Hawking Comes Clean

Huh? We are talking of the guy who first (with Jim Hartle) managed to produce a semi-realistic model of a universe that is temporally finite yet without first cause. Hawking is stating the point that I have tried to explain countless times here that the Big Bang is not a point that is caused, not a point of creation. It will always leave the question of "why this and not something else", but gets us away from the need to think causally about existence. Causality is an internal part of existence, not something to which existence is tied.We have models extrapolated from the most successful theories known to mankind. Their suggestions are not guaranteed to be correct, but they are infinitely more convincing than religious apologetics.

What? The "speculation" that physics suggests that the Universe exists independent of any divine prime mover? I spent 15 years as a Christian who regarded God as not necessary to the Universe

The causal structure of space-time in semi-classical quantum gravity is not "metaphysics".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.

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. 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.

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".

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. Exactly - with reference to the above caveat.

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

Yep, he can almost explain it as well as me Good to see that others still appreciate their Ward & Wells (light green book on left shoulder) - learnt my sheaf theory from that.

Showing that he really has no understanding of what has been said... No, not in the way we are talking about "laws". Confusing I know, but the "laws" are the Universe. Does he? Where?ABE:Reading his article, I'm afraid it is obvious that your friend has some serious delusions:

quote:

---

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

---

quote:

---

Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

---

Come on GDR, you know the serious problems with these statements without blinking - you shouldn't be letting a friend make such an arse of himself in the press! His theological and scientific credibity has just fallen out of sight...Read more: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Daily Mail OnlineEdited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Essentially the same question. And a perfectly reasonable question. But the answer "god" makes very little sense now that we have a sensible question. They are the Universe - and so we return to your initial question. Again, wrong sense of "laws". Here what is meant is our understanding of the Universe: our theories. But in this context, by "law" we are refering to the Universe itself - its nature. As MrJack has pointed out, you have a very strange sense of the word "simpler".

I've just explained that Hawking is not talking about "laws" in the sense of "description" in this context. Care to explain why you are contradicting me, and reverting back to the definition of "law" that we're not using here? If I observe that an applied force of 10N accelerates a mass of 1kg at 10ms^-2, am I to accept that the situation is equally explained by saying "godidit" as it is by discussing Newton II?If I leave gods out of the explanation, am I thus declaring that gods do not exist? I see no conflict either, and nor does Hawking - we simply do not need to even mention god or gods when conducting physics. The concept does not arise. My view on this was exactly the same throughout my time as a Christian.

He's been too busy, debating Dawkins and Hitchins. I think he prefers those lightweights to the ruthless bastards here I am appalled at his statements on morality and archaeology as they are what you expect from naive twits, not decent oxbridge mathematicians.

No, the Universe appears self-consistent, logical, and simple. Possibly, but without the Judeo-Christian attributes of love, hate, jealousy, "holiness", desire to kill that which doesn't fit in with its plans, requirement for worship, necessity to sacrifice part of it own nature to satisify its own made up rules, over-concern with where men stick their dicks, etc, etc.Now, about God being the more simple picture? Ah, yes, Paul's great condemnation of scientists Ah, so that's what you think we have done? Just postulated that the Universe is self-caused. Shit, and to think of all the years the community spent working on this, and all we needed to do was postulate it. If we'd known you were so easy to please, we could have spent all that time drinking. Actually, if memory serves, I think we spent most of it drinking anyway...

No, like most intelligent people, he sees context as important. If he states

quote:

---

''Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.''
-Stephen Hawking

---

do you really think that by "law" he is merely talking about our current understanding? How stupid do you think he is? A correct paraphrase of what he said is "because of the nature of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".Now, I would never actully speak in such terms. I would always deny any kind of "creation from nothing" to attempt to describe the situation accurately. Stephen doesn't give a shit - he's putting it this way as he knows it will kick up. He enjoys that. Yet you find it very easy to think that he would say something as idiotic as "because of our understanding of gravity, the universe can create itself from nothing"... Then you've never worked in or amongst those working in quantum gravity - or you have not been privy to their conversations. Did you not even study any quantum cosmology in your grad work? Go chat to Jim Hartle - he can't be too far from you - or Joe Polchinski. No, it is not You may still be at the stage of thinking of an electron as a little hard ball of matter which we model with equations. If so, I'd say you've nearly 100 years of catch up ahead of you... define "god", define "upholding". Explain how this changes the situation. Only if you are ignorant of the meaning of the word "implying". yeah, 'cos Christians and creations NEVER mention the Big Bang do they

I'm sorry, you keep mentioning this word "god". What is a "god". Can you define this otherwise your entire claim makes no sense what-so-ever.