Hawkigs – Free Lunch?

– Law governed Universe

Determinator – Decide – by Laws of Nature – they never change

Laws of nature cannot be broken – Chapter 1 and 2

What role is there for God in the naturally Law governed universe?

Miracles? Not accepted.

God could not have freedom at all

Universe for free? Negative energy for free.

Dig somewhere else and heap it up from somewhere else

Perfectly balances out “Hill making imagery”

Theory of Relativity – from Newton breakthrough – everything is absolute – time, length, wave particle
nature of electrons – uncertainty – cant determine particle or wave – position and momentum of a
particle.

Fast moving objects – Macro. Quantum – Micro Particles

Eg: Iron Dome – very few rockets hit the target

Predictability becomes probability

Quantum Tunnelling – electrons put in a chamber – randomly – escaping of the barrier is also possible

Wave mode ends and particle mode appears – every electron field is closely linked

From Zero to expansion –

Zero size universe – finite size universe

Do we need a God to set up the big bang – no – Science has a more humbling explanation than a divine
creed.

Cause and Effect – anything to exist there must be a cause – anything can spontaneously appear

No God Cosmos – Black hole – infinitely dense and small condensation of energy – nothing comes out.
– time cannot exist – time ceases – there is no time for a creator to have existed in

Non sensical Q – God created the universe.... earth is a sphere that does not have an edge – so it is a
futile exercise – no time before the big bang for anything to exist

Free Lunch – created out of nothing

Summary – Is our universe a Free Lunch? Do we need a God?

Yes – ultimately – scientific laws are sole determinate – hill imagery – positive and –ve energy heads up
to zero – mud is used to make a hill - -ve is popped into the +ve version of the universe.

Quantum Tunnelling – electrons can spontaneously appear –zero size universe pops into existence –
laws of nature explains everything – black hole is infinitely dense – time does not exist in it – all time
started after the big bang – before that there was no time – God is unnecessary – Universe is a free
lunch!

Chapter 1,2,5 + Article

IBE? Inference to the Best Explanations

Reality is nothing but mathematical laws

What is really real? Sets? Universal? Ultimately mathematical structures and sets. Patterns and
harmonies in nature? – is our mind imposing this pattern? – factionalist explanation?

Atomic world? Electrons and protons... atoms exist. Misons, quarks. Can we say the same about math?

Eg: Honeycomb – hexagon – 6 sides – math entity – why bees are using it? Minimum amt of wax and
max honey can be stored. Do hexagons really exist? Whatever objects it evokes in Math – should exist ...

Generality and Simplicity…

Equations – E= mc2 , F=ma etc. we are making sense of them discovering them and giving the most
intelligible explanation to it.

Ontological commitment – Bbang – true – indispensability argument – mathematical Platonism

If math can genuinely explain anything then they need to be true. Pincock – Platonic – forms – make
sense. – Must exist.

Mark Colyvan 2001 – p.11 – ontological commitment – indispensible – best scientific explanation

Hilary Putnam – deny our daily presuppositions – it is intellectual dishonesty – (1979, p.347)

Nominalism – individual things exist – not universals – general ideas are mere names without identities –
William of Occam

Quine – steady state and BBang theory – evidence of the latter – SS – Flat universe – stable and steady.
Uni – expand – Hubble evidence

Bolide (Comet or Asteroid) – extinction? Hit – kill the Dinos. Indispensability argument. – best
explanation possible.
Mary Leng? Sherlock Holmes - Super intelligent – impatient – cant be affectionate – link in character
traits – connection –

E=mc2 is needed but in reality they don’t really exist. Can be true even if they are literally false – falsity is
no barrier to the explanatory power – fictional interpretations – there may not be anything real –

backing it up... Honeycomb eg – math does do explanatory work – pick and explain – based on theories
– they ought to be true – they should have bodies of truths existing in them.

Theory and Truth

Does not require mathematical objects as true… Reality is concrete

Explanation is not the mirror of objects – phenomenon is explained through mathematics.

Assertion – collection of arguments – exist – explain entities, answer them through scientific theories,
nominalist – reject – IBE – be it based on the explanatory power of the inference –

1. Background rad – BBT

2. Extinction of Dinos – Boloid theory
3. Structure of Honeycomb – 2D structure – virtue – of generality and simplicity – 6 legs and 6 sides
– math – more store of honey – pre suppose that they really exist

Math explanation requires Mathematical truth.

Truths of math are objective, cant be doubted. Real in the platonic sense.

Mary Leng – collection of arguments

Easy road nominalism – math entities do not exist in the real world – strict nominalism – better
explanation possible than math itself.

Fictional theory – theories are not entities

Math realities don’t exist outside of physical objects

Maths can be true even if real objects are not there in the outer world

There are metaphysical realities.

Indispensability is rejected. Disagree. Factionalist approach to Math – assumption – math theories –

opposition is true – even if they are false, they can explain something

Cant deny.

Know of metaphysics help in better und of science – reject.

Method proposed – IBE. BBT – background Rad. Bolloid – Dinos.

Conclusion – platonic math entities – explanatory virtues

Problem – shift – from original claims – IBE

Fiction and Traits – read fiction to know the link between the traits and the means

Intrinsic nature of objects – no means to justify claims / capacity to support some claims over the course
of explanation we have

Disagreement –

Theories need to be true if u r using it

Ontological commitment of scientific theory

Truth – required for quantification

Evolutions – signify – not Platonist assumptions

Discover structures which are not in concrete forms – they are not matter

If there is no matter then from where do we discover this form?

Platonistic – idealist v/s phenomenon – remove – cant have metaphysical aspects denied. Cant go only
with the second position alone.

Issue 3: Brains Floating all over...

Consciousness

Boltzmann Brains outnumber the actual number of brains in the whole universe

Descartes Dream Analysis

No way out. All philosophy issues are coming back due to modern science.

Video 1

3 conditions:

Time must be in infinity – Long – unmeasurable

Law of entropy

Thermal equilibrium – Temperature

Where vacuum fluctuations happen

Properties of the human brain – have the same particle – same memory and possibility possible too –
same consciousness
Video 2

Bizzare consequences of Physics – experiencing delusion – r u a Boltzmann Brain – config of matter –

Thermo equi – grand structure like our uni.

BBT – Low entropy state. Extremely org state} – afterglow of the Big Bang

Fluctuation out of Chaos – boring and dark universe – statistical fluctuation – that gave birth to the Uni.

Is this possibility reasonable? Or a Cognitive disorder – not high!!! Descartes – everyone is in a dream

Fully formed brains – random combo of atoms – quantum fluctuations – disembodied – intrinsic

Conscious experiences – may have come few seconds ago

Theoretical thought experiment – in quantum cosmology

Sheer chance – can have any imaginary form – his own reason

Entropy – measure of the unavailable energy – entropy is increasing

No corporal existence – individual brain – not a collective universal consciousness

Infinite time – Quantum fluctuations – atoms can combine and form BB

We are ordinary observers! We are not Boltsmans – no cosmological models to explain that.

Sean Carroll – I am not a BB – it is all rubbish – Why? Set in a subset – get into a cycle – cognitively
unstable – evidence itself is unrealiable – u were formed just few minutes ago. There wasn’t any1 else

1. We have coherent systematic und of universe – it is systematically available – a BB does not have
access to this sphere – who is a randomly fluctuated senario.
2. There is no continued existence of a BB – no memories – if we are BB – certainly false.
3. Laws of physics – uni – laws of nature etc cant be trusted – don’t make sense.
4. Cannot trust the knowledge to be accurate – memories etc no...
5. This cosmological model is cognitively unstable.
6. Self undermining – self destructive – u cant say that u are a BB – in a randomly fluctuating universe –
and accept ur own reasoning – no good reason for concluding that
7. If the universe is dominated by Boltzmann fluctuations – then we cant trust anything we think we
know.
8. Assign a very low credence to it and move on with our lives
9. After heat death of the Universe? Cat Alive or Dead – it can simultaneously exist. Cant be both at the
same time.... higher chance for BB.

Matthew Kotzen – not enough on its own to make its own theory! Possibility is still there.
1. We don’t have empirical evidence – they are cognitively unstable – self destructing
2. It is not enough on its own to rule out a theory in absence if any positive evidence.
3. They are metaphysically and physically possible – scientific too
4. Deep Q’s? Are there compelling reasons that i am not a BB? Is it rationally compelling for me to
believe it?
5. Cosmology – infinite – past future ...say that i am a BB – can i reject it?
6. Alone not enough to rule out the hypothesis “Cognitive instability

1. Dreaming hypothesis and ordinary experience have cognitive instability to some extent too
2. If I am dreaming right now all evidence is dream evidence like fluctuating evidence, it fails to be
an accurate activity
3. Matrix – super computer – electrical stimulations – also cognitive instability
4. E1 if u can’t ascribe evidence and give very low credence – rather – no rational evidence – it
would be middling credence – at least a possibility
5. Case: Hypoxia – O2 will be low – body and brain deprived of it... eg: high altitudes – planes –
wrong judgements – due to hypoxi theories – unaware – behave normally – problematic – no
way to find it out – undetectable -
6. Boltsmann brains can hide it out
7. Low entropy – Quantum fluctuations – universe comes into existence
8. BBrain can come into existence in the same way
9. Past Hypothesis – BBang – Low entropy situations
10. It is a Latter hypothesis – BBrains – is also possible
11. It can hide itself from rational discovery

7. Possible – cant be rejected.....

8. Religious cosmologies will not accept the BBrains – verification is not possible...
9. Those which are foundational cosmologies – empiricists

Are the Sexes Natural Kinds?

Are they biological? Sex and Gender – Biological v/s Social

Classification – M/F Taxonomy.. .ways of classification – based on similarity – philosophical problem –

subjective – no strict criteria – general – similarity can be problematic

Carnivor / Herbivor – oviparous v/s viviparous

Shared properties? – But what do we count as properties? Further classification: eg: non green, v/s
green or blue, convulated properties – before 2100.

HB – think, feel, act...

Classification as natural v/s artificial

Do they really correspond to the thing in itself...?

Gender distinction – on the Ontological level - ?

Essential, intrinsic properties needed to classify...

Precondition for reproduction – makes the distinction – genital distinction – physical

Metaphysical distinctions may not be too many.

Change of sex is artificial

Imposed by nature? Imposed on nature by Humans?

Md Ali Khalidi – affirmative - natural

Distinction among 2 types of Org, activity or process of reproduction – Sex organs – Female – Penis,
male – Vagina – Hyena – females – long clitoris

Asexual Reproduction – bacteria, plants, species of animals Sexual – Genetic mixing

Natural rather than artificial – in Whewell’s terms – gamates sizes – males more attractive than the
females

Laura Franklin Hall – uncertain – categories

Categories are imposed

Traits can vary tremendously – character can vary

Little or no explanatory power

Perhaps nothing is there in common for male and female except the size of gaymates

In ontological and metaphysical sense the presuppositions are not often times true

Consciousness

Awareness, experience of our sense perceptions, thoughts and feelings, differs according to persons,
oneself and others

Development of modern science

Consciousness is easy to recognize but difficult to define

Ego-mind-thought???
Awareness – perceive the relationship between oneself and the surroundings – distinctions – conscious
individual things that have experiences – of inner life – a point of view

Evolution of Consciousness

Specific pieces of matter got arranged specifically that lead to the occurrence of consciousness

Radical change in the composition of the brain leading to the emergence of consciousness

Consciousness is ontologically different or emergent from the Physical? Dual – Physicalist (Materialistic)
– Ontological

Change – intrinsically new to a person???

Martine Nida Rumelin – matter arranged itself in a particular way – fundamental break in what was
before – i.e. merely physical

Claim 1: A new individual emerges – M gets a new body –

a. Not identical to the system – completely different – special ontological category

Claim 2: Subject cannot have consciousness properties unless one has physical properties –
nomologically impossible – not that mind is different from the BODY

a. Mental events need a physical basis – substance dualism

b. Subject of experience is not composed of matter
a. It is capable of having consciousness properties
b. Special ontological status of its identity across time
i. 10 yrs later person is not the same – physical – etc
ii. Stream of consciousness is what makes u ... really u.
c. Emergentist dualism – never is “Peter is hidden” in his body
a. Emerge
b. Cannot reduce to its parts
c. Irreducible to other properties or relations

Claim 3: Third Claim

Uniqueness

Every consciousness is related one to the other – it is united as one?

U pay attention to the piece of music – it is an activity – it is caused by me – all human experiences are
conscious activities – directed by individual.

Subject causation – agent causation – unique to Human consciousness – brain activity can be influenced
by a mental event – point of time – addicts decide and do something different – supervenience.
There is no extremely powerful counter evidence to it – intention – Teach – explanatory gap – it is a
puzzle – how can a physical system have a subjective consciousness – Specific Explanatory GAP Thesis –
your consciousness is more than merely what u are made up of.

David Braddon Mitchell -

Position of Rumilin is absurd – if u bring immateriality – we are becoming incoherent

Dualism v/s physicalism – reconciliation – ontological emergenalists – but it is incoherent

David – opposes it.

a. Physical base
b. Does not... but is novel and nomologically connected

Incoherent and unstable

a. Do not explain causal relation between base and what emerges

a. On the one hand dual, it is physically distinct
b. Epiphenomenalism – beyond what is happening in the brain – it is a physical thing
c. Dualist position is unattractive – eg: Pain – neurons are damaged?
d. Related to particular cells in the brain? – can be explained.
e. Dualism is problematic
f. Consciousness is emergent from the physical
g. U cannot have your cake and eat it.