Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:02 AM
37 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2716 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 91 of 148 (580264)
09-08-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
09-08-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Of course not. A statement isn't relatively metaphysical depending on who says it. If a statement makes a claim about the fundamental nature of being and the world, it is metaphysical.

I think maybe you have a wrong view of what metaphysical means. Maybe you should read the wiki article about it a bit ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

If Hawkins really meant what KB says he meant, then it falls into the category of metaphysical claim. Doesn't matter if he believes in God or not, doesn't matter from your POV if you believe in God or not, doesn't matter from my POV if I believe in God or not. It's still a metaphysical claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:34 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 12:13 PM slevesque has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 92 of 148 (580267)
09-08-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
09-08-2010 11:18 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
He simply stated a fact,...

A fact? A fact??? What he stated is about as far from a fact as language allows.

One can't say no God is "needed" to explain what is seen. There is no explanation for what we can see! Where does gravity come from? Where do atoms, heat, elements, matter, nuclear forces...? Is this more sophomore salad to ask where it all comes from? We get to just say, well, it just exists...its nature? If there were dragon shaped planets, and peppermint sticks raining into chocolate rivers, we can just explain it as just what nature is? How far do we get to extend this rationale for things? Can there be Ferris wheels floating through space, spinning giants cars full of gumby dolls, and we can say, this is just part of the universe, it doesn't require an explanation?

The universe is those peppermint sticks and gumby dolls, and we just don't think its strange because we see it everyday. But it is there everyday, nevertheless, despite Hawking's or anyone else jaded dismissive nonchalance.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:18 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 12:13 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 100 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2010 3:37 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 148 (580271)
09-08-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by slevesque
09-08-2010 11:47 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Of course a statement can be metaphysical or not. It all depends on the pov of the speaker and the listener.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 11:47 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 3:47 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 148 (580272)
09-08-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Bolder-dash
09-08-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Of course it is a fact.

If things can be explained without referring to some god then guess what, no god need apply.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 148 (580275)
09-08-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by slevesque
09-08-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
I think you are intelligent enough to understand what I mean when I say this.

Of course I know what you think you mean, but that doesn't help. You are trying to match together something infinitely precise with something vague and fuzzy, and it doesn't work.

You understand ''God was upholding his creation' in the context of Christianity because it is a typical Christian thing to say. I have no clue what it means. Seriously. If god stops upholding creation, what happens? Does this ccour within time, outside time? Does existence just end? What does that mean?

And I really don't have any useful definition of God. Nothing in Christianity helps - it is just one ridiculous anthromorphism after another. I really am not trying to play word games. I really am at a loss for meaning.

In other words, the same definition you use when you say that natural laws are constant.

But I will only say this loosely. On its own, it means nothing. I could spend hours just talking about what I do mean by this, and it would all be solid science/mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 11:09 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
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 donít think Buzís 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 isnít.

Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote


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

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
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 yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 148 (580279)
09-08-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Straggler
09-08-2010 12:43 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay. ccccccccc
You are pointing out the distinction between heat death and cold death due to expansion. Is that right?

Yep

I donít think Buzís eternal universe concept has any expansion taking place.

Buz's eternal universe concept is bollocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 12:43 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 924 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 99 of 148 (580301)
09-08-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 8:18 AM


eternal universe
the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal.

We know that stars require fuel, lighter elements capable of fusing into heavier elements, in order to burn.
There is no new supply of lighter elements.
ergo..

Think of it in terms of the rain/evaporation cycle on earth. For rain to exist there has to be humidity in the atmosphere to condense.
Remove the evaporation of water from the cycle and the cycle stops.

There is no recycling of elements from the intermediate mass range back to the lighter mass range.

A good book to read might be "Modern theories of the Universe" from Herschel to Hubble" by Michael J. Crowe
It is not very current but is useful as an overview of the history of our understanding of the cosmos and how it developed. Once you gain an appreciation for what it took to get to where we are in our understanding you will be less inclined to dismiss it all with the wave of a hand..

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/rel_stars.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:18 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2010 3:44 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1937 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 100 of 148 (580305)
09-08-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Bolder-dash
09-08-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
bolder-dash writes:

He simply stated a fact,...

A fact? A fact??? What he stated is about as far from a fact as language allows.

well here we have two problems - one is that you don't understand Hawking's math. I don't either, but calling it "sophomore salad" won't make the equations no longer make sense to somebody with enough training and understanding to read them.

So you can wave your ignorance of advanced math as it pertains to space-time geometry around if you want, but don't expect a cookie.

So yes, it's a fact that the equations Hawking has put together do not require god, and do seem to do a good job explaining everything.

On the other hand, it's still not "proof" of non-existence (proving a negative being exceedingly difficult at the best of times) but it is proof (as long as he is correct) on non-requirement.

Now, if you wish to claim god did it anyway you can go ahead, but it won't change the facts.

You can dispute the facts, but you'll need a college degree and then some to get anywhere - not because they won't listen to people without one, but because people without one don't know the hell what they're talking about.

I know which path you'll take.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1937 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 101 of 148 (580309)
09-08-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shalamabobbi
09-08-2010 3:13 PM


Re: eternal universe
shalamabobbi writes:

the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal.

We know that stars require fuel, lighter elements capable of fusing into heavier elements, in order to burn.
There is no new supply of lighter elements.
ergo..

I think it's been posited that now it's here, it's eternal - the language we have can't deal with a point "before" time or "outside" of space, however we can postulate that what we see was a lot smaller, hotter and denser at some known time in the past.

It gets difficult to discuss, because at T<0 it all falls apart, and a T>0 the universe is already infinite, expanding and here.

On the other hand, there's talk of island universes budding off out of some eternal quantum foam, such that we would find it extremely difficult to traverse from "here" to "there". to us, my understanding is it would look like an infinitely small, dense pocket of space-time from which nothing could escape...i.e a black hole.

And the other side would look like an infinitely small pocket of dense space-time which would suddenly explode into, well, everything...i.e a white hole.

neat idea, so I have plans on escaping the heat-death of the universe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-08-2010 3:13 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2716 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 102 of 148 (580310)
09-08-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
09-08-2010 12:13 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Of course a statement can be metaphysical or not. It all depends on the pov of the speaker and the listener.

No, a statement will be considered metaphysical or not based on what message it contains. What it is saying and what it is trying to explain.

a statement can't be metaphysical for one person and not for another.

If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview ? If you say, ''the laws of physic do not need God to operate consistently'', how is this not a metaphysical statement both for you and for me, and for anyone else ?

A statement can be evaluated on it's own value, you don't need to know who claimed it to identify this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 12:13 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 3:57 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 105 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:08 PM slevesque has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 148 (580313)
09-08-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by slevesque
09-08-2010 3:47 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview ?

If the term God has absolutely no meaning, then the statement is not metaphysical, just silly.

BUT...that was not what was said.

What was said is "No god needed."

Totally not a metaphysical statement.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 3:47 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 4:36 PM jar has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2716 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 104 of 148 (580318)
09-08-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
09-08-2010 3:57 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
If the term God has absolutely no meaning, then the statement is not metaphysical, just silly.

The term God (or any term used in a sentence) rarely has no meaning. It can, however have a bizzard or silly meaning. But then it just means the statement is a silly metaphysical statement.

BUT...that was not what was said.

What was said is "No god needed."

Totally not a metaphysical statement.

Then you didn't really read what I said, or you didn't try to understand what I was meaning.

If ''No god needed'' is interpreted as Kbertsche interprets what Hawkins meant, then it is a metaphysical statement.

Anyway I don't get what's wrong with a theoretical physicist saying a metaphysical statement. It's really not the most surprising thing in the world in my opinion. There seems to be a resistance with this idea as if you were allergic to metaphysical claims, when in fact everyone who has a worldview (and indeed, everybody has a worldview), either it be atheist-agnostic-theist, absolutely will have to make some degree of metaphysical claims, even if it is to claim that nothing supernatural exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 3:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 5:55 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 114 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 6:40 PM slevesque has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 105 of 148 (580321)
09-08-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by slevesque
09-08-2010 3:47 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
slevesque writes:
If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview?

It will be seen by some as metaphorical, provided that they give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is meaningful.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 3:47 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 5:46 PM nwr has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019