Stephen Hawking, one of the most well-known and celebrated physicists of the 21st century, believed that the universe could be understood through a single, unifying framework, and that framework, he believed, was the lens of physics. His work, particularly popularized through his book A Brief History of Time, presents us with a cosmos that is governed by discernible physical laws (often formulated in mathematical terms). The advocacy for a unified theoretical framework to explain all phenomena, that is to say, all that takes place in reality, is not exclusively unique to Hawking’s work. As a matter of fact, it has been a longstanding pursuit in theoretical physics, what has been termed as the “theory of everything.” As Hawking writes:
The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe. However, the approach most scientists actually follow is to separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how the universe changes with time. (If we know what the universe is like at any one time, these physical laws tell us how it will look at any later time.) Second, there is the question of the initial state of the universe. Some people feel that science should be concerned with only the first part; they regard the question of the initial situation as a matter for metaphysics or religion.[1]
However, what Hawking would discover toward the end of his life was that reality could not be reduced to the physical. He was forced to face several philosophical challenges, most notably the implications of Gödel’s theorem. Was there a unifying framework from which we can understand reality? The answer to the question is yes, but the answer is not found in the reduction of reality to the arithmetical aspect, or the physical (physics) aspect, or any aspect for that matter. The Dutch philosopher and polymath Herman Dooyeweerd had developed a biblically guided and oriented philosophical framework through which we can understand reality, it was expressed and articulated in his modal scale, or the fifteen law-spheres. More on that later, but returning to Hawking, as far as we can understand, he had not caught whiff of Dooyeweerd’s Philosophy of the Law-Idea, and while he had the right idea in regards to a unifying framework from which to understand reality, he went in the wrong direction.
Hawking’s Physical Universe
Hawking’s early career was marked by groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of black holes and the boundaries of space-time, all deeply rooted in complex physical theorems. His belief in a “theory of everything” was fundamentally driven by the conviction that the universe operates on physical principles that humans can uncover and comprehend. This notion, while seemingly abstract, is grounded in the empirical successes of physics in explaining phenomena from the subatomic to the cosmological scales.
It could well be said that central to Hawking’s scientific philosophy was the search for a unified theory, a single framework capable of explaining every aspect of the universe. This ambition, mirrored in the works of other physicists, stems from the desire to reconcile the apparent contradictions between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Hawking’s approach to this problem was fundamentally physical, positing that a comprehensive theoretical model could be achieved through rigorous physical formalism.
The turning point in Hawking’s philosophical stance on physics and reality, however, came about as a result of his contemplation of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.[2] This theorem asserts that within any sufficiently complex system, there are propositions that, despite being true, cannot be proven within the system’s own axioms. This realization led Hawking to reconsider the potential of physics to offer a complete and self-contained description of the universe, acknowledging the inherent limitations of a unifying physical framework from which to understand reality.
The Modal Scale
As I had stated earlier, Hawking had the right idea, but he went in the wrong direction. We might say he went in the direction of the apostatic (apostasy), seeking to find the meaning of the universe in creation itself rather than in its Creator. Dooyeweerd recognized this heart dynamic of man: As long as man remained in his sin, he could not help but absolutize and thus idolatrize some aspect of creation. The fall of man into sin ensured this, and as he articulates in his magnum opus, the multi-volume set entitled A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, there is no intellectual arena (or life arena for that matter) where one could be religiously “neutral”. Hawking, like many bright men of our time, believed that the sciences, that “reason”, could be independent from God and His law, what Dooyeweerd referred to as the autonomy of reason, but man is a religious being, either oriented in worship of God or creation. Thus, there can be no such thing as non-religious theoretical thought, all theoretical thought is built upon religious presuppositions. Having discovered this, Dooyeweerd proceeded to claim that the only possible starting point for the development of a right and true understanding of reality must be Calvinistic.[3] As part of his development and articulation of a distinctly Christian philosophy, Dooyeweerd posited the modal scale. See image below.
Dooyeweerd’s modal scale posits that reality is composed of a series of distinct but interrelated aspects, each representing a fundamental type of law or norm. These aspects are not merely different categories of human experience or knowledge but are thought to reflect the intrinsic structure of the cosmos. Each aspect provides a unique perspective on entities and events, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of reality. There is not enough space here to exposit Dooyeweerd’s modality scale, so here are five key features of the modal aspects:
- Multiplicity of Aspects: Dooyeweerd identified fifteen modal aspects, ranging from the numerical and spatial to the ethical and pistic (faith-related). Each aspect is characterized by its own set of laws and norms that govern the entities and events that function within that aspect.
- Irreducibility: Each modal aspect is irreducible to the others, meaning that the laws governing one aspect cannot be fully explained by the laws of another aspect. For example, the biological laws of life cannot be fully reduced to or explained by the physical laws of matter and energy. The same holds for physical laws, which cannot be reduced to kinematics or these to geometric, or geometric to arithmetic.
- Coherence: Despite their irreducibility, the aspects are not isolated; they exhibit a coherent order and are interrelated. Each aspect presupposes the ones before it and provides the foundation for those that follow. This inter-aspect coherence ensures that reality is an interconnected whole rather than a collection of unrelated parts.
- Sphere Sovereignty: Dooyeweerd emphasized the concept of “sphere sovereignty”, which asserts that each aspect has its own inherent jurisdiction and sovereignty. This means that the norms and principles within one aspect cannot be arbitrarily imposed upon another aspect.
- Analogical Relationships: The aspects are related to each other through analogical relationships, where one aspect can have an ‘echo’ or a ‘reflection’ in another aspect. This concept helps explains how different aspects of reality can interact and influence each other.
Conclusion
Returning to Hawking’s attempt to reduce reality to the physical, Hawking’s legacy in theoretical physics is marked by his profound belief in the power of physics to unveil the secrets of the universe. According to scholar Adolfo Garcia de la Sienra, for Hawking, the physical laws were essentially divine, they were the Origin that gave existence to the universe. Yet, Hawking’s intellectual journey reflects a nuanced development, from an unwavering faith in a physical “theory of everything” to a recognition of the philosophical and practical limitations that prevent such a physical framework from even existing. As Hawkings stated, “Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.”[4] Hawking, whilst being an unbeliever, contributed significantly to the field of mathematics and physics, but his disbelief in the God of Scripture determined from the outset that his pursuit for a “theory of everything” was in vain. Dooyeweerd rightly understood that in order to understand the complexity of reality, one must have a right understanding of what reality is, that is, as the creation of God, and that such creation can only be rightly interpreted by God’s authoritative inscripturated revelation due to the corrupting influence of the fall into sin, and that upon such an understanding can a faithful, unifying philosophical framework be developed for understanding the meaning, structure, and function of reality. From a Dooyeweerdian standpoint, a purely physical or mathematical theory, like the one Hawking once pursued, could not possibly account for the full depth and diversity of reality. This was why the modal scales were developed, or one might say, discovered, as a philosophical framework that suggests that reality is inherently multi-aspectual, and that what unifies all these aspects is that these respective aspects are fundamentally law-spheres, and these laws are ultimately God’s expressed will for creation. It is from this vein of thought that Dooyeweerd’s philosophy draws the name “Philosophy of the Law-Idea.”
To put it simply, reality cannot be reduced to a singular aspect, as Hawking had attempted to do, and yet, men still try, because under the noetic effects of the fall, they cannot help but absolutize (and thus idolatrize) some aspect of God’s creation instead of turning to the One who created the heavens and the earth and in Whom all things hold together (Rom. 1:18-25; Col. 1:17).
[1] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History in Time (New York, NY.: Bantam Books, 1988), Loc. 240, Kindle edition.
[2] Alex Bellos, “Can you solve it? Gödel’s incompleteness theorem”, The Guardian. Accessed Feb. 5, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jan/10/can-you-solve-it-godels-incompleteness-theorem
[3] Dooyeweerd’s choice of a Calvinistic starting point was driven by his desire to build a comprehensive philosophical system that was deeply Christian, reflecting the sovereignty of God over all aspects of life and reality, while also addressing the complexities and diversities of the created order. See H. Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol. 1 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1953), 515.
[4] Stephen Hawking, “Gödel and the end of the universe”, Internet Archive: The Way Back Machine. Accessed Feb. 5, 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20200529232552/http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html