Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 148 (579831)
09-06-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by kbertsche
09-05-2010 10:19 PM


kb writes:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
If there is a god he will be asking himself that very question.
It's turtles all the way down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kbertsche, posted 09-05-2010 10:19 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 148 (580050)
09-07-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
09-07-2010 6:45 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
The final line of the article you linked to:
Professor John Lennox writes:
Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.
We should invite this John Lennox fellow to present his evidence here at EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 6:45 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 3:34 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 148 (580221)
09-08-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 8:18 AM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
Buz writes:
Void of an explanable first clause, the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal.
Is there a valid theory or any evidence is support of anything being eternal?
Anything eternal would be in a state of maximum entropy according to the laws of thermodynamics would it not?
Given that the universe does not appear to be in a state of maximum entropy I don't think we can reasonably assume that it has existed for an eternity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 8:28 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:37 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 79 of 148 (580230)
09-08-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by cavediver
09-08-2010 8:28 AM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay. ccccccccc
Cavey writes:
There may not be a state of maximum entropy - i.e. no state of thermal equilibrium.
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)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 8:28 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 8:50 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 148 (580232)
09-08-2010 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 8:37 AM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 9:07 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 96 of 148 (580277)
09-08-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
09-08-2010 8:50 AM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay. ccccccccc
Cavey writes:
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.
Ah I see. You are pointing out the distinction between heat death and cold death due to expansion. Is that right?
I don’t think Buz’s eternal universe concept has any expansion taking place. So his proposal necessarily requires that the universe would currently be in a state of maximum entropy (i.e. heat death).
Which obviously it isn’t.
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 8:50 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 12:48 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 97 of 148 (580278)
09-08-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 9:07 AM


Maximum Entropy In The Buzsaw Universe
Buz I still don't think you are making much sense.
Are you suggesting that the universe is currently in a state of maximum entropy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 9:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 148 (580329)
09-08-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by slevesque
09-08-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
jar writes:
What was said is "No god needed."
Totally not a metaphysical statement.
Slevesque writes:
Then you didn't really read what I said, or you didn't try to understand what I was meaning.
You seem to be saying that anyone can subjectively and meaningfully claim a role for the supernatural in whatever situation no matter what evidence there is for such a role being objectively unnecessary.
Is that correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 4:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 6:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 113 of 148 (580342)
09-08-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by slevesque
09-08-2010 6:06 PM


Metaphysical Claims
Slev writes:
It's because saying such a role is objectively unnecessary is a metaphysical statement.
Why?
If there is no requirement for supernatural involvement in the formation of the universe, if this is explicable in natural terms alone, how is this different to saying that Earthquakes or Volcanoes are explicable in natural terms alone?
Is the conclusion that rain occurs without supernatural involvement a metaphysical claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 6:06 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by 1.61803, posted 09-08-2010 9:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 126 of 148 (580444)
09-09-2010 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by 1.61803
09-08-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Metaphysical Claims
Numbers writes:
OHHHHHH knOOOOooowwWW! Straggler's next thread. " Has Metaphysical claims failed"
Well apparently any suggestion that things happen in the world without intervention from the supernatural is an unwarranted intrusion into metaphysics about which science can say nothing.
So excuse me while God and I take a visit to the toilet where we shall be enjoying our latest creation.
"Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty thousand page menu, and no food." Robert M. Pirsig

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by 1.61803, posted 09-08-2010 9:14 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by cavediver, posted 09-09-2010 5:14 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 128 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-09-2010 11:13 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 129 by Omnivorous, posted 09-09-2010 1:54 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 09-09-2010 3:38 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 137 of 148 (580530)
09-09-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by 1.61803
09-09-2010 3:38 PM


Re: Metaphysical Claims
Who said I was talking about my constitution? Maybe the thread title "Hawking Comes Clean" was more descriptive than anyone initially realised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 09-09-2010 3:38 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 139 of 148 (580655)
09-10-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
09-10-2010 12:29 PM


Re: NYT Pans Hawking's Book
I wasn't very impressed with "Brief History of Time" and I don't expect to be bowled over by his latest book either.
Hawking is quite a self publicist in his own way and the attention accorded to his books reflects that as much as their scientific or literary worth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 09-10-2010 12:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by greyseal, posted 09-10-2010 3:03 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 141 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2010 3:04 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 145 of 148 (581060)
09-13-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
09-13-2010 9:34 AM


Re: NYT Pans Hawking's Book
Crash writes:
As a teenager it made a big impression on me and really cemented a love of science
John Gribbin's books did hat for me in my formative years.
Had a look at them recently ("In Search of the Big Bang" and "In search of Schrodinger's Cat") and found them both incredibly tedious.
I'd be interested to know what you make of Brief History of Time" now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2010 9:34 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2010 8:51 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 147 of 148 (581209)
09-14-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Modulous
09-14-2010 8:51 AM


Re: In Search of Gribbin's appeal...
After wading through an explanation of physics basics and the history of related subjects more generally I didn't find that there was much more to these books. Familiarity of the subject matter and the fact that I have read superior and more up to date accounts of this stuff elsewhere I think must be what has led to my changed attitude to these books.
But back in the day I really did find them quite inspirational.
As a mate put it to me when I confessed a similar disappointment upon seeing the first Star Wars film again recently: "Well the film itself hasn't changed in over twenty years. So I guess you must have".
Difficult to argue with that analysis really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2010 8:51 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by caffeine, posted 09-15-2010 8:07 AM Straggler has 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