"A Briefer History of Time"
I have stated many times in this blog and several others that "supernatural" is irrelevant because every scenario "turtles down" to something outside/ beyond nature, ie the universe. That is because natural processes only exist in nature and therefore cannot account for it.
Zachriel has challenged that intelligent reasoning ;) by invoking Stephen Hawking. Knowing somthing of Dr. Hawking I responded by stating that his theory is also metaphysical in nature. However I based that on "A Brief History of Time" and many years had passed since I read it. Now Stephen, together with Leonard Mlodinow, has a (relatively) new book out titled "A Briefer History of Time".
So thinking that Zachriel may know something that I do not, I read the book. What does Dr. Hawking have to say?:
"It would just BE." (caps in the original) That is what he said. However it IS expanding. Or should that read "It BE expanding"? 2 plus 2 BE 4.
The point BEing that if it is expanding it had a starting point.
As for any "role" of a "creator" he answers that- the four forces- gravity (the weakest); electromagnetic; weak nuclear; and strong nuclear. Then there is information and life to round out the group. But that is beside the point.
So is it just me or does even the "It would just BE" scenario have METAPHYSICAL stamped on it?
Zachriel has challenged that intelligent reasoning ;) by invoking Stephen Hawking. Knowing somthing of Dr. Hawking I responded by stating that his theory is also metaphysical in nature. However I based that on "A Brief History of Time" and many years had passed since I read it. Now Stephen, together with Leonard Mlodinow, has a (relatively) new book out titled "A Briefer History of Time".
So thinking that Zachriel may know something that I do not, I read the book. What does Dr. Hawking have to say?:
If there is no boundary to space-time, there is no need to specify the behavior at the boundary- no need to know the initial state of the universe. There is no edge of space-time at which we would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. We could say: “The boundary condition for the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside of itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. As long as we believed the universe had a beginning, the role of the creator seemed clear. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, having neither beginning nor end, then the answer is not so obvious: what is the role of a creator?(bold added)
-page 103, last paragraph of chapter 9 Quantum Gravity
"It would just BE." (caps in the original) That is what he said. However it IS expanding. Or should that read "It BE expanding"? 2 plus 2 BE 4.
The point BEing that if it is expanding it had a starting point.
As for any "role" of a "creator" he answers that- the four forces- gravity (the weakest); electromagnetic; weak nuclear; and strong nuclear. Then there is information and life to round out the group. But that is beside the point.
So is it just me or does even the "It would just BE" scenario have METAPHYSICAL stamped on it?
posted by Joe G @ 6:27 PM
13 Comments:
At 1:28 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The point BEing that if it is expanding it had a starting point."
That is precisely contrary to what Hawking has proposed. The very nature of time may not properly apply at the singularity. There may be no boundary in the time dimension, just as the surface of a sphere may be finite, but without boundary.
That you don't understand this is irrelevant to it being a valid scientific hypothesis in physics.
joe g: "So is it just me or does even the 'It would just BE' scenario have METAPHYSICAL stamped on it?"
If Hawking is correct, then it would be a statement within physics, and at least one question would be removed from metaphysical speculation.
[Please turn off your moderation. I don't think you really need it to limit spam, and several of my posts have been lost.]
At 9:02 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "The point BEing that if it is expanding it had a starting point."
Zachriel:
That is precisely contrary to what Hawking has proposed. The very nature of time may not properly apply at the singularity. There may be no boundary in the time dimension, just as the surface of a sphere may be finite, but without boundary.
A starting point need not be a singularity, just as the starting point for a race need not be a singularity.
Zachriel:
That you don't understand this is irrelevant to it being a valid scientific hypothesis in physics.
I understand that even Hawking's idea requires a starting point- ie a starting position/ initial condition. It is unavoidable.
joe g: "So is it just me or does even the 'It would just BE' scenario have METAPHYSICAL stamped on it?"
Zachriel:
If Hawking is correct, then it would be a statement within physics, and at least one question would be removed from metaphysical speculation.
The univerese would just BE is a statement within physics? No that is purely metaphysical.
At 6:16 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "joe g: "So is it just me or does even the 'It would just BE' scenario have METAPHYSICAL stamped on it?"
He's claiming that there may a valid physics that is completely self-contained. Whether this is true, or not, has not been determined.
The original point (which you did not cite) was your claim, "if the universe had a beginning the cause had to be outside of the universe, ie outside of nature."
Hawking has proposed a plausible theory in physics that does not require the input of an outside anything. This shows that your so-called strong deduction is fallacious, and that your original argument was simply "God of the Gaps".
At 8:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
He's claiming that there may a valid physics that is completely self-contained. Whether this is true, or not, has not been determined.
And "self-contained" is metaphysical. Saying the universe "just is" is metaphysical.
Zachriel:
Hawking has proposed a plausible theory in physics that does not require the input of an outside anything.
It isn't plausible when you start with that which requires an explanation in the first place.
IOW saying the universe "just is"/ "always was"/ "it would just BE"- are metaphysical constructs with one aim only- to get around my premise.
At 10:52 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And 'self-contained' is metaphysical."
That's not the claim. If Hawking is correct, physics is self-contained and requires nothing outside it. Whether there is something outside it or not is irrelevant to what is a claim solidly within physics.
joe g: "It isn't plausible when you start with that which requires an explanation in the first place."
I understand you reject the claim, but that doesn't allow you to misrepresent the claim. Currently, there are certain fundamental relationships that have no explanation within physics.
Hawking claims that, if he is correct, then there is no necessity of anything outside physics to explain physics.
At 9:20 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And 'self-contained' is metaphysical."
Zachriel:
That's not the claim. If Hawking is correct, physics is self-contained and requires nothing outside it.
And that claim is metaphysical.
Zachriel:
Whether there is something outside it or not is irrelevant to what is a claim solidly within physics.
Right and if the designer is outside it or not (the design) is irrelevant to what is a claim solidly within the physical world. Also Hawking's view does not eliminate a designer for reasons I have already provided.
joe g: "It isn't plausible when you start with that which requires an explanation in the first place."
Zachriel:
I understand you reject the claim, but that doesn't allow you to misrepresent the claim.
I didn't misrepresent it. He starts with at least the four forces- gravity, electromagnetic, weak & strong nuclear forces.
Zachriel:
Currently, there are certain fundamental relationships that have no explanation within physics.
Hawking claims that, if he is correct, then there is no necessity of anything outside physics to explain physics.
And he would be correct if the designer is also physics.
At 11:00 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Also Hawking's view does not eliminate a designer for reasons I have already provided."
According to Hawking, it makes a designer superfluous. You may continue to misrepresent his claim, but that is clearly what he indicated and he made the claim from a basis within physical cosmology.
Hawking: The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside of itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed.
At 6:40 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Also Hawking's view does not eliminate a designer for reasons I have already provided."
Zachriel:
According to Hawking, it makes a designer superfluous.
Actually he just asks what the designer's role would be. And I answered that.
Zachriel:
You may continue to misrepresent his claim, but that is clearly what he indicated and he made the claim from a basis within physical cosmology.
Whatever- Hawking's way around a beginning was to say that the universe and the laws that govern it "just are". Pure nonsense.
Hawking: The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside of itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed.
Right- as I said, metaphysical.
At 7:26 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The point BEing that if it is expanding it had a starting point."
This statement may or may not be true in physics as time, and even the nature of the singularity, i.e. "starting point", are not as clearcut as your statement suggests. The "point" may be smeared out. This is a statement is physics.
The metaphysics in Hawking's suggestion is when he asks What place, then, for a creator?" Your original statement, though seemingly reasonable, may not make sense in a quantum singularity. Hawking makes these assertions within a physical framework.
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "The point BEing that if it is expanding it had a starting point."
Zachriel:
This statement may or may not be true in physics as time, and even the nature of the singularity, i.e. "starting point", are not as clearcut as your statement suggests.
I went over this already:
A starting point need not be a singularity, just as the starting point for a race need not be a singularity.
That you can't understand that tells me this discussion is over.
Zachriel:
The metaphysics in Hawking's suggestion is when he asks What place, then, for a creator?"
The metaphysics is saying the universe "just is", without having to explain it. It is metaphysical to have the four forces "just be". It is not only metaphysical but lazy.
At 11:28 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "A starting point need not be a singularity, just as the starting point for a race need not be a singularity."
A race has a starting line, though I suppose an individual racer may have a starting point. However, the notion of "point" may not make sense in the singularity as proposed by Hawking. There is no "point".
joe g: "It is not only metaphysical but lazy."
We already understand that you reject Hawking. It isn't necessary to misrepresent his ideas or call him names.
At 8:57 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "It is not only metaphysical but lazy."
Zachriel:
We already understand that you reject Hawking.
Then you don't understand at all because I do not reject Hawking.
Zachriel:
It isn't necessary to misrepresent his ideas or call him names.
I didn't do either. If anyone thinks it is OK to say the universe "just is" and by doing so think they are beyond explaining anything the initial conditions it is pretty obvious that is laziness.
At 3:35 AM,
Eocene said…
Here's a video you may enjoy. It explains the origins of perverted worldview and it's consequences when parishioners of Evo-World suck up every last drop of perceived infinite wisdom they imagine spews forth from such materialist religious leaders such as Hawkings, whose personal sad physical experience has n doubt coloured his outlook on life much to the delight of other materialists such as the ideologue prosyletizer you've just debated with above.
This just came out. It really illustrates why science and scientists see no consequences to their actions when greed and selfishness are the motivating factors behind what they pursue. Clearly in their worldview, there is no good or bad, just blind pitiless indifference.
The God Within documentary - exposing the false philosophy of modern science
Post a Comment
<< Home