Does nature have a point?

                                        Sabine Hossenfelder

Just watched another video of physicist Youtuber Sabine Hossenfelder (link below). Mostly when scientists start trying to think philosophically, they get into trouble. They just assume that the only valid philosophy is science, that the absolute standard of rationality is the scientific method. They then proceed to draw metaphysical conclusions in the name of science. Sabine Hossenfelder is more sophisticated than most and well worth taking seriously. 

   She starts out with a quote from her favorite physicist, Steven Weinberg (1933-2021): "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." She goes on the unpack the different senses of "having a purpose" or "having a point." Some are intentional: I am writing this to try to understand or make sense of things. If the universe had this kind of purpose, there would have to be a Creator or creators. There is the sense of purpose as function: white blood cells have to purpose to fight off harmful germs, the stomach has the purpose of digesting food. And then there is the outcome of a given system, what it tends to end up doing. Stars end up generating light. In that sense, Sabine then goes on to speculate about various ideas of what the purpose of the universe could be. 

    She understands that talk about meaning or purpose is, in Aristotelian terms, teleological (concerns final causes), which modern science cut out of being because it was outside of its method and interests. (Modern science also cut out the question of "What is x?" i.e. the question of essence or the formal cause.) So it seems Sabine was well-aware that she was not explaining science in this video but thinking philosophically about science. 

   After watching all the many speculative accounts of what the point of the universe could be, it seemed to me like nature was being conceived like an inkblot: we can project countless interpretations on it, and the interpretation that makes most sense to a person tells us only about about their soul (soul in an everyday, not a metaphysical sense), and almost nothing about the universe. Nothing in science itself informs interpretations. Rather a kind of dark shadow on the soul allows nihilistic interpretations to make sense to the nihilist; a soul that has space for hope, faith, and love may give rise to more hopeful interpretations. (Can we live without hope?) Of course, you can have more or less authentic interpretations across the board. I prefer an authentic nihilist to a sentimental life-affirmer. But some interpretations diminish our humanity, de-mean it. Many no doubt feel a perverse pleasure in debunking our human "pretensions." My science teacher in Junior High School obviously relished informing us that we were nothing but a few dollars worth of chemicals.

Given that no experiment could falsify any of these interpretations - interpreting the universe is philosophy, theology, or myth (religion is officially sanctioned myth) - I don't see how science has anything to say about it. As Wittgenstein wrote: "even if all the problems of science were solved, the problems of life would not be touched at all."

Or as Sabine put its:

"Sinn ist nichts, was man in der Physik suchen darf."

(Don't study physics believing you will find meaning.)

And that actually says it all.

Sabine Hossenfelder, What Could B
e the Purpose of the Universe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgTiMEfWkHE