How Have Physics and Cosmology Been Used to Answer Questions of Meaning?

The Philosophy of Cosmology:

How have physics and cosmology been used to answer questions of meaning?

Trey Walk

Trey Walk

Professor Hubert Bray

Mathematics of the Universe

15 February 2016

The Philosophy of Cosmology

Since the inception of society, mankind has sought to understand its world and universe and ultimately use these understandings to answer deeper questions of meaning. In particular, physics and mathematics have been used to model and explain the universe in which we live. These fields are useful in answering larger questions of meaning because with each new mathematic theory to explain the universe, comes questions about the application of this knowledge. A new field of science has emerged in recent years which specifically studies this application, called the Philosophy of Cosmology.

Early history:

Mankind is perpetually curious about the world and the cosmos and has always been this way. We seek to notice patterns and irregularities in order to better explain our surroundings. This curiosity has led to the continual evolution of scientific ideas. While this is true of all societies, the Greeks are largely known for their early ideas.

In the early world, Pythagoras studied numbers and introduced ideology that would later be recognized as the atom (O’Connor). Epicurus proposed that matter was composed of atoms and different substances resulted from combinations of these atoms (Konstan). These ideas were precursors to later science but they are worth noting because they represent the common bridge between math and philosophy. Early philosophers such as Pythagoras and Epicurus used mathematics not only as a way to describe the physical world but also as a possible method of explanation. However, if anyone is known for the intersection between the sciences and philosophy it is Aristotle.

Aristotle was later known for attempting to explain the universe through his theory about elements. He believed that there were four elements-hot, cold, moist, and dry- that manifested themselves in the form of fire, earth, water, and air (Bodnar). He believed that each elements place was determined by its weight. Earth, being the heaviest, is at the center. Water above the earth, air above water, and fire above air (Bodnar). He also believed that further bodies from earth were more perfect. The moons imperfections could be observed in the craters while the stars were the most perfect and contained an additional element he named quintessence- it does not have any weight. Aristotelian theory also suggested that there had to be a “mover” for any moving mass and that there was a “prime mover” which began the initial movement of the stars(Freeland 392-407). His ideas pointed to a deity and Aristotelian physics was incorporated into the worldview of the early church as a way to point to a God and the meaning this implies (“The Development of the Greek Conception of Nature”).

Other Greek scientific ideas included the idea of a concentric heavenly sphere. In order to explain the motion of the stars and planets, they suggested a sphere that was the “heavens” which was concentric and rotated the earth at nearly a constant rate to that of earth. This was described by Eudoxus of Cnidus who was one of the first Greeks to use quantitative observation to develop a mathematical description. He created a system of spheres to model the movements of the planets. Each sphere carried a planet, with each sphere centered on earth and the axis of rotation fixed within a larger sphere that would be the “heavens” (Mendell). The ideas of the Greeks and Romans and other early philosophers were held as the truth for this time period and into the Dark ages. It would not be until the Renaissance when scientific growth of comparable magnitude would be achieved.

Renaissance growth:

From 1300-1700, the Renaissance facilitated many important scientific ideas, some of which still form the basis for how we view the world today. Copernicus was one of the first to propose a heliocentric model of the universe. This contradicted Aristotle’s teaching and also challenged the teachings of the Church. This assertion meant that the heavens were not beyond the sphere of stars and this challenged the very existence of God. His idea was so controversial that Copernicus agreed not to have the theory published until his deathbed to avoid the backlash he would receive from his revolutionary claim (Copernicus, Nicolaus, Wallis).

One of the defining figures of the Renaissance was Galileo Galilei. He combatted the idea that mathematics and science should be combined with philosophy. He argued that the role of the scientist was merely to describe things that happen in nature and it is not the responsibility of the scientist to explain why. For example, he once asked a colleague why objects fall. The colleague replied “because gravity makes them fall”, Galileo replied that the colleague has not explained anything but has merely named an effect. The scientist, according to Galileo, does not have to wonder why an effect occurs. It is the job of the scientist to recognize its occurrence and subsequently accurately describe it (Helden).

Beyond Galileo’s many influential ideas on the discipline of science, he is well known for his conflict with the Catholic church over Copernicus’ explanation of the solar system. Galileo invented a version of the telescope with which he observed that Jupiter had moons, Venus had phases similar to the Earth’s moon, and the moon’s ridges were similar in physicality to the Earth. These ideas further confirmed a heliocentric universe. This caused great controversy within the Church, which for a long time had a monopoly on “Truth” and addressing larger questions of meaning. With the advancement of science and mathematics, meaning could be extracted from empirical conclusions rather than being based solely in the claims of the Church (Helden).

Newtonian physics:

Sir Isaac Newton is one of the most important figure in the development of mechanics. His laws of motion are the base on which all mechanics were formed prior to the 20th century.

The first law is that every object in a state of uniform motion remains in that state of motion unless an external force is applied (Iliffe). The second law (F=ma) is that the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. The third law is that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Much of the physics of the following century was applying Newtonian physics to various phenomena (Newton).

Newton’s possibly largest achievement however was his piece Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (the Principia) in 1687. Here, he suggested that the entire universe obeyed the same laws of nature. He showed through physics that the mechanics that govern how bodies fall on earth also explained the periodic motion of the planets. He assumed that, “two masses attracted to one another with a force inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them” explained these phenomena (Iliffe). These discoveries by Newton completely changed the nature of mathematics and physics over the next century and while they were rooted in science, because Newton also wrote extensively on theology, his science can be assumed to have implications of meaning (Newton).

Einstein and relativity:

Until this day, we have not seen a scientist with revolutionary theories about how we think about the universe that has paralleled the innovation and brilliance of Albert Einstein. He introduced two new theories- special relativity and general relativity. Also, during this time period the field of quantum mechanics was birthed.
Einstein’s theory of special relativity posited that “all physical phenomena must obey the same equations for people moving at different constant velocities” and that “the speed measured for light does not depend on the speed of the observer” (French). This was revolutionary because it implied that space and time can be measured the same way and that they depended on the speed of the observer. This conflicted with theories of absolute time and space which had existed for centuries. His theory also showed that the measured mass of an object depends on its velocity and that mass could be converted into energy (E=mc^2). This postulate would later be used for the atomic bomb and to study nuclear weapons.

General relativity was Einstein’s theory in which he proved that bodies are accelerating rather than moving at a constant velocity. He believed that gravitation was a curvature of spacetime in proximity to the mass. His theory was that “matter curves spacetime” and this explains the effects of gravitation (Adler). This theory has been studied since its inception and has led to questions being asked about the implications of relative time and what this means for our existence. Einstein himself believed that there was some larger meaning in his theories. He is quoted as saying that “God does not play dice with the universe” and some believe this is why Einstein could not accept the randomness of quantum field theory (Norton).

Philosophy of Cosmology:

After reviewing the history and evolution of the combination of science and meaning, there is now room to look at contemporary perspectives on the two fields. There is a rising interest in philosophical circles and scientific circles about the “philosophy of cosmology”. This field is highly interdisciplinary in nature and combines the disciplines of mathematics, physics, philosophy, and computer science. The institutes that are known for being the leaders in this emerging field are Oxford, Cambridge, Columbia, Yale, UC Santa Barbara, and Rutgers. The field is primarily, “directed to the conceptual foundations of cosmology and the philosophical contemplation of the universe as a totality.” The research is a combination of fundamental theories of physics that have been previously discussed- quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, special and general relativity. In addition to several philosophy fields including the philosophies of science, of mathematics, and epistemology (“Philosophy of Cosmology”).

Because the field is new, the central questions have yet to be clearly defined. This will be important for the field moving forward as a way to prove its legitimacy and rigor. Here are some of the top questions that the field could seek to ask. “In what sense, if any, is the universe fine-tuned? How is the arrow of time related to the special state of the early universe? What is the proper role of the anthropic principle? What part should unobservable realms play in cosmological models? What is the quantum state of the universe and how did it evolve? Are space and time emergent or fundamental? What is the role of infinity in cosmology? Can the universe have a beginning, or can it be eternal? How do physical laws and causality apply to the universe as a whole? How do complex structures and order come into existence and evolve?” These questions are being posited by the researchers as a way to give direction to this new field (Carroll).

One concept that is particularly interesting in regards to applying science to meaning is the concept of a fine-tuned universe and the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is an attempt to explain our ability to be observers in a life-supporting universe. It in some way suggests that our observation of this universe in inevitable based on several axioms. One of the first assumptions is the existence of a life-permitting universe. This means a “material spatiotemporal reality that can support embodied moral agents, not merely life of some sort.” The concept of a fine-tuned universe is based in two axioms. The first is that, “the laws and values of the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of any universe with the same laws as our universe, must be set in a seemingly very precise way for the universe to support life”. The second is that, “such a universe exists, or when the background information includes that there is only one universe, the claim that this universe is life-permitting.” Other things that are discussed by the principle include the fine tuning of a constant C of physics, a constant C with a life-permitting value, and the inclusion of a multiverse hypothesis. The anthropic principle concludes that humans are the observers of a universe that sustains life and therefore will be observed by these moral observers. While this is a single theory, it has implications of attempting to ask larger questions about why humans exist (Craig).

Conclusion:

The intersection between physics and philosophy is one that is deserving of exploration. While Galileo believed that science should only be used as an observational and descriptive field, there is much to be gained by considering the implications of scientific research. What do the findings tell us about existence? What do our observations suggest about the beginning or ends of the universe as we know it? Is there any meaning to be found in the universe we are observing? These questions, and more, can be answered if we continue to expand the study of the philosophy of cosmology and seriously investigate how to make this field more rigorous and accurate in describing phenomena with a conscious understanding of the implications of the findings. While humans have always used science as a tool for understanding beyond immediate, the philosophy of cosmology allows us to have a focused study of the intersection between these two seemingly different fields. This could lead to better, more focused science, and ultimately more fulfilled lives.

Works Cited

Adler, Ronald, Maurice Bazin, and MenahemSchiffer. Introduction to General Relativity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Print.

Bodnar, Istvan. "Aristotle's Natural Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 26 May 2006. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Carroll, Sean. "Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology." Sean Carroll, 03 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Copernicus, Nicolaus, and Charles Glenn Wallis. On the Revolution of Heavenly Spheres. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1995. Print.

Craig, William Lane., and James Porter Moreland. "Fine-tuning of the Universe." The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. N. pag. Print.

"The Development of the Greek Conception of Nature." The Development of the Greek Conception of Nature. West Michigan University, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Freeland, Cynthia A., 1987, “Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality,” in Allan Gotthelf and James Lennox (eds.), Philosophical issues in Aristotle's biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 392–407

French, A. P. Special Relativity. New York: Norton, 1968. Print.

Helden, Al Van. "Science." The Galileo Project. Rice University, 1995. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Iliffe, Rob. "The Newton Project." The Newton Project. University of Sussex, 2016. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Konstan, David. "Epicurus." Stanford University. Stanford University, 10 Jan. 2005. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Mendell, Henry. "Eudoxus Homocentric Spheres." Eudoxus Homocentric Spheres. California State University- Los Angeles, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Newton, Isaac, I. Bernard Cohen, and Anne Miller Whitman. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Berkeley: U of California, 1999. Print.

Norton, John D. "Einstein on the Completeness of Quantum Theory." Completeness of Quantum Theory. University of Pittsburgh, Jan. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

O' Connor, J. J., and E. F. Robertson. "Pythagoras of Samos." University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Jan. 1999. Web.

"Philosophy of Cosmology." Philosophy of Cosmology. Oxford University, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2016. <