{Hawking [(1)][continued (5)]}[19th July 1988]

[Redbook5:214-215][19880719:0000e]{Hawking [(1)][continued (5)]}[19th July 1988]

(19880719. )

[continued]

Many of these theories* are arrived at by, or with the help of, mathematics, and validated by empirical observation. So what's going on? Well, mathematics at the level at which it is called in aid in modern physics seems to be largely a self-referring system with a multiplicity of choices available;** and experimental results tend to be accurate to a degree rather than 'exactly'. In the short history of modern Science, theories have been overturned with surprising frequency; and the process of modification is more-or-less continuous. And it is not only History that is written by the victors: many hypotheses that must have seemed perfectly sound to their supporters have vanished down the plug-hole of science history.***

*[See e.g. last four previous entries, from [Redbook5:210-216][19880719:0000]{Hawking}[19th July 1988]; and especially last previous entry?]

**[See e.g. [Redbook5:207][19880704:0000]{(Extract:) The Nature of Mathematics}[7th July 1988];

& cf [Redbook5:153][19880613:1440]{Four Dimensions}[13^th June 1988], 2^nd para.;

& [Redbook5:26-27][19880302:1842]{The Letter and the Spirit [continued (3)]}[2nd March 1988].]

***I have the impression, also, that particular theories or parts of a theory tend to be validated by particular observations more or less in isolation, so that they can be accepted, rejected or modified without normally affecting other parts of Science directly. In other walks of life, this might seem rather dubious: if I am continually altering parts of my theory (e.g. Science as a whole) to fit unexpected facts, some doubt must arise as to the overall inner consistency of my theory. Given that in a diverse Universe there is likely to be a plurality of ways of reconciling different phenomena, and given the degree of relative inaccuracy and non-repetition in contemporary experimental science (and the huge area of unexplained phenomena), it is at least arguable that modern science is simply a patchwork response to expanding phenomenal observation which runs a serious risk of drifting away from, rather than working towards, a valid representation of the actual causal structure of the Physical Universe. (This would also be a classic result of the Pride which has earlier**** been observed in Science: Hubris.)

[But it works – at least at a practical level. However, see [Redbook5:216][19880719:0000h]{Hawking [(1)][continued (8)]}[19th July 1988]<20180713>]

****[eg [Redbook5:194-196][19880701.0000]{Science and Stupidity}[1st July 1988], & especially 
[Redbook5:195-196][19880701.0000c]{Science and Stupidity [continued (3)]}[1st July 1988]]

[continues]

[PostBlogger02for03092018]