Hawking Comes Clean

In message 44? Really? Care to point them out to me? If I say "when we say, 'laws', what we mean in this context is..." then, yes, they are exactly what I say they are by virtue of me saying so - sort of a tautology, don't you think? Of course, I am also speaking for Hawking here, so you could argue that that was not what he meant. So perhaps you'd like to explain what you think he meant, and why... Yep. In exactly the same way that car mechanics know no more about cars than your average driver. And why doctors really have no clue compared to the general populace when it comes to heart sugery. And when it comes to piloting the Shuttle, Nasa has traditionally gone for bus drivers. Indeed they do have consistency, order and contingencies. So much so that the more we delve the more constrained they appear. What room then for any level of "crafting"? It appears that they are the only way they can be. Doesn't leave much if any room for design. I agree. We see so much order that it leaves no room for design, no room for choice. Sort of the opposite of what you are looking for really.

All I am describing here I came to realise many many years ago, deep in my time as an evangelical Christian. I was actually a member of a Vineyard fellowship at the time, if the name means anything to you. It had zero impact on my faith, for the simple reason that my faith was based on, err, well, faith.It was the same time that I discovered that there was practically zero archaeological evidence backing up the pre-captivity OT, and that morality was perfectly explained by evolution. Again, effect on my faith? Not a jot. See above.

How can someone be an expert on something that doesn't exist?

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Yep Buz's eternal universe concept is bollocks.

This isn't a "first cause". There are competing ideas for what happened at T=0. What is being shown is that in none of them is a "first cause" required, either at T=0, or at any point for T<0 exists.

You owe me one monitor and one keyboard

Oh yes, we know all about the dutch tough guys...

Brief History was born out of extreme necessity (for cash) - it was his two great results with a wrapping of fundemental cosmology. He has never been the best instructor or lecturer but he does capture the imagination, and the confusion he weaves at his public lectures seems to be well received!