|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hawking Comes Clean | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
You make a lot of statements cloaked as a fact In message 44? Really? Care to point them out to me?
The laws are not the universe, simply by virtue of you saying they are. 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...
You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks. 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.
The "laws" of the universe appear to be intelligently crafted. They have consistency, they have order, they have contingencies 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.
What we see, what many people see is a type of order 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You do know that cavediver was an evangelical Christian for much of his life, so do you suppose at that time he had the ability to know how wrong he was 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
When your pastor tells you that there is a God, I am glad to know that you will now be agreeing that he knows a heck of a lot more about this than you, so you will take his word for it. How can someone be an expert on something that doesn't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Anything eternal would be in a state of maximum entropy according to the laws of thermodynamics would it not? No. There may not be a state of maximum entropy - i.e. no state of thermal equilibrium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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)? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
We say: God consistently upholds gravity, so it remains constant and can create the universe. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You are pointing out the distinction between heat death and cold death due to expansion. Is that right? Yep
I don’t think Buz’s eternal universe concept has any expansion taking place. Buz's eternal universe concept is bollocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
And there goes colliding branes out the window I guess. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
So excuse me while God and I take a visit to the toilet where we shall be enjoying our latest creation. You owe me one monitor and one keyboard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I don't know how you confused Straggler with me, but I'm sure he'll be glad to come across as a tough guy Oh yes, we know all about the dutch tough guys...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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. 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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024