Week 1
07.22-28.2019
Extended Response I: Science
Critically read and annotate Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, "The (Elusive) Theory of Everything" (838-843) and Isaac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong" (824-829)
- Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow comment that in physics, "realism is becoming difficult to defend" (paragraph 5). What do they mean by "realism," and what do they propose as an alternative?
- This essay was written for general readers. How, in their writing, do Hawking and Mlodinow make complex scientific ideas accessible to non-scientists? For instance, how does the goldfish example that runs throughout the essay help readers?
- In his essay "The Relativity of Wrong" (824-828), Issac Asimov argues that when it comes to science, "right and wrong are fuzzy concepts (paragraph 8). He concludes his essay by observing that the scientific explanations of the moment are not wrong but instead "incomplete": science progresses when our current theories and explanations are replaced by others that are more complete. How might Hawking and Mlodinow respond to this idea?
- Isaac Asimov frames his essay as a response to a letter from a "young specialist in English Lit" (paragraph 5) whom he calls "wronger" (paragraph 6) than those people of the past who thought the earth was flat or spherical. What does Asimov mean by "wronger"?
- How would you characterize the tone of Asimov's essay? Does his tone make you more or less receptive to his argument? Explain.
Good Afternoon Students,
I have received more than one question in regards to the nature of these blog responses, so I thought that I would share some of those answers with all. First and foremost, this blog should function as a "virtual discussion," ultimately between you, the students. A meaningful discussion hinges on a few factors: one, the participators need to have read the pieces well; two, the responses need to make points that are grounded with specific passages from the text; three, "listen" before you respond, but a healthy discussion is reflective of what has come before, free-flowing, and dynamic. A healthy discussion is not repetitive, self-serving, mean-spirited, or judgmental.
As far as these questions are concerned, you may answer any, all, or none. The questions after each reading should guide your annotations and rereading, but you are not required to answer these questions formally. The answers could appear in your notebook, but you will not be required to submit typed answers when you return to school. Do not worry about the Extended Response assignments that are down the road. I will explain these responses in greater detail with much more clarity and concrete examples after school resumes.
If you would like to make a point that does not germinate from these questions, by all means, please do so. The questions are just a starting point for the discussion. As long as you make specific textual references for your illustrative details, feel free to extend the conversation past these questions. As is always the case, we must ask ourselves what is the context and perspective for my understanding, and what are the implications that can be drawn from that understanding. Delving into the implications is how we gain depth and get into the good stuff.
I want to function more as a moderator because I really want your conversation to be authentic, and the nature of your talk should be your own.
Your responses do not have to be mini-essays, and generally, a couple of paragraphs will suffice. Please proofread your responses prior to posting them, and you should first type your comments in a Word or Google document for editing and saving purposes.
I need a brave soul to begin the discussion. A quality response does not have to be perfect. React to something that interests you based upon your reading, and the ball will be rolling.
Good Luck,
Mr. La Plante
Who will be the first to post a response? Surely, a brave mind will step forward.
ReplyDeleteReading question two led me to formulate my own response, I believe Hawking and Mlodinow used the fishbowl example for a specific reason. As readers and humans, it is easy to see ourselves as beings with more knowledge than the fish trapped inside its bowl, because we can see the reality outside the tiny bowl, which is the entire world for the fish inside. Therefore, as readers, it is easier for us to understand the fishbowl reference, because it is something we can actually see and picture in our minds, but I also believe this example could lead to theories and questions going beyond the purpose of just helping readers to better understand the piece. As beings outside the bowl, we know for certain the reality that the fish sees is warped. Hawking and Mlodinow state that "It is easy to call the world that the aliens live in the "real" one and the computer generated world a false one." (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). Perhaps Hawking and Mlodinow used this fishbowl example to push the question of who is watching which reality in order to stimulate readers. For example, another being could be watching our world as their fishbowl, and maybe another being above them. But, what if the fish is seeing the "right" reality, considering there is no definite term for "right"? Incorporating some of question 5 and some of Asimov's piece, there is no theory that is completely right or wrong. We long to find the true reality, but since we have no definition of that, maybe this true reality is simply a world with no faults. In terms of a reality with no problems and peace, the fish wins. In that fishbowl, the only thing that could go wrong is not having enough food for the day. Sure we could worry about the fish being sad because they can only roam inside the bowl, but because that is all the fish knows, there is no reason for the fish to worry about other places. Hawking and Mlodinow could have used this seemingly simple fishbowl example to not necessarily provide understanding for the readers, but to provoke deeper thought (even if it may be unintentional).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAdding on to your point, Jillian, Asimov's idea of right and wrong being fuzzy concepts can be somewhat supported by the reality proposed by quantum physics (Asimov 825). As said in paragraph 5 of /The (Elusive) Theory of Everything/, "In the framework of quantum theory, particles have neither definite positions nor definite velocities unless and until an observer measures those quantities" (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). This means if the goldfish had a human-like neural cortex and decided to look at it's reality from the point of view of quantum theory instead of realism, would it be able to tell that it's reality is distorted? In your response, Jillian, you quoted a line from /The (Elusive) Theory of Everything/ where as /The Matrix/ had been briefly discussed, whereas beings in a simulated world who have no way to see the anything outside of their reality, then their reality is true. In the paragraph following, Hawking and Mlodinow touch on how a goldfish could create scientific formulas on the movements of the objects outside of it's bowl. Going back to supporting Asimov's point, if the reality in which the goldfish perceived as "real" was backed up with some sort of scientific evidence, it would support the concepts of right and wrong being fuzzy. To this I question, would this then cause classical physics to support Asimov as well? (Since the formulas from inside the fishbowl would be formulated with the goldfish's commonsense)
DeleteBy "realism," Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are referring to "the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them" (Hawking and Leonard 838). Realism is favored by most working scientists who believe reality should provide objective information about the material world. However, Hawking and Mlodinow believe "one's concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver” (Hawking and Leonard 838). Hawking and Mlodinow propose an alternative in which reality is “shaped by the interpretive structure of our brain” since disregarding one’s perception of the world is simply impossible, for many humans have differing viewpoints in many aspects of life (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). Furthermore, Hawking and Mlodinow suggest model-dependent realism which ask whether a model supports an observation rather than whether it is “real” (Hawking and Leonard 839). Overall, Hawking and Mlodinow encourage the idea that reality is subjective because they are aware of the fact that the human race is filled with unique individuals and unique minds.
ReplyDeleteHawking and Mlodinow speak on a complex argument in this essay. In order to accommodate to the intelligence of their audience, Hawking and Mlodinow used extended metaphors to make a less understood topic simpler through familiar words and phrases. For instance, with the goldfish metaphor, readers are able to see how humans could possibly be viewing the world from a distorted lens like a fish kept in a curved fish bowl. This metaphor allows readers to consider the idea that like a goldfish, humans may believe they have a complete understanding of reality when, in reality, their view is possibly distorted by outside figures, such as “aliens.” A non-scientist can understand this argument of possible false realities when Hawking and Mlodinow say, “The goldfish is in a similar situation. Their view is not the same as ours from outside their curved bowl, but they could still formulate scientific laws governing the motion of objects they observe on the outside” (Hawking and Mlodinow). This metaphor relates the goldfish's situation to that of a human in order to open readers up to the idea that science of reality is all about perspective.
Since they support the idea of reality being subjective, Hawking and Mlodinow would agree with the idea that “right and wrong are fuzzy concepts,” and that scientific explanations of the moment are not wrong but instead "incomplete" (Asimov 825). Hawking and Mlodinow believe that “[if] two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other, A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). Therefore, people from the past with wrong ideas about the earth’s shape are not necessarily wrong, for, at the time, their model of the planet fit their observations. For instance, the Sumerians possibly initiated the belief that the earth is flat because of “the appearance of the plain [in the Tigris-Euphrates area]” (Asimov 825). This theory was able to last many years. Eventually, the Greek philosopher Aristotle used astrology to prove that the earth is not flat but rather spherical; his observation of the earth’s arc-like shadow on the moon during an eclipse conveniently supported the idea that the earth was the shape of a sphere (Asimov 825).
Ime, I agree a lot with what you have to say regarding question two in your second paragraph, but I would like to add onto the idea that you have going with how the goldfish scenario demonstrates a different perspective than ours and why that is so important. I think the fact that Hawking and Mlodinow chose a goldfish as an example is significant. They could have chosen any example of a perspective being distorted such as a person looking into a curved-glass mirror, but they did not. Hawking and Mlodinow consider the observer to be exclusively us (Hawking and Mlodinow 838), but I think this is too narrow considering their theory is focused on everything. I think it is only fitting that the possibility of another observer besides people be considered. The viewpoint of another species can be valuable and can even open up new theories. This calls for observing the observer.
DeleteThe idea that other animals may see the world differently is important for several reasons. The first reason is that the human ego, like the glass, acts as a distortion of perspective. Man's sense of superiority minimizes the value of other perspectives. As a result, the possibility of what animals bring to the equation is not factored in. For example, there are various animals that are known to be able to do things that humans cannot (e.g. starfish can regenerate their limbs and dogs have an incredible sense of smell). Going into my next point, since animals see and interact with the world differently, there exists the possibility that we as humans are missing relevant information and thus limiting the scope of M-theory.
David, I’m really glad you brought up the issue of the human ego in terms of the goldfish example because I understood this idea similarly. Common beliefs tell us that goldfish are stupid beings due to their three-second memories. In reality, Goldfish, like other fish, have long term memories which allow them to recognize predators, repeat paths, and determine patterns. However, in attempts to prove the superiority of humanity, we have forgotten that all beings have evolved best for their survival. Because goldfish do not show intelligence or emotion anthropomorphically, we can easily forget that they have these capacities. An error in human ego is that we try to compare everything on the same scale, and measuring the capabilities of a goldfish in terms of human abilities is a faulty comparison fallacy. Because we have forgotten the potential of other beings through this comparison, we have completely disregarded the fact that the other beings we share existence with have entirely different understandings of their reality. By domesticating animals, we have forced them to shift their understandings of reality in sometimes massive ways. The goldfish is one of the greatest examples of this because we commonly kept them in glass bowls which completely distort reality as we know it. This story, however, is not a new one, and many species, as well as factions of people have been suppressed by our lack of understanding of other realities. When we use our ego to determine superiority over another being, we forget that we were simply lucky, in terms of evolution, to have developed complex thought, but that doesn’t mean that other species are less valuable or that they do not have understandings of their own realities.
DeleteWhen Asimov says the "young specialist in English Lit" is “wronger,” he is saying that he is falling into the “basic trouble” in which people believe “everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong” (Asimov 825). This is the complete opposite of what Asimov believes: “right and wrong are fuzzy concepts” (Asimov 825). Asimov states that “theories are not so much wrong as incomplete” (Asimov 827). Therefore, those people who believed the earth was flat or spherical were not necessarily wrong but rather incomplete in their ideas because their perspective at the time allowed them to confidently believe they had discovered true reality. However, the student writing to Asimov is utterly wrong in his statement that “thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat” because “the correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical” (Asimov 824, 827). There are different degrees of wrongness, and, once again, these individuals were simply incomplete in their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe tone of Asimov’s essay’s is honest and lighthearted. In the beginning of his essay, he states that when he discovered who was writing the letter to him he “sighed a bit, for [he] knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach [him] science, but [he is] very aware of the vast state of [his] ignorance and [he is] prepared to learn as much as [he] can from anyone, so [he] read on” (Asimov 824). Asimov directly states that he did not feel this person was qualified to be attempting to enlighten him on topics in science. However, he pokes fun at the fact that he is not perfect in his science knowledge. Asimov goes on to call himself “foolish” for believing he “knew a great deal” (Asimov 824). He is not completely serious in regard to this topic for he is not afraid to tear down his knowledge and ability. He is also honest in the fact that he states “even a tiny difference” in scientific numerals can prove a prior theory invalid (Asimov 826). Asimov creates a serious tone at certain parts of his essay where he talks about the significant discoveries of Isaac Newton and Aristotle, but he returns back to his lighthearted tone; for instance, he states that his “English Lit friend [...] may be imagining that [...] that the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hallow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after” (Asimov 827). Such jokes make Asimov’s argument more receptive because he goes past the simply informative level with his readers to avoid boredom but rather bring life to the topic.
So for number three I thought that Asimov's view of explanations not being wrong in the moment but rather incomplete was very similar to model dependent realism. correct me if I'm wrong but the example Asimov uses in his response to John at the bottom of page 824 is a perfect example of model dependent realism. Asimov begins to explain why the flat earth model was seen as a logical conclusion for ancient civilizations, namely the Sumerians, in paragraph ten. He argues that the flat plains of the Tigris-Euphrates caused the Sumerians to simply assume that the rest of the earth was flat, and combined the seemingly flat nature of still bodies of water the explanation they came up with based on the information they had seems perfectly acceptable. and it was only after new evidence from Aristotle was put forth that the flat earth theory was modified. Aristotle's evidence for a spherical earth, such as ships disappearing over the horizon, prompted a new explanation to be made based on the information they now had. Eratosthenes used this information to roughly calculate the circumference of the earth and got incredibly close despite having very rudimentary tools to use. To use an example from Hawking and Mlodinow we can compare humans on the earth to a goldfish in a bowl. Just as the ancient Sumerians came to the conclusion that the earth was flat based on what they could see, so too would the goldfish believe that objects moving in a straight line are actually moving in a curved line because that's what the fish could see. So to answer the question of how Hawking and Mlodinow might react I would argue that they would agree with much of Asimov's thinking if not all of it. If you disagree or would like me to elaborate more on any of my thinking I'd be happy to oblige
ReplyDeleteI'm just gonna reply to my own rather than remaking the whole thing. I read some other responses and realized I missed a major point somehow. Specifically the phrase "If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other" (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). Although Hawking and Mlodinow would agree with Asimov that models are not wrong but just incomplete, Hawking and Mlodinow do not dismiss theories as unequal, but rather they believe the validity of a model is derived from from if the model "[agrees] with observation" (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). Asimov on the other hand describes older theories as more wrong than more modern ones, the first example being the flat and spherical earth theories. Asimov descibes the spherical earth theory as not being "just as wrong as the believing the earth is flat" (Asimov 824).
DeleteHi, everyone. Here is my response to question 1:
ReplyDeleteIn the short selection, The (Elusive) Theory of Everything, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, the two writers describe realism as “the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them” (Hawking, Mlodinow 838). The two authors comment that this is a philosophical belief and that it is also the basis of Classical Science. I believe that realism is a good explanation for the way that a goldfish in one of the fishbowls mentioned in the selection may see the world. While being in that small fishbowl, a goldfish would have no perception of our reality in our daily lives.
The question is, how do we know that our reality, what we know, and the way we perceive things, is the most knowledgeable or experienced version of reality that there is? For all we know, our view may be as limited as that of a goldfish. This is the idea that scientists like Isaac Newton worked to develop. When Hawking and Mlodinow comment that “realism is becoming difficult to defend” (Hawking, Mlodinow 839), they are basing their claim off of the physics of Newton and the idea that we now, with advanced technology and education, know a little bit more about what makes up our world; This is due to the development of the quantum theory. The quantum theory is governed by the idea that our reality and the objects around us are made up of smaller objects, or particles called photons and electrons. These extremely small objects are so small, however, that we do not directly perceive them. The quantum theory is our perception of reality in the present, or the reality that we personally have lived. Rather than labeling the past as a definite timeline of events, the quantum theory says that both past and future are indefinite and exist “only as a spectrum of possibilities” (Hawking, Mlodinow 839). The conclusion of Hawking and Mlodinow, therefore, is a new type of view on reality called model-dependent realism.
Hawking and Mlodinow offer the alternate theory of model-dependent realism to, in a sense, merge the ideas of realism with the ideas of the quantum theory. According to Hawking and Mlodinow, model-dependent realism is “the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations” (Hawking, Mlodinow 839). This theory is based on the idea that if two models both agree with observation, than neither of the two models could be considered more or less real than the other. In my view, this idea of model-dependent realism is a perfect explanation for opposing viewpoints among humans. Hawking and Mlodinow are basically saying that each person is in control of what model of their reality he or she uses in a given situation.
Hawking and Mlodinow also present the theory of antirealism (also called instrumentalism or idealism) that was proposed by psychologist Timothy Leary in the 1960s. This was the idea that one person’s individual perception of reality is dependent upon the mind of that person. This would mean that the world around us is shaped by the individual thoughts and ideas inside of our brains. This belief would explain why people growing up around certain conditions or certain beliefs usually grow up to believe those things themselves. It would also explain why, based on what those around them have told them, some people perceive themselves as superior to others or, sadly, as not good enough. I believe that the theory of model-dependent realism is a theory constructed based on the other theories previously derived. Based on the career and dedication of Stephen Hawking, which was focused on finding one equation, model, or idea that relates everything in the universe, I believe that he and Mlodinow’s development of the theory of model-dependent realism is a way to do just that. Now all we need is the mathematical equation, or mathematical model, that Hawking looked for, and that they reference here.
Regarding question 3, it is important to consider Hawking's and Mlodinow's idea that each person or thing is able to have a different and equal perspective of the world. With this in mind, Hawking and Mlodinow would most likely agree with the essence of Asimov's idea that theories are not necessarily wrong, just incomplete. However, they may not respond with complete compliance, because Asimov's theory also suggests that old theories should be replaced with newer, more accurate and inclusive theories. While this idea is somewhat inclusive of different perspectives, it implies that some perspectives are less worth being taken into consideration than others and should be replaced with more relevant theories, and it is this that Hawking and Mlodinow would disagree or have an objection with. "If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other." (Hawking and Mlodinow 839) Hawking and Mlodinow believe that each perspective or reality should be equal in relevance and when considering reality as long as all perspectives are based on observation. Asimov asserts that rather than remaining as equal, theories should add onto or replace prior beliefs based on new evidence or observation.
ReplyDeleteKendall, you have successfully delved into an important implication, namely "that each person or thing is able to have a different and equal perspective of the world." While multiple persons are able to have different and and equal perspectives of the world, can some perspectives still be wrong? If Kendall's position is true or at least true enough, how might we apply that understanding to the debate about climate change, global warming, the causes, and the solutions? Is there a reason that one side would want to deny that our industrial, commercial, and even personal behaviors exacerbate the problems? Can both sides be right? This is a dicey area where science and politics intertwine, and all arguments have agendas and bias. Recognizing that bias is the first step in analyzing the argument.
DeleteI think it is important to also consider how Asimov argues that "theories are not so much wrong as incomplete." This can be applied to differing viewpoints on issues such as global warming. "Whenever we develop a model of the world and find it to be successful, we tend to attribute to the model the quality of reality" (Hawking and Mlodinow 842). In regard to global warming, the causes can be attributed to the way of life humanity has developed and succeeded with. Economies, businesses, and people still depend on the use of nonrenewable energy sources. At the same time, the world is about to face irreversible changes in the coming years. We cannot make any changes until we face the problem as a whole. People who deny that their behaviors exacerbate the problem have an incomplete understanding that needs to be more educated on the subject, or they need a change in motives. One side can be right in what they believe is best for themselves, but it is important that they consider the duality of the situation. According to Asimov, we can continually expand and refine the world's knowledge to preserve what is at stake. When they believe they are doing the right for themselves and whoever involved, the environment suffers at that expense. Humanity tends to cling on to methods that have proved themselves beneficial to society. Change is inevitable and, in order to address this change, I believe both sides must find a way to adequately adapt to be considered right. Hawking and Mlodinow assert that "the same physical situation can be modeled in different ways." We must find that median in which both sides can be right in order to fully address the problem.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn response to Mr. La Plante's line of inquiry, I believe that based on model-dependent realism, both sides of the issue of global warming would be considered correct. Both views are centered around facts and data that suggest the opposing view is incorrect; therefore, the lens that people see the issue with will change how they decide their stance. If a person is only presented data that rejects global warming’s existence, then that person’s belief that global warming does not exist, similar to the goldfish’s “scientific laws from their distorted frame of reference,” would have to be viewed as “a valid picture of reality” (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). Although the views of global warming’s reality can be self-imposed or a result of influence from the media or people in power, a person’s opinion is founded on his or her own mind’s “conscious and subconscious mental models” that are created from the person’s knowledge of the issue (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). However, from the view of realism–I believe this view applies to the issue of global warming more accurately than model-dependent realism–the opinion that global warming doesn’t exist is totally wrong. The “external world [that] exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them” is currently experiencing rapid and dangerous changes to the climate regardless of a person’s rejection or acceptance of these events (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). All that rejection of global warming’s existence achieves is hindering actions that could help save the planet or promoting a person in power’s agenda.
DeleteIn response to Kaitlyn, I slightly disagree with the idea that both sides of the debate on global warming can be correct based on model-dependent realism. When extending the idea of model-dependent realism to the goldfish , Hawking and Mlodinow describe how light behaves differently from inside the fishbowl—the goldfish's reference point—than from outside the reference bowl—our reference point. The two authors then elaborate that the goldfish can form scientific laws from its point of reference that are different than our laws, yet both sets of laws would stand true (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). However, global warming represents an entirely different situation. I would argue that all humans must share the same model in how they view Earth. Where humans and goldfish can see the same object in entirely different ways based on their reference points, two different humans on Earth cannot do the same thing. Some may argue that two humans living in two different climates (for example, Central Africa and Siberia) may see the Earth from different perspectives. However, this viewpoint generalizes each person's separate experiences to the entire globe; one cannot use individual climates to determine whether Earth as a whole is experiencing unnatural warming or not. Thus, from a human perspective, global warming can only be based on one model.
DeleteHawking and Mlodinow explain that realism is “the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). However, they make it obvious that realism is much more than a simple definition. Realism itself varies to each observer: “[...] one’s concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838), meaning that each version of realism depends on who is doing the perceiving. To combat this variation, Hawking and Mlodinow recommend the use of “model-dependent realism” (Hawking and Mlodinow 839) to decide if reality is indeed reality, or if it simply fits observations.
ReplyDeleteThe goldfish example at the beginning of the piece provide a real example for anyone to understand. Because average, non-scientists have a concrete example they can understand, they use this example as a basis for the real thesis proposed by Hawking and Mlodinow. “How do we know that the reality we perceive is true” (Hawking and Mlodinow, 838) serves as the perfect segway from the example of the goldfish into the deep, philosophical theory provided later on. As the readers read, the comparison between the universe and the fishbowl continues: “[...] as if [the theories] viewed the universe through its own fishbowl” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). This simplistic example is more colloquial and easier to understand than the scientific mumbo-jumbo would have been.
Hawking and Mlodinow would agree with Asimov’s statement, as their theory of reality applies similar concepts. Things are always evolving and changing, and it is foolish to think you know everything at any period in time because it will always remain incomplete (Asimov 824). Hawking and Mlodinow’s proposition regarding the universe carries the same principle. Our realities are “indefinite and [exist] only as a spectrum of possibilities” (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). Essentially, both essays, although containing different subjects, have a similar underlying tone. The universe is always changing and no one will ever know everything about everything.
By ‘wronger,’ Asimov means, in a sense, naive or almost idiotic, he just softens the blow slightly. You can never know whether things are 100% wrong or 100% right because of “our perception of the world” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). Even though the English Lit student was accusing Asimov of being assumptious, he was doing the same thing. By assuming he knew definitively the shape of the universe, for example, he was buying into his perception on the world and foolishly contradicted his own point. We as a population may never definitively know everything.
Asimov’s tone, while carrying a heavy message, is almost cheery. This tone affects the readability, but not in a bad way. His tone makes his piece much easier to read, which allows the information to be much more dissectable. However, because I was able to understand his argument much better, my own opinions were more plentiful than if I had not understood what he was saying. Personally, I do not know if I agree all the way with Asimov. There are some aspects of our universe I believe we do and will know everything about. All in all, the tone allowed me to be more receptive towards his argument, although I personally don’t agree 100% with his statements.
Bravo. Ime, I am proud of you for having the courage to begin the process. I really like all of the posts so far, and I especially like how Oliver replied to his own post. Replying to a post is exactly what you all should consider. You are not required to start a new thread, but if a new thread is warranted, by all means, begin one.
ReplyDeleteI think that all have clearly and intelligently understood the two pieces; now let's delve into the implications and extend the talk a bit more. We do not need to continue to provide our version of the question's answer. Let's feed off one another's ideas. I will post an example of what I am asking as a reply to Kendall's post.
Remember, a reply counts as a post. Even a good question could count as a quality addition to the discussion.
Also, how can these understandings be extended to other issues in science, culture, politics, philosophy, etc.? Let's not limit our conversation to the particulars specified in the readings--let's connect and synthesize them. Let's build new arguments based upon these "stimulus" materials.
You all are off to a fine start.
Regards,
Mr. La Plante
Hawking and Mlodinow want to make it clear that "there is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world." This implies that every individual acts as their own observer and formulates his or her own understanding of the world. We all live different lives that develop us into different individuals with our own understandings. Regarding an alternative to realism, model-dependent realism allows observations to be explained by different models, and both models are equally considered real (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). Model-dependent realism applies to both the conscious and unconscious mental sets we create in order to understand our interactions with the world around us (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). The conscious and unconscious mental sets that we create our own understandings and theories with are heavily influenced by our interactions with our environment throughout life. Our own interpretive structures in our brain is what gives society its individuality through the creation and development of our own perspectives. Hawking and Mlodinow accept diversity in model-dependent realism so that it can be universally applicable in determining validity.
ReplyDeleteAnother point I wanted to touch on was how Hawking and Mlodinow respect the power of the individual to create and discover his or her own understanding. They create hypothetical theories for the goldfish from a simplistic standpoint to make non-scientists more receptive to the theory. By putting the audience on the same level as a goldfish in a curved bowl, it allows us to have a clearer sense of our own reality. The goldfish is such a small part of its world and reality, and we are such a small part of our understanding of our reality and universe at large. The goldfish can only have such a sense of reality outside the fishbowl, as us outside our world. We can answer the questions we have with the beauty of theory. Our curiosity of everything is infinite, and it would be near impossible to capture everything with one set of rules. Hawking and Mlodinow want theories and perspectives start at the level of the individual. People will be able to apply various models and rules to the same aspect of everything with a better understanding of the magnitude of their place and time in their reality. Life does not have one defined path with a set of rules to follow. Many different rules and perspectives can explain our own observations that we encounter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Jacob's points, but I'd like to focus on how you mentioned that we all live different lives where we can all have an individual view of reality. Nowadays with technology, I wonder how much of our perception of reality is actually from our own personal point of view. The news and other types of media leave a large impact on how we view the world everyday. I know that we can all perceive media differently, but I feel like in the future as more technological advances are made, society might become the fish and the media becomes the fishbowl.
DeleteI like Sofia’s point that society is becoming like a fish in a fishbowl due to the corralling effects of media and technology. I see the truth in this because people are sometimes pressured into believing certain things just because it is a popular opinion. However, Hawking and Mlodinow make the point that the goldfish’s laws were a “valid picture of reality,” despite the distorting effects of the curved fishbowl (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). Even though people are starting to have similar opinions because the world is so much more connected, that doesn’t necessarily mean their opinions are wrong or unreal. That just means they see the world through a different perspective because of the new information accessible to them.
DeleteGoing off of Sophia's point about how technology can distort our perspective, because it is so widely used and easily accessible, I do not think it would be crazy to say that the media, at times, tries to change our perspective entirely. It is not difficult for a big news source to put out fake information to distort the public's opinion. I know "fake news" has become somewhat of a joke, I think the concept should be taken more seriously. The media can say anything and there will always be people that believe them no matter how far fetched the news is. I believe that society is already the fish and the media is already the fishbowl.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt the conclusion of his essay, Isaac Asimov states that ancient theories "must have been sufficiently right to allow advances to be made" and that "they need only be considered incomplete" (Asimov 828). Asimov applies his argument to the measurements of the structure of the Earth. Over the course of human history, these measurements have become more specific and the theories about the shape of Earth have evolved. In this context, Asimov is correct: Where the flat Earth theory is undoubtedly wrong, it is not far off from the oblate spheroid theory in terms of curvature. In fact, the difference between the two theories is .000126 curvature per mile (Asimov 826). As human knowledge progressed, scientists gained more information that did not correct the flat Earth theory; it improved it. However, I find that there are other fields of study that disprove his point, namely quantum physics. Where the progression from the flat Earth theory to the oblate spheroid theory is numerical, an entirely different progression occurs between the theories of classical physics and quantum physics that Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow describe in "The (Elusive) Theory of Everything." Scientists that believe in realism attempt to calculate the exact object and position of an object; for example, the scientists that constantly work to perfect the shape of the Earth make their calculations based on realism. However, quantum physics does not refine previous measurements; it throws all measurements out of the window. Quantum physics demands that an observer cannot know an object's position and its velocity at the same time. For example, picture a man rolling a ball on a pool table in a pitch black room. If the man sticks out his hand and grabs the ball, he can determine its position but not his velocity. On the other hand, he can brush his finger against the ball to determine its velocity, yet he has no way to define its position. "In quantum terms, the ball is everywhere at a bunch of speeds ... some just more likely than others" (McRae par. 13). Where realism would argue that a basketball's characteristics can be defined to an exact measurement, quantum physics recognizes that the basketball's characteristics cannot be measured and instead are represented by a massive set of probabilities. Based on dichotomies such as this one, I find it very hard to support Asimov's argument that all theories are simply incomplete. Rather than being incomplete, some theories are utterly incompatible with other newly emerging theories.
ReplyDeleteReese’s statement above that "realism is much more than a simple definition" really stood out to me. I believe that there is not one single definition or explanation behind the concept of realism because it is such a complex topic. To tie in the metaphor of the goldfish, perhaps the external reality of humans is distorted as well. I saw an earlier comment by Sophia mentioning that technology may be affecting the way humanity views the world, and I agree 100%. In modern day society, humanity has become so attached to the electronic screens that the outside world seems less of reality and technology seems more real. However, how trustworthy can the news, social media, etc be? There is much debate throughout society, especially in the world of politics. A recent political debate that sprung much attention was the abortion law in Alabama. I am certain that (most likely) we were not physically in the state while the possible new law was being brought forth, but the rage on social media was what attracted all the attention. However, opinions can so easily be mistaken, distorted, or unheard over social media apps and that explains how reality can so easily become skewed by technology. Controversy was on the rise across many sites, yet the arguments easily became biased because many people were basing their arguments off of what was seen on a phone screen rather than what could have been seen live in front of our own eyes. I feel that the complexity of the topic of realism is heightened because of differing opinions and perspectives on topics. Mlodinow and Hawking seem to attempt to mention this as they write that “one’s concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver”, which I agree with because every individual has different opinions and perspectives from one another. To tie in the topic of technology once again, there is a debate on the concept of texting of which how one texter cannot know or understand the other texter’s emotions through a text message. One person could feel that the sender of a message is happy, when they are truly mad. With this being said, how can we know that our reality is completely and utterly true when it can so easily become distorted by factors such as technology? Hawking and Mlodinow in their writing mention scientific laws and theories such as Newton’s law and the Quantum Theory. The world we see is made up of tiny particles, as proven by Newton, which makes the physical external world universal for all humans. In my opinion, I think that Mlodinow and Hawking use these as a way to suppress the confusion over the concept of reality, but what about the subjective and objective reality of an individual? When Hawking and Mlodinow state that “realism is becoming difficult to defend”, I think that this is because of the confusion behind reality that is not explained with the laws of Newton and the Quantum theory. In conclusion, I believe that realism is a complex topic that cannot be solely explained by singular explanations. All humans and individuals have differing opinions and perspectives which makes our view of reality so distorted. I believe humans are much like the goldfish in a round fish bowl. Not solely because of technology, but because of our susceptibility to biased or controversial opinions sprung forth in society. Each individual has their own viewpoint on the subjective and objective world and that is why realism as well as the concept of reality are such complex topics.
ReplyDeleteIn Caroline's post above, the section about how politics can distort our visions got my attention. In the world today humanity is divided. For instance, in the issue of illegal immigration, there are two main conflicting viewpoints. Many in the Republican party believe that illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals who need to be kept out of the county at any cost. On the contrary, many Democrats believe that these illegal immigrants are simply refugees looking for a fresh start in a safer country with more opportunities. Politics is express through many ways, whether it be on the news or on social media, I believe that technology is a contributing factor to the division in society and part of the reason our "reality" is distorted. This relates to Hawking and Mlodinow's goldfish metaphor due to the fact that things such as politics and technology are like the curved goldfish bowl. Hawking and Mlodinow also give the example of people being "computer-generated characters living in a Matrix-like world" (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). In our world today it is as if technology is the aliens and our world views are being controlled and our reality is being altered.
Delete^^^Hey this is Shelby Ginsburg not really sure why my name isn't shown.
DeleteIn response to question 5:
ReplyDeleteAsimov’s tone in “The Relativity of Wrong” can most simply be stated as very matter-of-fact and direct. He wastes no time on sugarcoating his opinions to satiate the views of the English Lit major, “your view is wronger than both of them put together” (Asimov 824). Despite the harshness of his initial approach towards his response to the student, Asimov explains his stance on the matter of right and wrong with absolute clarity and simplicity. He steers clear of complex scientific theories and maintains an essay that is understandable for the general reader. Asimov succeeds in justifying the reason that earth is not flat, despite how it may appear to the observer, “even a tiny difference [in curvature], such as that between 0 and 0.000126 can be extremely important” (Asimov 826). He continues with a clear explanation of why the flat earth theory is not wrong, it is merely incomplete; as scientific theories become more precise and more data is acquired, theories can become more specified and accurate. As there is no foreseeable end to the realm of possibility in the field of scientific discovery, one must assume that scientific theories will never be complete, but will continue to near that state. This contrasts greatly from the English Lit major's viewpoint, which appears to be somewhat black and white; he believes that scientific explanations or ideas are either wrong or right, there is no grey area.
Therefore, Asimov's tone can also be characterized as explanatory, it serves well as a teaching tool. Due to the comprehensibility of Asimov’s explanation, as it is produced by the direct tone which he uses in the essay, I was very receptive of his argument.
I agree with Nikoleta's comment on how Asimov uses a casual but direct tone in his essay. Although he is presenting somewhat difficult scientific concepts, Asimov is able to use a voice that can be easily understood by the casual reader. Also, by introducing the English Lit specialist's views and beliefs, Asimov provides an effective contextualization to go along with his facts and explanations on why he disagrees with his colleague. Throughout the essay, Asimov addresses points that relate back to his argument with the student. In order to reach a larger audience, Asimov takes advantage of simpler words. He believes "that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts" (Asimov 825). In my opinion, simpler words lead to ideas being easier to grasp in an informative essay, which can allow the reader to quickly analyze the claim and move on. That said, I do not think Asimov is harsh at all, only determined to correct what he is convinced is flawed thinking. Based on his evidence and experience, Asimov knows there are differing degrees of right and wrong, and that newer technology will only improve upon current theories. When faced with the letter of the student, he saw the opportunity to inform the audience about how past theories developed and that it will continue to develop, maybe forever. Overall, I agree that Asimov uses many techniques, especially his tone, to keep his writing very receptive. As I read on, I only became more and more interested with his statements.
DeleteI agree with most of Jeffrey’s points, regarding the the tone and perception of the writing. However I would like to also say the tone of Asimov’s essay is very contradictive. Asimov brings up topics that completely go against each other, but states neither are incorrect. For example: the Flat-Earth Theory, through education in schools we are taught that its incorrect and that the earth is shaped as a sphere. However Asimov states,”The curvature of the earth is nearly 0° per mile, so that although the Flat-Earth Theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That’s why the theory lasted so long.” This point that he ponders completely contradicts the education society is teaching but makes logical sense. Asimov believed that nothing is completely wrong and there is always another side to the statement. Just like the Flat-Earth Theory; some statements can be so wrong that they are nearly right.
DeleteResponse to question 1:
ReplyDeleteStephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow describe that realism is “the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). Classical science supports the idea of realism because it allows for generalizations to be made for easier explanations of phenomena. However, new theories and developments in physics have made realism “difficult to defend.” Hawking and Mlodinow propose that what we as a group of humans may think is “right” may actually be different to the individual being. This is supported by the reoccuring goldfish example. The example demonstrates that every living creature may perceive events and objects differently due to their perspective. Humans, for instance, may all see a color and identify it as red but is everyone’s red the same? How can humans be sure that what we perceive is actually correct? The argument in this reading is that we cannot assume that what we see is truly reality. It is argued that “realism is becoming difficult to defend” because not one situation can be 100 percent definite due to various interpretations of the situation
Realism is the traditional belief that when a person views an object, what the viewer sees is what everyone else sees because the object is uninfluenced and independent making its appearance unaltered from viewer to viewer. Stephen Hawking, and Leonard Mlodinow are saying the theory of realism is becoming hard to defend because more and more scientists are starting to believe that perceived reality isn't one-size-fits-all. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow agree that, "one's concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver” (Hawking and Leonard 838).There are multiple alternatives to realism such as idealism, instrumentalism, and anti realism. One of the more famous alternative theories to realism is anti realism which is the idea that the object's appearance changes from viewer to viewer. Take the goldfish theory for example. When goldfish looks through their curved, glass bowl, they see a different sense of reality than the rest of us. If a person were to put a curved, glass fishbowl over their head and look through it they would see a distorted sense of the outside world, but that form of a reality is not considered “ distorted” to the goldfish, but rather their own reality. Light moves differently between water and air. A person may see light in a straight line because of the way it reacts with the air molecules as opposed to a goldfish that see light in a curved sense because it reacts differently with the water molecules. To conclude, Hawking and Mlodinow agree that reality varies from viewer to viewer.
ReplyDeleteAsimov using the word “wronger” is a great way to characterize the tone of his essay. As he states, “Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete,” Asimov implys that wronger, in the case of the English Lit student, means not completely wrong, but instead in need of more corrections than those who thought the Earth was flat or spherical to be more acceptable. Asimov’s idea of “wronger” and never being fully wrong characterizes his essay’s supportive and informative tone as he constantly explains why past ideas that seem ridiculous today are not only not wrong, but helpful as building blocks to find new, more acceptable theories. For example, Asimov talks about the closeness of the Flat Earth Theory’s and Spherical Earth Theory’s curvature to show how the Flat Earth Theory’s evidence was slightly refined to find a more correct Spherical Earth Theory. Not only does Asimov take the time to explain why each theory is wrong in it’s own way, but he also takes the time to explain how one theory helped shape a new theory and then another new theory, making Asimov’s essay all positive, similarly to stressing that you can never be simply wrong. This tone makes me more receptive to the essay because it sticks to important information and lacks anything else such as Asimov trying to disprove the English Lit student.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 4:
ReplyDeleteWhen Asimov uses the term "wronger", he is implying that there are different degrees of wrongness. In regards to scientists across the centuries that have been proven "wrong", he asks, "Are they always wrong to the same degree?" (Asimov 8-9). Asimov's belief that no one is wholly incorrect and that there is no such thing as concrete "rights" and "wrongs" greatly contrasts the beliefs of the English Lit specialist who writes off earlier theories as unequivocally wrong due to more recent studies having conflicting ideas to those of the earlier notions. Furthermore, Asimov says, "refinements in theory have grown smaller and smaller" (Asimov 39). According to Asimov, all theories are, in some way, both correct and incorrect. He also proposes that all theories are, insofar, incomplete and that they are constantly being added onto. However, these improvements, or "refinements", have decreased in magnitude and frequency. Due to this slow rate of discovery, theories are always able to be added onto for a seemingly infinite amount of time. Asimov makes a good point in saying "If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would have reached their modern state in ancient times". Continuous revelations and add-ons to ancient theories proves that the previous theories must have been somewhat correct to "allow advances to be made" (Asimov 40). Asimov's proposition of different degrees of inaccuracy is demonstrated by the fact that apparently unproven speculations are able to be built upon into something accepted by the science that exists thus far. In summation, by using the word "wronger" in response to the English Lit student, Asimov supports his idea of there being multiple gradations of inaccuracy and that there is no such thing as a downright erroneous conjecture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI know that there was not a specific question posed about the tone utilized in the piece by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, but I’m interested in how it could connect with some of the ideas that have been discussed. Sophia talked about an idea surrounding technology earlier that posed a future in which society is the fish and media is the fish bowl. That idea made me wonder how Hawking and Mlodinow might respond to that notion. I would characterize the tone throughout their piece as humorous and playful yet scholarly and informative. They touch on complex scientific ideas such as the “framework of quantum theory” and also manage to include a science fiction reference so that every type of nerd is represented (Hawking and Mlodinow 839).
ReplyDeleteI also felt like a tone that ran underneath and became more prominent at the end could be characterized as hopeful. They choose to end their piece by leaving the readers to consider that though the (elusive) theory of everything may be confusing and impossible to attain, “it might be the way of the universe” (Hawking and Mlodinow 842). They invoke the idea that the universe has its ways that go beyond us. They imply that there has to be a certain level of trust in the ways of science, and their playful yet informed tone suggests that people don’t have to worry about putting their trust in the complications of science.
Circling back to the media aspect, I wonder if they might believe that people can overcome that future. I wonder if Isaac Asimov would agree. He discusses how the world evolves when people improve upon “incomplete” ideas (Asimov 828). These pieces were written by curious scientists. Perhaps media is a formidable force, but curious and creative minds also pose quite a challenge in return.
Emily, I find it interesting that you picked up on the hopeful tone that emerged in Hawking and Mlodinow’s piece. I interpreted this contented viewpoint as a juxtaposition to the typical scientist who might crave a conclusion cemented with cold, hard facts. Of course, it is understandable why concrete deductions are so satisfying, especially to researchers and physicists. When an idea has been tested and proven to be true, the scientific world gains an additional sense of security. We have come one step closer to gaining a greater understanding of the seemingly insurmountable world surrounding us. We have all heard that knowledge is power, and the unknown can be intimidating.
DeleteIn light of this, I was particularly fascinated by the notion that Hawking and Mlodinow are satisfied with accepting that one theory cannot “describe every aspect of the universe” (Hawking and Mlodinow 842). This realization goes to show that even in a day and age where the human race is more advanced than it has ever previously been, we still have yet to completely comprehend the reality we are faced with daily. To accept that our collective knowledge is currently no match for the incredibly complex universe may be seen as a blow to the human ego, but Hawking and Mlodinow do not hold this perspective. Instead, they allow for the ambiguity of the state of the universe and welcome diverse interpretations, which embraces both the idealist and model-dependent realist interpretations. “None of the versions [of reality] can be said to be more real than any other” (Hawking and Mlodinow 842). Hawking and Mlodinow imply that the best unified theory to explain the fundamental interactions of the universe is to “employ different theories in different situations” (Hawking and Mlodinow 842). The two admit that this conclusion is contradictory to that of the standard scientist and that “it is not the physicist’s traditional expectation for a theory of nature,” but that “it might just be the way of the universe” (Hawking and Mlodinow 842).
In summary, Hawking and Mlodinow are not discouraged by the lack of one unified theory to coherently explain all of the phenomena of the universe, but instead see this indefiniteness as a source of hope for further scientific innovation. As someone whose scientific comprehension pales in comparison to the brilliant minds of Hawking and Mlodinow, I find comfort knowing that the two are hopeful and trusting of certain scientific occurrences that seem impossible to understand at the moment.
For question 2, I find it interesting how the use of the goldfish example gives the general audience, myself included, a clear understanding of the idea of idealism. The goldfish example shows us two things. First, the goldfish, which does not know that it is in a reality which humans or other beings may consider “distorted”. Next, the fishbowl, which is the reality which others see as different than what truly is reality. As far as the fish knows, the bowl is reality, not altered, and not changed in any way. Their principles and what happens to them in their environment is solid and based off of the bowl, because the bowl would be all that they know. Through this example, one could see that humans have no way of knowing if our reality is actually “true”, or just what we know and consider to be factual. This also made me question, in antirealism, is there truly a set, factual reality then, or does what every individual accepts as reality make up our perceptions and what we know exists, and is that reality in itself?
ReplyDeleteThe goldfish example also gives the idea that “The goldfish could formulate scientific laws from their distorted frame of reference that would always hold true and that would enable them to make predictions about the future motion of objects outside the bowl” (Hawking and Mlodinow 842). This shows that since the goldfish would know everything they perceive inside their fishbowl is “set in stone”, they would apply the same logic to the environment outside the fishbowl, even though there are different factors outside, because they do not know this. This can be connected to our science, discoveries, and ideas by showing that since we do not know which principles and facts apply outside our perceived reality, we cannot make accurate predictions about everything using only our knowledge about what applies in our mindset and world we know.
In regards to question two, Hawking and Mlodinow throughout the piece of writing simplify their text with a couple of references back to the goldfish example by first displaying a complex thought and then explaining it with the use of the goldfish example or the use of another more simplistic example. An example of this is in paragraph two Hawking and Mlodinow say that “It now appears that this quest may yield not a single theory but a family of interconnected theories, each describing its own version of reality, as if it viewed the universe through its own fishbowl” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). Earlier in the paragraph they describe how many scientists have attempted to create one set of consistent laws and then further simplifies this by saying how that scientists find themselves finding many different views like the goldfish has different views due to the curvature of the bowl. Another example of this is in paragraph seven Hawking and Mlodinow first explain that many people can have many different views and if everyone decided not to like something they would be under a lense. Then in paragraph eight the goldfish is described the same way behind the bowl.
DeletePersonally, I do not think that Asimov, Hawking, and Mlodinow would agree with each other’s viewpoints. It is true that in Asimov’s essay, he states that “the theories we now have might be considered wrong [...] need only be considered incomplete” (Asimov 828). This claim, while it may seem logical in definitions of realism, implies that while theories do improve, they are still concretely “right” and “wrong” to some degree. I do find it hard to believe that Hawking and Mlodinow would agree with Asimov’s point of view. By stating that a theory is nearly correct, it is implied to be incorrect. However, when model-dependent realism is applied, each theory is correct based on frame of reference. For example, both pieces feature the contrast between Ptolemic and Copernican models of the cosmos. In his essay, Asimov implies that the geocentric model was left behind once it was proven to be incorrect. However, according to Hawking and Mlodinow, each theory can be used to model the universe based on the ability to explain the observations for each (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). Therefore, I believe that Asimov’s view of reality is more concrete than Hawking and Mlodinow would like to believe. They delve into the confusing nature of realism more than Asimov, bringing into question the absolute rightness of any one theory, no matter how improved it may be. Therefore, while Asimov believes that all theories build off one another and the final product is the most correct, Hawking and Mlodinow would be likely to counter that all theories are independently correct based on frame of reference.
ReplyDeleteRegarding question one, when Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow use the term “realism”, they are indicating the belief that “an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). This theory is becoming challenging to defend in science because, for example, a fish in a curved fishbowl has a different view of reality than humans do, or a person who is visually impaired has a different sense of reality than a person who has perfect vision. Realism is part of classical physics, whose laws govern everyday objects. However, the light that lets us perceive these everyday objects is not governed by classical physics. Light is made up of photons and electrons and other microscopic objects that are all governed by the laws of quantum physics. The reality of quantum physics is very different from that of classical physics. For example, the imperceptible particles of quantum physics have no definite velocities, positions, nor an independent existence, rather existing as a group of many instead of one.
ReplyDeleteSince realism is so difficult to defend nowadays, when “the idea of alternative realities is the mainstay of today’s popular culture”, Hawking and Mlodinow propose an alternative theory of “model-dependent realism”, the “idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model. . . and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations” (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). Under the theory of model-dependent realism, there is no gain in questioning the reality of a certain model because reality is not set in stone. Hawking and Mlodinow reference Ptolemy’s earth-centered model and Copernicus’ sun centered model of the solar system. While it is most common for people to say that Copernicus debunked Ptolemy’s theory, Ptolemy was not necessarily any less right than Copernicus. He was just recording what he saw true as reality. Going back to the visually impaired person, what he or she sees is considered by them to be their reality, therefore, we must take their perception into account.
^^This is me, no clue why it isn't displaying my name!
DeletePersonally, I think that Asimov would mostly agree with Hawking and Mlodinow. Although Asimov believes in a more concrete view of reality, he also expresses, like Nell mentioned, that theories are not wrong, just incomplete. The flat earth theory, for example, was proven wrong, but scientists have come to understand that it is not completely wrong, just incomplete. Over the centuries, scientists gained new knowledge which caused them to change their theory about the shape of the earth, but without the individual perspective of each scientist involved in coming to the conclusion that the earth was in fact almost flat, the discovery may not have been made. Like Jacob said, each individual's experiences help them to develop their perspective on the world and each perspective contributes to the greater good. Everyone looks at the world through their own distorted fish bowl, and because of this, scientists attempting to devise an ultimate theory of everything concluded that, "It now appears that this quest may not yield a single theory but a family of interconnected theories, each describing its own version of reality,..." (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). Asimov's view of the world is not possible without applying Hawking and Mlodinow's because without each new and individual perspective, there would be nothing to build off of incomplete theories with. I believe that Asimov may not entirely agree with Hawking and Mlodinow because he does believe in a more concrete method, but would understand that in order to form new ideas, you need new perspective.
ReplyDeleteAsimov’s essay, “The Relativity of Wrong” really stood out to me in the sense that right and wrong are “fuzzy” concepts. He then goes on to explain that theories are not wrong, but incomplete and uses the shape of the Earth to prove it, but what makes the many theories about the shape of the Earth wrong? During the time of the spherical earth theory, there was nothing to say the Earth was shaped any other way. The people used what they had to make a theory that was widely accepted, so in that point in time how could that theory be anything other than correct. Even though we now know that the spherical earth theory is wrong, or in Asimov’s own words “incomplete” how could the spherical earth theory at the time be anything other than correct when there was no evidence to the contrary. As of today we know that two plus two is four, but in one thousand years from now two plus two could end up equaling five even though there was nothing to prove two plus two equals four wrong. So at the time how could anyone know that their theories were wrong? I argue that at the time the theories were correct. What really defines the differences between right and wrong? Using Hawking and Mlodinow’s essay, “The Elusive Theory of Everything,” it's all about perception. To some people the right thing could be the wrong thing, and to others its vice versa. “Their view is not the same as ours from outside the curved bowl,” (Hawking and Mlodinow 840) I interpret this quote as Hawking and Mlodinow using the fish bowl as a metaphor for someone’s life and as outsiders looking, we can see their life differently from how they see their life. This includes their distortion of right and wrong, and now we’re back to what defines right and wrong. Nothing is one hundred percent right, and nothing is one hundred percent wrong, it only matters if you can prove whether something is right or wrong, and using the spherical earth theory, the people at the time could prove their theory right, even if we now know that they were wrong.
ReplyDelete^^^^^This is Alexis Edwards
DeleteIn regards to the first prompt I would have to agree with what the majority of the class has discussed. Instead I would like to elaborate on the idea of reality that Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow propose while applying Issac Asimov’s thinking, “that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts” (Asimov 825). From reading both passages I have concluded that reality as well as the concept of right and wrong lie on a vast spectrum that is susceptible to the observations and thinking of a subject. Furthermore, any subjects view of reality may never be completely wrong or right and can only be refined. In the end, this process of refinement would be, in theory, endless.
ReplyDeletep.s. I apologize if this seems confusing or incomplete, I was struggling with how I was going to word this. Please don't hesitate to ask about or confront my thinking.
Society's knowledge is ever changing and evolves as decades progress. Time and time again, theories are shot down, disproved and replaced with new ones that are labeled as correct. Asimov reaches the denouement that old theories may not be completely incorrect. Although they do not possess the level of correctness that the new theories do, based on the available data at the time, they were factual. This conclusion meshes with the focus of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s essay, “The (Elusive) Theory of Everything”. Hawking and Mlodinow state that “Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependant realism, that diversity is acceptable, and none of the versions can be said to be more real than any other” (Hawking and Mlodinow 842). Each concept presented is truly a matter of perspective because “There is no way to remove the observer-us-from our perception of the world.” (Hawking and Mlodinow 838). A question that humanity is left to dwell on is the matter of what truly is undeniable. If what we hold to be true now is going to be replaced later, then why do we consider the principle to be legitimate. The only concept that can be known for certain is that our incorrectness is relatively correct, while at the same time our correctness is incorrect. Asimov asserts this concept when he references Socrates. When Socrates is told that he is the wisest man in Greece, he says that if he is it is due to the fact that he realizes that he alone knows nothing (Asimov). Perhaps the human condition is to persevere and evolve in the face of prominent uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteIn both the essay written by Hawking and Mlodinow and the essay written by Asimov, they dive into the human race's need for answers. People of math and science may dedicate their lives to single theories that will almost inevitably be disproved in the future, whether that specific future is near or far. I found it particularly interesting how in his essay, Asimov acknowledged his own ignorance and the power in understanding your own lack of knowledge. He does so within his first paragraph by saying, “I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone,” (Asimov 824). It’s naive of anyone to assume there are no more answers to be found and that everything they have learned and experienced is the only right answer, or the only reality for that matter. Hawking and Mlodinow brought up very interesting points on the concept of what reality and realism actually are, given we have only ever seen the world through our own eyes. The comparison to The Matrix started me on thinking how there ultimately is a possibility of some other, more real form of reality. Taking that analogy made by Hawking and Mlodinow into consideration and even thinking outside your own community, if media outlets and news reports didn’t exist to update us on global or even national events, our sense of reality would be skewed further to believing the world is how we personally see it. However, that isn’t the case. After understanding that, the information in both essays seems to become more thought-provoking. Suddenly, it’s human nature to be proven wrong as it’s not so much a setback, but a door to further improvement. Both essays helped reinforce the importance of knowledge, yes, but they also helped reinforce how important it is to understand the concept of the unknown.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the goldfish reference in question 2, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow use the very popular 1999 film, The Matrix, as a frame of reference to their theory of realism. The characters living in the computer-generated world believe that everything they perceive is reality, when actually, the aliens are distorting their view. What the aliens perceive is different from the characters, creating multiple realities based on perceptions. Using a movie as a reference helps Hawking and Mlodinow appeal to the general reader as they compare their theory to “today’s popular culture” (Hawking and Mlodinow 839). Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow help a non-scientist understand their argument when they state, “But if-like us-the beings in the simulated world could not gaze into their universe from the outside, they would have to doubt their own pictures of reality” (Hawking and Mlodinow 840). Using this, they argue that a human being cannot argue that there is one reality when they have only perceived one reality, their own, that they have only been able to see through their own eyes. To conclude, Hawking and Mlodinow express their argument to the general audience through the use of topics that non-scientists can understand thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteThe use of The Matrix as a relatable and easily understood reference in “The (Elusive) Theory of Everything” was a wise tactic by the writers to allow average people to better comprehend their theories. By using this popular film to relate complex ideas into less intricate analogies, the authors are able to approach a larger audience and better relay their message to the public.
ReplyDeleteIn the excerpt, the authors argue that in a controlled simulation society like The Matrix, a person would have no notion that a world existed outside his perceived and accepted reality. This is comparable to what the authors prevent by making their research more easily accessible through utilizing easily understood and popular analogies like the film. According to the authors’ argument, for someone that has not read and received their excerpt, it does not exist in his established reality. This is because his perspective has not included or been altered by the report and the knowledge to potentially be gained from it. By using simpler comparisons like The Matrix to explain their theories, the authors dispute the limitations preventing average readers from receiving this information, allowing them to reach more people, in order to better challenge the realities that their readers experience in their lives.
Stephen Hawkings and Leonard Mlodinow allows this essay to be reader by all reader when they use the goldfish. A goldfish is an object that is known all over the world and people understand that a goldfish needs to be kept in water to stay alive. When someone looks at an object in the pool, the object's location is shifted. Take a pole for example. If half of the pole is in the water and the other half is out, the pole will appear as if there is a bend in it. With water constantly moving, the goldfish view of the outside world is shifted every second. By using the goldfish as an example, people could easily visualize what the author was talking about. When talking about a complex physics theory, most likely only science nerds will understand what is being said. The Matrix and the goldfish are good examples that shows readers scientists can never be 100% sure what type of world we are living in. Technology is getting more advanced every year, which is then used to make new assumptions about the world.
ReplyDelete^ Haley Doss
Delete