that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
But one must certainly be willing to entertain the hypothesis, and apply it to, for example, the question of dark energy.
This has been done (notably by Timothy Clifton, et al, 2008, at Oxford University.
A very remarkable result emerges:
If we abandon the Copernican Principle, and construct a model with Earth at or near the center of a cosmic "under density" on the scale of the observable universe........
The Type 1a Supernovae observations can be accounted for without the necessity of invoking dark energy.
The implications, I trust, are clear..........
Rick, many of the Wikipedia articles have a separate section devoted to criticism of the topic matter in question. I note, however, that there is none at the Wikipedia article for the Copernican Principle. Please consider using your expertise on this subject in trying to submit a good solid critique. Without such criticism the article which countless people may go to is very sadly lacking.
ReplyDeleteJames Phillips
James:
ReplyDeleteThank you, an excellent suggestion, but here is the problem.
I am swamped. I really feel somewhat guilty for even updating this blog, given the other responsibilities on my plate at present.
Now.
May I propose that this would be an excellent thing for you to undertake?
You have all the tools necessary, and certainly I would be delighted to review your drafts and make suggestions.
What do you think?
Wow. I've really talked myself into a pickle here.
ReplyDeleteI've never submitted anything to Wikipedia so this will be a total learning experience for me.
I hate to try to reinvent the wheel on a critique of the Copernican Principle, but nevertheless it should do me good so -- God willing -- I will try to diligently go about it and submit it to you for your review. Expect to hear from me within a couple of weeks or less on this.
Good on ya, James!
ReplyDeleteI will be looking forward to it.
Oh no. On second thought don't hold your breath. :-) Just kidding -- I hope.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, I am slightly (or maybe greatly!) confused by the much larger Wikipedia article on the Cosmological Principle. In a nutshell (if that be possible) can you point out the essential difference(s) between these principles? Is the Cosmological Principle just an elaborate more developed extended version of the Copernican Principle?
Copernican Principle= Earth is in no special location.
ReplyDeleteCosmological principle= there are no special locations.
The cosmological principle is a General Relativity generalization of the Copernican Principle.
The underlying idea is expressed as the "Mediocrity Principle", the observationally falsified fixed idea that has driven science crazy:
"We're nothing special".
OK. Thanks a lot. That all I was really needing to know for now.
ReplyDeleteIf guidance from metaphysics and theology is necessary for science, shouldnt the next question be which faith the guidance should come from?
ReplyDeleteYou, of course, assume this guidance should naturally come from the catholic church, based on your assumption that your faith is the correct one.
I`ve been looking at some of your blog posts, and it really does seem like you try to pass yourself of as "critically minded" even though all your arguments is based firmly in the assumption that your faith is unassailable truth.
Which makes this part interesting:
"The theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the multiverse......... each and all of these depend absolutely upon the philosophical presupposition that the Copernican Principle is true."
So, yeah, depending absolutely on a philosophical presupposition that something is true is... bad? Right? Even though its exactly the same thing you are doing?
Since, you know, you depend absolutely on the philosophical presupposition that your faith is the truth.
Or maybe I`ve misunderstood where you are going with this, are you simply saying you want to exchange the absolute dependancy on the copernican principle with the absolute dependancy on your faith?
Regardless, here is what I think, and I`ll start of with what I think you are really saying:
"The theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the multiverse......... each and all of these depend absolutely upon the philosophical presupposition that the catholic church is wrong."
This is what you`re having issues with. Science did not embrace a new philosopically presuppositioned absolute truth, it simply rejected yours.
Of course, one could argue that science adopted the absolute truth that the catholic church is wrong. If science`s rejection of the catholic "truth" was based purely on the assumption that it was wrong, it would indeed be unscientific.
Thats not the case though, science didnt reject the catholic faith on the assumption that its wrong, it rejected it because there was no reason to assume it was true.
As is the case for all other religions as well.
Welcome, derp!
ReplyDeletedeep asks:
If guidance from metaphysics and theology is necessary for science, shouldnt the next question be which faith the guidance should come from?
>> No. That will of course ultimately become the question, but it is not the next question.
When we have a new observation is science, one which has the power to completely overturn an existing paradigm, we do not abandon everything that has come before.
We must, in our hypothesizing to account for the new observation, *also account for everything observed under the old*.
There must be a continuity between the old and the new- that which was true in the old, must be true in the new.
That which could not be explained in the old, must be explained in the new.
In exactly the same way: we must purge the metaphysical error which will be found to have been imbedded in the old.
That means we must turn to the metaphysics which underlies that which has come before, in order to maintain the same continuity in metaphysical reasoning, as the scientific theorist must maintain with regard to previous observations.
Since science itself proceeds from Catholic metaphysics- modern science is itself a subordinate philosophical domain, subsumed under Catholic metaphysics- we do not have to ask your proposed question.
We already have the answer.
*******
D: You, of course, assume this guidance should naturally come from the catholic church,
>> Correct.
D: based on your assumption that your faith is the correct one.
>> No. Based on the *fact* that all of modern science proceeds from the underlying world view of Catholic metaphysics.
Science has nothing to say, directly, about which faith is the correct one. But science must proceed in continuity with its own being.
Its own being, as I said, involves an inception from within the worldview of Catholic metaphysics.
*****
D: I`ve been looking at some of your blog posts, and it really does seem like you try to pass yourself of as "critically minded" even though all your arguments is based firmly in the assumption that your faith is unassailable truth.
ReplyDelete>> I am a Catholic. That means I believe in absolute Truth- that is, the Revelation which reposes in the Catholic Church as a result of the direct sovereign Will of God Himself.
This is a theological, not a scientific, datum.
However, Truth will be, of necessity, true for all domains, and empirically necessary for the authentic advancement of all domains.
As the Catholic Church puts it in #159 of the new catechism:
159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
*****
deep: Which makes this part interesting:
"The theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the multiverse......... each and all of these depend absolutely upon the philosophical presupposition that the Copernican Principle is true."
So, yeah, depending absolutely on a philosophical presupposition that something is true is... bad? Right? Even though its exactly the same thing you are doing?
>> Distinguo. Depending absolutely upon a *false* philosophical presupposition that something is true is, indeed, bad.
It is not "exactly the same thing I am doing", because I am not depending upon the false philosophical presupposition that the Copernican principle is true.
*****
deep: Since, you know, you depend absolutely on the philosophical presupposition that your faith is the truth.
>> No. That is not a philosophical presupposition. It is a theological act of Faith.
The philosophical presupposition is that no philosophical assumption in conflict with the Faith, will be true.
As in the excerpt from the catechism above.
*****
deep: Or maybe I`ve misunderstood where you are going with this, are you simply saying you want to exchange the absolute dependancy on the copernican principle with the absolute dependancy on your faith?
>> Not quite. I am saying I want science to examine, and exchange, its Copernican Principle, for one which does not contradict Revelation. I do not specifically demand that science make an act of Faith- such an act is outside its legitimate domain.
I do ask that science cease to allow itself to be driven crazy by continued adherence to the Copernican Principle, which has led it to the brink of insanity and self-falsification, as in the multiverse.
******
deep: Regardless, here is what I think, and I`ll start of with what I think you are really saying:
ReplyDelete"The theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the multiverse......... each and all of these depend absolutely upon the philosophical presupposition that the catholic church is wrong."
This is what you`re having issues with. Science did not embrace a new philosopically presuppositioned absolute truth, it simply rejected yours.
>> Yes. Now it has reached the logical end of such a decision: all of its major assumptions; evolution, the Big Bang, the multiverse, are dead ends.
***********************
deep: Of course, one could argue that science adopted the absolute truth that the catholic church is wrong.
>> Except that science did not toss everything it received from the Church overboard. It maintained most of it, whilst adopting the Copernican Principle in opposition to it.
Even the Copernican Principle was not objectionable to the Church as a scientific *hypothesis*.
Only when it was advanced as a metaphysical Truth, did the Church object.
Science did not listen, and now faces a choice between God and the multiverse.
There is no place left to go.
*****
deep: If science`s rejection of the catholic "truth" was based purely on the assumption that it was wrong, it would indeed be unscientific.
>> Science's rejection of Catholic Truth was based purely on the assumption that the Copernican Principle was metaphysically true. That was, and is, indeed unscientific.
******
deep: Thats not the case though, science didnt reject the catholic faith on the assumption that its wrong, it rejected it because there was no reason to assume it was true.
>> Quite to the contrary. Science itself *depends* upon the metaphysical teaching of the catholic Church; first and foremost that reality is so composed that the human mind can discover actually valid principles operative in it.
Science as science has nothing at all to say about whether the Catholic Faith is true.
It only must proceed in continuity with the empirical *fact* of its open being; that is, it proceeds from within the parameters provided it by the higher domain of Catholic metaphysics.
******
deep: As is the case for all other religions as well.
>> Nope. No other religion gave birth to modern science.