Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-04-2013, 12:51 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
In future, will consult Madame Zelda.
[Image: madamezelda1.jpg]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 08:59 AM)BryanS Wrote:  To those who think the multiverse is unjustified BS, try actually reading and learning instead of speculating. The multiverse idea is definitely at the cutting edge of science, meaning much more research needs to be done to increase confidence among scientists in the idea.

Multiverse is crap. Now what? Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 02:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You think the universe spontaneously arose because some old guy in a wheel chair said it might have happened that way?

That 'old guy in a wheelchair' has evidence based on decades of work (built on the work of great minds that came before him) and beautifully coherent math that support his conclusions.

You have an ancient text, written by anonymous, superstitious, Iron Age tribesman.

One of these sources has a much greater chance of getting it right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
20-04-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 08:59 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 11:13 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  There's a dude from MIT coming to give a lecture about his new multiverse theory here in hicktown, merica. This shit just doesn't happen here, and it's not even affiliated with the college so far as I'm aware.

I'm pumped, I'm a first rate noob at this science shit, but I find it absolutely fascinating.

Hawking lays out in an accessible way his justifications for M-theory and the multiverse in his book The Grand Design . If you're interested in the topic, that might not be a bad read in addition to the lecture.


(19-04-2013 12:37 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Where's the evidence?
(19-04-2013 02:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You think the universe spontaneously arose because some old guy in a wheel chair said it might have happened that way?

To those who think the multiverse is unjustified BS, try actually reading and learning instead of speculating. The multiverse idea is definitely at the cutting edge of science, meaning much more research needs to be done to increase confidence among scientists in the idea.

The idea is based on observations that suggest multiple histories at the quantum scale (the double slit experiment for example). Just like the double slit experiment inspired quantum mechanics by bolstering the idea that matter can behave like waves (the Schreodinger equation is a 'wave equation'), this idea of multiple histories in the double slit experiment suggest that when the universe was a singularity at the scale of quantum mechanics, multiple universes were potential at that point and we are observing but one of the results of a combination of possibilities.

So the multiverse, if a true idea, would be an elegant way of explaining how our universe came to be, would be consistent with existing physics, and true to Occam's Razor in that in includes no additional (and unnecessary) assumptions. Just like quantum mechanics is consistent with macroscopic scale when we use the equations to calculate macroscopic qualities, and just like the equations for relativity are consistent with Newtonian mechanics at slower speeds, the multiverse is consistent with the universe we live in today. These characteristics are the hallmark of all successful scientific theories.

The multiverse idea is fairly new in Physics, so we need more evidence to support it. We have but only one universe to observe, so it is difficult, though not impossible (WMAP experiments looking for evidence of interactions with remnant universes) to find supporting physical evidence. The evidence for multiple histories are all around us in modern physics--we just need the evidence that our universe is one example of this.

And that represents a problem for theists who have gone from denying the big bang to embracing it as evidence for god (because the universe has a beginning). If the universe really did bang out of singularity, than the multiverse theory is true if we can find evidence that this quantum thing (the universe at singularity) behaves like every other quantum thing we know about. Notice I'm not saying the multiverse theory is definitely true, just that there is good reason to search for the evidence to support it.

And what if we find the evidence we are looking for? Problem for the theists--it means the universe and all its 'creation' are not something special requiring an outside influence to create. As Hawking rightly notes, this theory requires no gods. If even the physical properties are 'selected' through this quantum history selecting only the ones that work, then god even has no role for the physical constants and properties of the universe. The god of the gaps, then would have a virtually non-existent gap to occupy .

Bryan, the problem with multi verse theory is that it is not really science. It can't be tested or falsified. Regarding your claim that WMAP could see artifacts of colliding universes, that will be as credible evidence for a multiverse as picture of the Sydonian face on mars is credible evidence for extra terrestrial life. Any image we see in the WMAP which could be created by a collision with another universe could just as well be caused by random happenstance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
20-04-2013, 01:12 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 12:52 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-04-2013 08:59 AM)BryanS Wrote:  To those who think the multiverse is unjustified BS, try actually reading and learning instead of speculating. The multiverse idea is definitely at the cutting edge of science, meaning much more research needs to be done to increase confidence among scientists in the idea.

Multiverse is crap. Now what? Tongue

Meh...it very well could be. But just calling it so doesn't make it so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 01:12 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-04-2013 12:52 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Multiverse is crap. Now what? Tongue

Meh...it very well could be. But just calling it so doesn't make it so.

For you, maybe. But Imma prophet. Big Grin

It is philosophically unsatisfying. Beyond what Blome covered, every new discovery and observation seems to send the string heads back to their whiteboards to tweak their stringiness. Starting to seem like Goddidit from over here... Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 01:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-04-2013 08:59 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Hawking lays out in an accessible way his justifications for M-theory and the multiverse in his book The Grand Design . If you're interested in the topic, that might not be a bad read in addition to the lecture.



To those who think the multiverse is unjustified BS, try actually reading and learning instead of speculating. The multiverse idea is definitely at the cutting edge of science, meaning much more research needs to be done to increase confidence among scientists in the idea.

The idea is based on observations that suggest multiple histories at the quantum scale (the double slit experiment for example). Just like the double slit experiment inspired quantum mechanics by bolstering the idea that matter can behave like waves (the Schreodinger equation is a 'wave equation'), this idea of multiple histories in the double slit experiment suggest that when the universe was a singularity at the scale of quantum mechanics, multiple universes were potential at that point and we are observing but one of the results of a combination of possibilities.

So the multiverse, if a true idea, would be an elegant way of explaining how our universe came to be, would be consistent with existing physics, and true to Occam's Razor in that in includes no additional (and unnecessary) assumptions. Just like quantum mechanics is consistent with macroscopic scale when we use the equations to calculate macroscopic qualities, and just like the equations for relativity are consistent with Newtonian mechanics at slower speeds, the multiverse is consistent with the universe we live in today. These characteristics are the hallmark of all successful scientific theories.

The multiverse idea is fairly new in Physics, so we need more evidence to support it. We have but only one universe to observe, so it is difficult, though not impossible (WMAP experiments looking for evidence of interactions with remnant universes) to find supporting physical evidence. The evidence for multiple histories are all around us in modern physics--we just need the evidence that our universe is one example of this.

And that represents a problem for theists who have gone from denying the big bang to embracing it as evidence for god (because the universe has a beginning). If the universe really did bang out of singularity, than the multiverse theory is true if we can find evidence that this quantum thing (the universe at singularity) behaves like every other quantum thing we know about. Notice I'm not saying the multiverse theory is definitely true, just that there is good reason to search for the evidence to support it.

And what if we find the evidence we are looking for? Problem for the theists--it means the universe and all its 'creation' are not something special requiring an outside influence to create. As Hawking rightly notes, this theory requires no gods. If even the physical properties are 'selected' through this quantum history selecting only the ones that work, then god even has no role for the physical constants and properties of the universe. The god of the gaps, then would have a virtually non-existent gap to occupy .

Bryan, the problem with multi verse theory is that it is not really science. It can't be tested or falsified. Regarding your claim that WMAP could see artifacts of colliding universes, that will be as credible evidence for a multiverse as picture of the Sydonian face on mars is credible evidence for extra terrestrial life. Any image we see in the WMAP which could be created by a collision with another universe could just as well be caused by random happenstance.

Our little rep is headed the wrong way, I see. Tongue

So you, with your no degree in nuthin, calling Dawkins wrong about his own field, and Hawking a old guy in a chair, can sit there and say that data seen in WMAP and ISIS, and wherever else, despite that fact that many PhD physicists say it WILL constitute evidence, is not evidence. I see. Well, I guess we should just all jettison reason, and believe you now should we ?

Not.

You just be happy in your play pen with your god of the gaps, and the adults will talk. Now be quiet BlowJob, and go take your bottle, and your nap. Mommy will be happy.

Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-04-2013, 02:15 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 01:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You just be happy in your play pen with your god of the gaps, and the adults will talk. Now be quiet BlowJob, and go take your bottle, and your nap. Mommy will be happy.

Weeping

Sadcryface2 You're so mean!

(I lol'd)

Remember, though, if you chase all the theists away this'll just be a perverse sexuality forum. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 01:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Bryan, the problem with multi verse theory is that it is not really science. It can't be tested or falsified. Regarding your claim that WMAP could see artifacts of colliding universes, that will be as credible evidence for a multiverse as picture of the Sydonian face on mars is credible evidence for extra terrestrial life. Any image we see in the WMAP which could be created by a collision with another universe could just as well be caused by random happenstance.

And yet, it is still much more probable than "god did it".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 11:49 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 01:10 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 02:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You think the universe spontaneously arose because some old guy in a wheel chair said it might have happened that way?

That 'old guy in a wheelchair' has evidence based on decades of work (built on the work of great minds that came before him) and beautifully coherent math that support his conclusions.

You have an ancient text, written by anonymous, superstitious, Iron Age tribesman.

One of these sources has a much greater chance of getting it right.

Hawkings has no evidence. He has an idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: