|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hawking Comes Clean | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Who said I was talking about my constitution? Maybe the thread title "Hawking Comes Clean" was more descriptive than anyone initially realised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024