|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 15, 2018 9:42:58 GMT 1
Dead I wonder if he has found the mind of God? A great scientist according to those that understand these things Read his book; to me it was bollocks with illustrative squiggles that explained nada All I recall was the nonsense about knowing the mind of God That struck me as arrogant bollocks,and what on earth did it have to do with science, unless science is the search for God That would be interesting But he was an atheist, the ultimate arrogance How can you discover the mind of something that does not exist? Doesn't sound like lucid reasoning to me But who am I to argue with someone seeking the mind of summat that does not exist
RIP Mr Hawking, but that very phrase implies that there is something after death, so I will just say farewell. Hope you meet your match and he gives you a piece of his mind
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 18, 2018 19:32:43 GMT 1
Dead I wonder if he has found the mind of God? A great scientist according to those that understand these things Read his book; to me it was bollocks with illustrative squiggles that explained nada All I recall was the nonsense about knowing the mind of God That struck me as arrogant bollocks,and what on earth did it have to do with science, unless science is the search for God That would be interesting But he was an atheist, the ultimate arrogance How can you discover the mind of something that does not exist? Doesn't sound like lucid reasoning to me But who am I to argue with someone seeking the mind of summat that does not exist RIP Mr Hawking, but that very phrase implies that there is something after death, so I will just say farewell. Hope you meet your match and he gives you a piece of his mind His whole argument - the one supposedly showing the universe could create itself, I presume you mean - was a very basic schoolboy error in logic, as has been pointed out by several philosophers beyond any dispute. You wouldn't ask a plumber to remove your brain tumour. A simple question of areas of competence.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 19, 2018 8:23:07 GMT 1
I don't know where Stephen Hawking said "the universe created itself". Logically, if it is stated that everything must have been created/caused by something, then theorising a God as the prime mover doesn't solve the problem, because it then has to be asked "What created/caused God?".
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 19, 2018 8:50:10 GMT 1
I don't know where Stephen Hawking said "the universe created itself". In his last book - and the one before that, and in countless interviews since. No, that's not the logical error he made. That's nothing to do with logic, actually - that's a statement, factual or not. Not the problem or theory he was addressing. It doesn't actually - that's a logical error all of your own. God has always been held to be sui generis, since the Talmudic commentaries at least - effectively, for ever. That is - it's in a class of its own, it's unique, not a thing included in your class of "everything" else. Your syllogism is therefore invalid. But, as I said, this wasn't Hawking's argument at all. Hawking argued that matter - your "everything" - could create itself, given that random fluctuations in the zero-point quantum field must occasionally spontaneously achieve the energy required to produce a pair of particles, one of which will radiate outwards. Therefore, he reasoned, there is no need to postulate any "cause" - eventually, the universe will create itself.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 19, 2018 10:16:13 GMT 1
Yes, you are quite correct. He said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
He doesn't tell us where the law of gravity came from.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 19, 2018 13:49:19 GMT 1
As with all scientific laws, it didn't "come from" anywhere. It's an observation of a universal truth.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 19, 2018 14:06:15 GMT 1
As with all scientific laws, it didn't "come from" anywhere. It's an observation of a universal truth. In the Universe we observe that there is this law of gravity. Hawking seems to be saying that, because there was this law of gravity, the Universe could create itself (!). How come there is a law of gravity, how did it arise with the particular strength that it does have? I thought that they had decided that gravity is a distortion in space-time, by a mass. If you don't have a Universe you presumably don't have space or time or mass.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 19, 2018 14:20:52 GMT 1
Yes, you are quite correct. I know - I read the bloody things. Terrible writer, and an incompetent thinker. I accept the general assessment that he's a good mathematician - I wouldn;t be able to judge either way, but like most pure mathematicians he's totally lost when it comes to reasoning about reality. Yes, there's the schoolboy error. Ah - but he does! Rather, he accepts Einstein's description of its geometrical source in the tensor equations of GR. Now, that's a universal field, with gravity arising from its intrinsic tensile strength, rather like the surface tension of a soap bubble, whether it's empty of matter or not. It most definitely is not "nothing", and it most definitely is not spontaneously self-generating. It exists, before matter, and therefore before space-time.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 19, 2018 14:31:07 GMT 1
As with all scientific laws, it didn't "come from" anywhere. It's an observation of a universal truth. In the Universe we observe that there is this law of gravity. Hawking seems to be saying that, because there was this law of gravity, the Universe could create itself (!). How come there is a law of gravity, how did it arise with the particular strength that it does have? Voila. Gravitational attraction between masses is - not the gravitational field itself. That exists whether there's mass or not. It's the field gravity waves propagate through. Now, according to the GR equations, describing the properties of this field - as I say, geometrically very much like a soap bubble, albeit a hyperdimensional one - it's indeterminable whether its shape and its overall intrinsic strength is a function of the amount of mass it "contains" or vice versa (mathematically there's no difference - a linguistic confusion that probably enabled Hawking to make this apparently juvenile error without noticing. (Hard to believe, I know; but I've talked to half a dozen pure mathematicians about this very question, and I can assure you they're all rather perplexed by the suggestion that there's this difference between meanings of the term "function".)
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 19, 2018 15:28:58 GMT 1
Now, getting back to Nay's very interesting and provocative and astute OP. And leaving aside the rather jejune question about whether the universe needs a "Creator", and whether that can be identified with "God" (I know Nay doesn't like this observation, but to me it seems self-evident - what does it matter whether God "created" the universe or not? That's surely the least interesting question one can ask about "it".)
It seems quite obvious to me that this pre-existent - for all intents and purposes eternally existing - universal field, which gives rise to "everything" in the evolutionary law-governed manner scientific investigation and our conceptual creative imagination has revealed to us, is identical to what we struggle to discover as "God". Or, to be more precise, what seekers after this truth have always referred to us "the Godhead", to differentiate it from any of its personal, individuated aspect. If you're familiar with the writings of such seekers - Buddhist, Hindu, or the Christian mystics - not to mention the countless psychological accounts of experiential perceptions of more ordinary "believers" - it's undeniably striking how they're talking about the same thing, frequently using almost identical language. And this concordance follows through further, into its personal aspect - both in advanced physics and mystic study. As well it should.
All the eivdence compels the conclusion that Hawking (and others like Dawkins and Harris and Dennett who glibly appeal to modern science as a refutation of the existence of God) got it the wrong way around. Modern discoveries in Physics make it overwhelmingly probable that what people have always strived to discover about the ultimate nature of reality in their descriptions of this universal, personal, all-pervasive, ever-present, and above all totally conscious Being is in fact - in empirical, scientific fact - at its foundation the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 19, 2018 18:59:48 GMT 1
Now, getting back to Nay's very interesting and provocative and astute OP. And leaving aside the rather jejune question about whether the universe needs a "Creator", and whether that can be identified with "God" (I know Nay doesn't like this observation, but to me it seems self-evident - what does it matter whether God "created" the universe or not? That's surely the least interesting question one can ask about "it".) It seems quite obvious to me that this pre-existent - for all intents and purposes eternally existing - universal field, which gives rise to "everything" in the evolutionary law-governed manner scientific investigation and our conceptual creative imagination has revealed to us, is identical to what we struggle to discover as "God". Or, to be more precise, what seekers after this truth have always referred to us "the Godhead", to differentiate it from any of its personal, individuated aspect. If you're familiar with the writings of such seekers - Buddhist, Hindu, or the Christian mystics - not to mention the countless psychological accounts of experiential perceptions of more ordinary "believers" - it's undeniably striking how they're talking about the same thing, frequently using almost identical language. And this concordance follows through further, into its personal aspect - both in advanced physics and mystic study. As well it should. All the eivdence compels the conclusion that Hawking (and others like Dawkins and Harris and Dennett who glibly appeal to modern science as a refutation of the existence of God) got it the wrong way around. Modern discoveries in Physics make it overwhelmingly probable that what people have always strived to discover about the ultimate nature of reality in their descriptions of this universal, personal, all-pervasive, ever-present, and above all totally conscious Being is in fact - in empirical, scientific fact - at its foundation the truth. Nick Your tsunami of eloquence washes innocently, harmlessly, charmingly even, around my feet, and then I find myself inexorably, powerlessly lifted bodily by the flow, gasping for air, flailing in wonderment at what is happening to me, praying that I might find an anchor rock, an island of peace, that I might sit quietly, safely, and ponder what has happened to me, can I grasp the meaning of this phenomenon of nature?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Mar 20, 2018 0:38:33 GMT 1
Lady Chatterley, all over again, I warrant.
Or was it what's 'ername?
Or just love? Overwhelming love?
What, on this board?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 21, 2018 0:09:44 GMT 1
In the Universe we observe that there is this law of gravity. Not quite. We observe a consistent-ish behaviour of mesoscopic objects which we can describe by a single equation that holds for most practical purposes to such a degree of accuracy and predictability that, for reasons of history and in the absence of a better word, we call it a law. Then we find exceptions at the microscopic and macroscopic levels: atoms don't collapse under self-gravitation and rotating galaxies don't disintegrate, but neutron stars and black holes seem to behave like classical "billiard ball" physics. Faced with a universe that doesn't quite obey the laws we thought we had imposed on it, those with the intellectual strength and honesty to be scientists say "that's interesting" whilst the feebleminded say "god moves in a mysterious way".
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 21, 2018 8:50:54 GMT 1
those with the intellectual strength and honesty to be scientists say "that's interesting" whilst the feebleminded say "god moves in a mysterious way". Newton, Maxwell,Faraday, Hertz and many other renowned sientists are among your 'feeble minded'. Your arrogance is astounding
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 21, 2018 10:18:31 GMT 1
In the Universe we observe that there is this law of gravity. Not quite. We observe a consistent-ish behaviour of mesoscopic objects which we can describe by a single equation that holds for most practical purposes to such a degree of accuracy and predictability that, for reasons of history and in the absence of a better word, we call it a law. Then we find exceptions at the microscopic and macroscopic levels: atoms don't collapse under self-gravitation and rotating galaxies don't disintegrate, but neutron stars and black holes seem to behave like classical "billiard ball" physics. Faced with a universe that doesn't quite obey the laws we thought we had imposed on it, those with the intellectual strength and honesty to be scientists say "that's interesting" whilst the feebleminded say "god moves in a mysterious way". Can you understand/explain what Hawking meant when he said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"?
|
|