- #1

httpvalid

- 17

- 0

**I don ` t understand Hawking` s answer to "Why this particular set of laws?".**

I read the book

__the grand design__by Stephen Hawking. The book at the beginning say it attempts to answer three questions. The questions are:

1."Why is there something rather than nothing?"

2."Why do we exist?"

3."Why this particular set of laws and not some other?"

In the last chapter of the book, the answer to 1, and 2 is suggested from the quote:"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist". So, it seems the answer to 1, and 2 is "spontaneous creation". OK, i understand the answer to 1, and 2.

I don ` t understand Hawking` s answer to 3 which can be found in the last 2 page of the book.

In the last two page, Hawking suggest the ultimate theory must be:

4. consistent.

5. Finite results for any measurable quantities.

Hawking then suggest "M-theory" satisfy 4, but it is an open question that it satisfy 5. He say if some people can prove "M-theory" satisfy 5, then "M-theory" is the only logically possible theory. Two paragraph down, he said it would be nice to "confirm the theory by observation". The last remark( ie: Confirm the theory by observation) don` t make sense to me, because if Hawking is saying all anyone need is to prove 5 is true, then it "sufficient" to show "M-theory" is the only logically possible theory, then why is it necessary to seek confirmation from observation? To drive home my point with an analogy. If " 3+2=5" is logically necessary, then any causal observation that "3+2 is not 13" is automatically false. I don ` t "need" observation to confirm something that is logically necessary.

So, I hope people can explain to me Hawking subtle answer to 3, or "why these set of laws, and not others?". Thanks.