Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 16 of 148 (579062)
09-03-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Aware Wolf
09-03-2010 1:17 PM


Hi, Aware Wolf.
Aware Wolf writes:
A is given (the universe). Then, the question is: which is more likely: B or not B (God). I don't think simple probability can tell us that A AND NOT B is more likely than A AND B, without knowing something about B.
It's just an application of Occam's razor: assume "not B" until we have reason to believe "B."
It's "innocent until proven guilty": assume "not guilty" until we have reason to believe "guilty."

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2010 1:17 PM Aware Wolf has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 17 of 148 (579064)
09-03-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taq
09-03-2010 12:42 PM


We know even less about how universes come about than we do about how universes develop in those very early time periods such as the era that witnessed supersymmetry (possibly).
No, because we are not dealing with specifics but global behaviour - in the same way that I can be sure of singularities in classical space-times given certain conditions based upon the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems without requiring any specifics what so ever.
I also disagree with stating that we are certain that no deity was involved.
And no-one involved has made this claim, as far as I am aware.
It is about removing the necessity of a prime-mover, not demonstrating that none exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 09-03-2010 12:42 PM Taq has not replied

  
mignat
Junior Member (Idle past 4939 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 18 of 148 (579068)
09-03-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
09-03-2010 8:30 AM


Hhhm, no he did what so many do.
What tests did Hawking do to check what he says is true? All the science documentaries I watch tell us about the practical tests they do. They reproduce it in real life. Check the documentaries. They talk about controlled test. What control did Hawking use?
Only in law courts do we say 'innocent util proven guilty'. In science, we are told not to believe it until we see it.
Ok, so the theory must be accepted as true until proven otherwise, must it. Cool. Can I make up my own theory and have it accepted as proven?
Occam's Razor is actually 'The simplest explanation is often right', not as you quote it. I looked it up months ago, after seeing the term in a book and wondered what it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 09-03-2010 8:30 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 2:43 PM mignat has not replied
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 09-03-2010 3:55 PM mignat has not replied
 Message 33 by greyseal, posted 09-04-2010 4:46 PM mignat has not replied
 Message 34 by Theodoric, posted 09-04-2010 10:18 PM mignat has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 19 of 148 (579076)
09-03-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mignat
09-03-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Hhhm, no he did what so many do.
Occam's Razor is actually 'The simplest explanation is often right', not as you quote it. I looked it up months ago, after seeing the term in a book and wondered what it was.
Occam's Razor is a plain-language statement of the basic laws of probability. "Simplest" does not mean "easiest to understand" like most people think - "simplest" is used in the mathematical sense, meaning "the explanation with the fewest terms."
Given no evidence, which of the following two statements is more likely?
1) Sarah has blond hair
2) Sarah has blond hair and works as a waitress
Obviously, in the absence of evidence we cannot prove anything. But all things being equal, 1) is more likely than 2). Why? Probability. The probability that multiple things will simultaneously be true is multiplicative, meaning the more possibilities you tack on, the less likely the whole becomes. A coin has a 50% chance to come up heads. Two coins have a 25% chance to both come up heads.
So too with everything else. In any given set of possible hypotheses, the hypothesis that invokes the fewest necessary terms is most likely to be the correct one.
In the case of the Universe, we have a simplified case of two possibilities:
1) The Universe exists as we observe it, driven by natural laws
2) The Universe exists as we observe it, driven by natural laws and was Created by God.
2) invokes an additional entity that is not made necessary by any evidence. While 2) may in fact be true, given current information it is nonetheless less likely to be true than 1). That probability can only be shifted if positive evidence is uncovered that increases the probability of God's existence, in effect making it a necessary term in the equation.
You don't need a controlled test to make such a determination. What you need is simply an objective analysis of available evidence and an understanding of the laws of probability. It's not about proof, it's about ascertaining which among all possible hypotheses is the most likely to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mignat, posted 09-03-2010 2:14 PM mignat has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 20 of 148 (579082)
09-03-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Aware Wolf
09-03-2010 1:17 PM


This doesn't seem to be quite right. Or maybe it misses the point. A is given (the universe). Then, the question is: which is more likely: B or not B (God). I don't think simple probability can tell us that A AND NOT B is more likely than A AND B, without knowing something about B.
Let's do this mathematically then.
The probability that the Universe exists as we observe it and is driven by natural laws should be pretty high, wouldn't you say? It;s certainly possible we all live in a dream world or the Matrix or something, but you want to say that the Universe is a "given," so we'll just say that part is 100%. That will be A.
What's the probability of God existing? That's tough, but let's be stupidly simplistic just for the sake of illustrating how this works. We'll give God, a total unknown, a 50% chance of existing, like a flip of the coin. That will be B.
A = 100%
A AND B = 1 * .5 = 50%
The probability of A is higher than the probability of A AND B.
The same will be true of ANY possible combination of probabilities. Let's play with them a bit. This time, we'll say that we're 98% sure that the Universe exists as we observe it, and 99% sure that God exists.
A = 98%
A AND B = .98 * .99 = 97%
The probability of A is higher than the probability of A AND B.
What if we're 97% sure that God exists, and only 50% sure that the Unvierse is what we observe?
A = 50%
A AND B = .5 * .97 = 48.5%
The probability of A is higher than the probability of A AND B.
The probability of BOTH simultaneously being true can never ever be higher than the probability of either possibility individually.
The greatest possible vale for A AND B is the lowest value of either individually. Let's say we were 100% certain of both A and B:
A = 100%
A AND B = 1 * 1 = 100%
A AND B is always <= A OR B.
Do you see how this works?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2010 1:17 PM Aware Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 3:22 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 24 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2010 3:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 21 of 148 (579091)
09-03-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rahvin
09-03-2010 2:59 PM


Let's do this mathematically then.
Despite my take, I have to say that I'm uncomfortable with this. With no knowledge we cannot assume independence of A and B, and that throws off all of the calculations. All that is being claimed is that the Big Bang is independent of "god", not existence itself.
To put it into Hawking's terms, the Big Bang is just a consequence of gravity and thus requires no more divine input than does the Moon orbiting the Earth. But we wouldn't extrapolate from the independence of the Moon's orbit from divine powers to the independence of existence from divine powers.
In the absence of any form of Bayesian prior, we should just say "we don't know".
However, I guess to even say "we don't know" we need some actual definitions of "divine", "god", etc. Without those, the answer should be "I'm sorry, your questions is not well-formed and I cannot answer".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 2:59 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 09-03-2010 3:42 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 3:52 PM cavediver has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 22 of 148 (579094)
09-03-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by cavediver
09-03-2010 3:22 PM


All that is being claimed is that the Big Bang is independent of "god", not existence itself.
By Big Bang, are we talking about inflation and the subsequent distribution of energy and matter, or are we talking about the interaction of Branes and string theory (or other theories)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 3:22 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 23 of 148 (579096)
09-03-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
09-03-2010 1:22 PM


Natural and Deity-Free
cavediver writes:
If I observe that an applied force of 10N accelerates a mass of 1kg at 10ms-2, then I think I can state, without being accused of involving metaphysics, that I have no need for a "god" to explain this observation, nor indeed anything else outside Newtonian mechanics.
This is how I read the context.
After understanding some basic physics, it's pretty obvious that no angels are pushing the mass, and no God is involved in the process. It's pretty basic, natural, mundane and deity-free.
Hawking is saying that after understanding the advanced physics, it's pretty obvious that no God is involved in the process of creating the universe. To those educated in such matters, it is equally basic, natural, mundane and deity-free.
He's not saying he knows there's no God.
He's saying he knows that no God is involved in the maths required to create our universe. With as much confidence as us normal-folk have in saying that we know God is not involved in the maths required for us to use a lever to move a rock.
As even a general understanding of Newtonian mechanics can show us that there is no "strange area of the maths" where "something weird happens" and then the lever just works and the rock just moves... Hawking is saying there is no "strange area of the maths" where "something weird happens" and then universes start popping.
When the physical conditions are right for moving the rock (lever in correct location, and right strength)... the rock will move, always, the process is natural and deity-free.
When the physical conditions are right for universes to be created (gravity and other advanced physical-stuffs)... the universe will be created, always, the process is natural and deity-free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 1:22 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 4:06 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 24 of 148 (579097)
09-03-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rahvin
09-03-2010 2:59 PM


Yes, I follow all that. I'm just trying to figure out if it justifies this from your original post:
If an unfalsified model for the existence of the Universe exists without including a god, simple probability dictates that it is more likely that the Universe formed without divine intervention.
Here you are comparing the probability of a universe created by divine intervention vs. the probability of a universe NOT created by divine intervention. Both situations agree the probability of A=100%; it's the B term where the action is. Assuming no prior knowledge of the likelihood of B in it's own right, it just seems like a 50/50 proposition.
I guess my question is, is it
A AND B vs. A AND NOT B, (universe AND God vs. universe AND NO God)
or
A AND B vs. A AND (EITHER B OR NOT B) (universe AND God vs. universe)
I think it's the former, but it would have to be the latter for your point to hold.

"In short, [he] was one of those people with lots of intelligence and no brains, and everyone knew it except those who soon found it out." - Joseph Heller, Catch-22

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 2:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 25 of 148 (579099)
09-03-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by cavediver
09-03-2010 3:22 PM


Despite my take, I have to say that I'm uncomfortable with this. With no knowledge we cannot assume independence of A and B, and that throws off all of the calculations. All that is being claimed is that the Big Bang is independent of "god", not existence itself.
To put it into Hawking's terms, the Big Bang is just a consequence of gravity and thus requires no more divine input than does the Moon orbiting the Earth. But we wouldn't extrapolate from the independence of the Moon's orbit from divine powers to the independence of existence from divine powers.
In the absence of any form of Bayesian prior, we should just say "we don't know".
But isn't it true that A AND B will always be <= A OR B for any possible value of A and B, where A and B can each independently be any value between 0 and 1? If that's the case, we don't need to know the actual Bayesian priors to establish that one prior will always have lower probability than the other.
Unless your argument is that joint probability is inappropriate, that we aren't dealing with an A AND B situation at all. I'd argue that we are, because all god concepts involve suggesting that both the Universe exists as we observe it AND that god exists and is possibly the direct cause. None of them involve anything like "the Universe exists OR God exists," it's always A AND B, never A OR B.
It's rather like:
1) that guy over there's name is Tom
2) Tom's mother is Jill
I don't know the probability that the guy in question is actually Tom or the probability that Jill is his mother, but I do know that the probability that his name is Tom AND that his mother is Jill is less likely than either single assertion, because A AND B is always <= A OR B.
However, I guess to even say "we don't know" we need some actual definitions of "divine", "god", etc. Without those, the answer should be "I'm sorry, your questions is not well-formed and I cannot answer".
Completely agreed, but depending on who's making the specific god assertion, we at least get varying degrees of clarity on the definitions of some of those terms. We're of course always lacking the definition of any mechanism involved, but that's just what happens when you answer a mysterious question with a mysterious answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 3:22 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 4:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 26 of 148 (579100)
09-03-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mignat
09-03-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Hhhm, no he did what so many do.
mignat writes:
What tests did Hawking do to check what he says is true?
The ones reproduced by his colleagues.
What control did Hawking use?
The one verified by his colleagues.
If it wasn't reproduced and verified, even Hawking would be laughed out of physics for trying to place "opinion" above tests in science.
Ok, so the theory must be accepted as true until proven otherwise, must it. Cool. Can I make up my own theory and have it accepted as proven?
No, that's not how it works.
Hawking didn't just make up a theory. What do you think he's been doing for the last 40 years? Working on his imagination? He's been developing, testing and verifying a scientific theory.
It's not right because he says so. It's right because that's how the world works. If the world didn't work the way Hawking says it does, you'd know about it... I'm sure there are plenty of folks just dying to show where Hawking screwed up. After all, if they did, they could get a cameo in the next Star Trek series...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mignat, posted 09-03-2010 2:14 PM mignat has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 27 of 148 (579101)
09-03-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stile
09-03-2010 3:46 PM


Re: Natural and Deity-Free
Hawking is saying that after understanding the advanced physics, it's pretty obvious that no God is involved in the process of creating the universe. To those educated in such matters, it is equally basic, natural, mundane and deity-free.
Yes, exactly... though there's a bit of a hang-up in that "creating the universe" - the Big Bang isn't the "creation" of the Universe, it is (as I am fond of saying) just one end of the Universe. In the same way that the North Pole does not represent the point where the Earth was created, nor does the knot in the balloon mark the point where the balloon was created.
He's saying he knows that no God is involved in the maths required to create our universe. With as much confidence as us normal-folk have in saying that we know God is not involved in the maths required for us to use a lever to move a rock.
Exactly - with reference to the above caveat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 09-03-2010 3:46 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 28 of 148 (579103)
09-03-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rahvin
09-03-2010 3:52 PM


...where A and B can each independently be any value between 0 and 1?
That's the crux. Can they? As mentioned, what Hawking has stated does not imply no "god", just that one end of the Universe does not require a "god". But that says nothing about the Universe as a whole. Perhaps existence requires a "god". Perhaps existence is a "god", whatever that means. And to be fair, I should start writing "existence" as I'm almost just as weak on definitions there as I am with "god"s.
If we postualte that "existence" is the "obvious" place where we live with its objective reality, laws and motions, and "god" is a guy with a big beard and lives in "heaven" and may or may not poof things like "existence" into being, then I'd probably go along with your argument

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 3:52 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 09-03-2010 5:46 PM cavediver has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 29 of 148 (579134)
09-03-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
09-03-2010 4:14 PM


But that says nothing about the Universe as a whole.
I think this is where the deeper misunderstanding lies; at least it was for me before I got to this site and read yours and Son Goku's posts.
To equate existence, the observable universe, and the whole universe, seems like a conceptual inevitability to those, like many of us, who are not as knowledgable as you. I know it was a struggle for me to grasp, and still is when I try to explain it to someone.
And to be fair, I should start writing "existence" as I'm almost just as weak on definitions there as I am with "god"s.
It gets more and more confusing every time I think about it.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 4:14 PM cavediver has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 30 of 148 (579423)
09-04-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
09-03-2010 1:22 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
cavediver writes:
The causal structure of space-time in semi-classical quantum gravity is not "metaphysics".
Granted. However, some of the reports that I had seen on the net seemed to indicate that Hawking was making a metaphysical claim.
This youtube video clears that up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 1:22 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2010 4:40 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024