Hawking Comes Clean

No. There may not be a state of maximum entropy - i.e. no state of thermal equilibrium.

Do you mean like string theory and other dimensions?

Of course not. Such concepts have definition and a solid basis, even if only within mathematical physics.The concept of "god" doesn't have a definition even within one particular sect of one partcilar branch of one particular religion. If you disagree, perhaps you could furnish me with a defintion of "god". I've been asking for one for some time here at EvC, but none have yet been forthcoming.

If the universe had existed forever (in the Buz sense of "forever" and "eternal") rather than 15 billion years how could it not be in a state of maximum entropy (or heat death)?

An eternal universe can be explained by assumption, as pr 1LoT, that the eternal universe has not necessarily had a uniform existence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz that whole sentance makes no sense."explained by assumption" - What the hell does that mean?"as pr 1LoT" - What as per the 1st law of thermodynamics?"that the eternal universe has not necessarily had a uniform existence." - In what sense non-uniform? The laws of physics being non-uniform?

HUH?If I say that by lowering the temperature of water I can get it to change from a liquid to a solid all on my own with intervention from a god, how is that a metaphysical claim?If there is a full and sufficient explanation for something is there a need to add in additional conditions?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

By continually expanding. Without an input of new matter (as per the Steady State Theory), you will still get a practical "heat death", although it will be not be a true entropic heat death.

Wouldn't a state of maximum entropy imply a uniformitarian manner in which the universe has emerged and in which it appears to be going? Doesn't an alleged BB imply a uniform manner in which the universe has emerged, assuming that space has always been expanding, albeit no increase in aggregate energy?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Ok, I'll try to explain what Kbertsche means by this since I think I understand what he means. Maybe it'll help make it clearer.He believes (and so do I) that the universe is consistent is because God is consistent and upholds it in a consistent fashion. This is why we can deduce laws from ou observations.So, if you are able to make ice it is because such laws exist, and they exist because God upholds them.Now, you will see that this assertion on our part is metaphysical. And in fact we can't really prove it. And in fact, it also adds nothing to our understanding of these laws. This is why he can believe this to be the case, and also accept methodological naturalism.Now compare it with what Hawking said. He didn't say you don't need to refer God to explain how gravity could have made the universe (from nothing, whatever that means). He said God is actually not needed. This becomes a metaphysical claim because it comes in contradiction with our claim.We say: God consistently upholds gravity, so it remains constant and can create the universe.He says: Gravity by itself remains constant, and could/has created the universe.So he's not saying God doesn't exist, but he still goes a step further than usual: he says even if God does exist, he is not involved in upholding this universe, this universe can run itself on it's own. That is the ''metaphysical'' part.Ok I hope this was clearer hh

But what does even mean? Constant with respect to what? Time? But time is internal to the Universe.It is very easy to make fuzzy statements that use words like "god" and "upholds" but they mean nothing without some strict definitions. And these are seriously lacking. This is not metaphysics. It is a mixture of soundbites and faith.

I think you are intelligent enough to understand what I mean when I say this. When I speak of 'God', I define him as the christian God which is revealed in the Bible. You probably know enough of christianity to have a good picture of what I'm talking about.I would be hardpressed to find a definition of uphold, as I think it's a pretty understandable expression. When I first encountered the concept that ''God was upholding his creation'' i perfectly understood what was meant, even if it wasn't in my native language.I have no doubt you equally understand what I mean, so I see no point of playing on words and trying to obscur them when in fact they are quite straightforward in my opinion.And constant means that it doesn't change, with respect to what it was the instant before. In other words, the same definition you use when you say that natural laws are constant.

Personally, I might even agree with what you say up to a point. I believe you, kb and even I make metaphysical statements when we speak of GOD, but that does not mean Hawkins did. He simply stated a fact, the fact that no God is needed to explain what is seen.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It's because it is a very slight nuance. It's the difference between saying:you don't need to invoke God to explain/understand how gravity worksandGravity does not need God to workThe first is simply methodological naturalism applied. The second is metaphysical.However I want to note that I'm just trying to explain what KB is saying that Hawkins said. I didn't really read the article except for the quotes in the OP, so I can't affirm if Hawkins meant the former or the latter.

And my point is it is only metaphysical to those that might believe in some god. The statement itself is not metaphysical, only certain people consider it as metaphysical.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!