GOD IS DEAD

quote:

---

Cavediver writes:
I'm assuming you are going to demonstrate that the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal is impossible? Are you confident that such a proof applies outside of a mini-Superspace argument, or are you using a full non-perturbative approach?

---

While 'two apes walking' {Agobot} is suspended could you post a place that I could take a look at this Proposal you mentioned. I am familiar with Hawkin only from the episode of the Simpsons where he is with Homer in the bar and Moe asks,"who is paying for these beers", Homer responds, in Hawkin's box voice, "I am". Hawkins says, "I did not say that", Homer says, "Yes you did". The boxing glove comes out of the wheelchair and hits Homer in the face, now thats funny stuff. Archie Bunker notwithstanding, the those Hebs are very funny, ofcourse I am just kidding there. I had a best friend on a previous job that I referred to as a Heb and he also referred to me as Dago, pasata burping Wap, all of which is very true. Thise were some good times.Anywho, if you could post that I would appreciate it.Thanks Dad.D Bertot

...what did that have to do with anything? Seriously, your contribution here is a recap of a Simpson's episode?You could have just admitted that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Bertot writes:Geeez, ya just cant lighten up with some folks.

I have a magic phrase that can take that smirk off your face.It's called cheap grace.

quote:

---

Rahvin writes:
...what did that have to do with anything? Seriously, your contribution here is a recap of a Simpson's episode?
You could have just admitted that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

---

I suppose the 'No boundary Proposal' is as limited as your arguments were in refuting my simple proposition. If not lets go ahead and take a look at it, unless all you want to do is complain about everybodys not understanding things, a theme, that is chatacteristic of most of your posts to people.

Its not surprising that you dont recognize a bit of wit or humor in a response. My simple admonition was to present it in a simple format so we could all underatand it and apply it. I will understand that all attempts at humor and wit should be excluded when addressing a stuff shirt such as yourself, ha ha.Geeez, ya just cant lighten up with some folks.

quote:

---

Rahvin writes:

​

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

---

Talk about "not having the slightest clue of what you are talking about", son, you missed this one by ten thousand miles.

I don't have sufficient knowledge of physics to participate in a debate regarding the no boundary proposal. That doesn't make your previous post any more relavent to the topic.

I can see us becoming more and more nihilistic, in a meaningless life, but how do we deal with our descendants? There are an awful lot of people out there that rely on their faith in God to keep on living.

If we kill their faith, would they still have the desire to live and bear the hardships of life when they start opening their eyes and realise that we are completely alone in this meaningless, bleak, cold and irrelevant nonsense?

If we kill their faith, would they still have the desire to live and bear the hardships of life when they start opening their eyes and realise that we are completely alone in this meaningless, bleak, cold and irrelevant nonsense?

I assume that what you are saying here was meant to be meaningful -- that we are supposed to glean something profound from this declaration. If everything is ultimately meaningless, then so is your statement about meaningless. If it does have meaning, then your whole statement is undermined by its own premise. Either way, you can't be correct about both assertions simultaneously without being in contradiction.Which position would you like to concede?Nietzsche is dead - GOD

I find it then cruelly ironic that the very thing that Nietzsche denied was the very last thing that drove him mad.

Bertot writes:The only true form of madness is to willfully disobey what you know to be the truth. Working really hard at it in argumentation form only magnifies the problem."He sends them strong delusion that they believe a lie"

I do tend to point out when an opponent has a poor understanding of a subject. It occurs frequently in evolution vs creation debates, because Creationists rarely have an accurate understanding of evolution, mutations, or other biological terms. Pointing out when an opponent is arguing against a strawman, or arguing from ignorance, are both valid debate tactics as they invalidate the opponent's line of reasoning.

I don't have sufficient knowledge of physics to participate in a debate regarding the no boundary proposal. That doesn't make your previous post any more relavent to the topic.

For over ten years Hawking has been applying the No Boundary Proposal, a theory which extends other theories such as Sum Over Histories developed by the late Richard Feynman and Imaginary Time. Hawking's theory is the first cosmological model of the universe with a second reference of time which has no beginning or end. As yet scientists aren't using the word forever, that being such a big step. There are mind boggling implications to consider when the universe exists forever. And there are others, other influential scientists and the powers that be, who aren't sure what to think of the idea that the universe can have a beginning, and end, yet still exist forever.

​

Hawking rightly still insists that what we think of as real time has a beginning at the Big Bang, some ten to twenty billion years ago. And no one who knows much of anything about the universe is debating that issue. The evidence for the Big Bang event is conclusive, possibly irrefutable. Time as we understand it has a beginning. But if time began, then does that irrefutably mean that our existence began then also?

​

In a lecture paper Hawking writes:

​

Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who [an English Star Trek]. But never the less, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

​

This designation, as real, is an important step for modern science. I don't know how it will turn out, for the better or unfortunate that Feynman chose to continue using the mathematical term imaginary time. People often think from the tag imaginary that this time is not real. Feynman recognized that time as we think of it becomes imaginary in this time reference, because this time is totally indistinguishable from directions in space.

It takes very little reasoning to figure out that if the universe exists in an unseen way without beginning or end, at right angles to regular time, then that time is simply more elementary and even more real than ordinary clock time. Thus it seems the term imaginary applies more accurately to our time. If the universe exists in another time reference where conditions are permanent or static, suddenly it doesn't matter that we humans so convincingly observe a beginning and a possible future end to our ordinary clock time, since the other time reference applies regardless of our sense of where we are in time. The universe could be said to exist before our clock time began, and after time ends. The past and future can be said to exist now. Obviously imaginary time relates more directly than our own time to existence itself.I am not sure if Hawking has yet made the final leap to an infinite space and time cosmological model. He has been conservative at times on the issue of the universe being infinite either in time or space.
...the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began, would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, spacetime is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge.
I am sure Hawking in the past has been concerned about the implications of such a theory and the impact it might have upon society, and people's religious beliefs, and himself and his family. But I have found it interesting that Christian friends have told me the bible actually says this is a period when we will find out more and more about God. I would think the two time references would correlate well with most religions, but there is the matter of getting used to it. A lot of people are afraid of change, and I believe that is healthy to some degree. I can only tell of the personal growth and contentment my own longtime understanding of the infinite has given me, after having applied such ideology into both my scientific and my own spiritual beliefs

but isnt "No Boundary" the samething as infinite or eternal? How does changing names and terms assist that which is already an accepted idea in the first place.

No, it doesn't mean infinite or eternal. The two dimensional surface of the earth has no boundary but is not infinite in extent.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth

If there is no boundary to the surface of the earth as to be distinguished form the space that immediatley proceed it, then terms, ideas and concepts have on meaning at all.

No boundary in the context of space could only mean limitless in any direction, correct?