Reflecting on Dr. Carroll's comments, it leaves me wondering if it may be subject to a self reference problem. At one level, he wants to model the universe, yet any model he builds will be a part of the universe it is designed to "match."
Does anyone else think this is a potential problem? Can a model that is a part of the universe really be an adequate explanation for the universe? Will any formal mathematical system Dr. Carroll builds be subject to incompleteness or an inconsistency such as self referential problems?
Hi James,
In fact, all scientific explanation suffer from self-reference problem, because it is itself part of the universe. That made Stephen Hawking wrote the article below:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html
In my opinion, the biggest problem in the whole Sean argument, is his positivism claim , when he says that we have to look for models that can explain and predict phenomenas, without worrying about the ontology of the concepts and entities used for it.
If the debate is about the existence of a creator to explain the origin of the universe and Sean says that we do not have the need to refer to an imaginary creator to explain the origin of the universe, because our models "can explain" it, then he can't support his claim in such models that uses imaginary entities and concepts to "explain" the origin of the universe. If he uses such kinf of models, than the discussion has to be about the existence of the imaginary entities of the models and the existence of a creator.
Craig did not realize that gap on Seans argument, which meant that, in a way, Sean limited the debate to a scope in which he possessed an advantage.
Any physical explanation for the origin of the universe will require some initial physical entity or/and law . What Sean does not realized yet, is that we seek explanations for the origin of these entities, these laws!
Bests,
Felipe
