Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2013, 10:33 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 10:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 09:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yet you hang around?

Troll much...

You know that all you're doing is wasting your time.

My time could be more wisely spent doing other thing, but I don't think I am wasting it.

You're right, you're not wasting your time. You're walking around the edge of the pool, dipping your toes in, and wondering what it woukld be like to swim. One day you'll jump in. In the meantime we can laugh at you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
Could someone remind me why we have collectively (if implicitly and unconsciously) granted Heywood and other individuals *coughegorcough* the power to get us to stop talking about Hawking or, well, almost anything else? Because that doesn't strike me as a well-thought-out move on our part. It'd be one thing of there was a clear benefit to giving them this power, but I can't see one.

I'm particularly fascinated by the spherical topology which Hawking seems to be proposing for time. It almost feels like it makes sense with the rest of quantum theory. I really need to hit the books and study up on the subject.

As for that meaning the Big Bang wouldn't require a god? I'm not of the impression that the Big Bang would require a god otherwise, so not really news to me.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
23-06-2013, 06:48 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 10:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Last evening at CalTech, Stephen Hawking told us how Relativity and Quantum Field Theory may have produced the Big Bang. No god(s) required. Tongue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...t-off.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...4796.story

Imagine looking at a highly complex highly detailed piece of artwork. Its splendor can now be seen on today's HD 1920x1080 TV's. However, if you view such an art piece on a computer monitor with the screen resolution set to a mere 640x480, all of the details would be lost, perhaps even suffice enough such that people can't make heads or tails of the artwork itself.

Now, the human brain is made up of a finite number of parts, and so the mind is also made up of a finite number of parts. Thus there is a set limit to the resolution of the human mind itself.

Therefore, if the complexity of the completeness of reality is greater than that of which the limited capacity of the human mind can hold and comprehend, then what mankind will see is not that of which reality actually is.

Therefore, those whom are happy with what the human mind CAN see, concerning reality, are those whom are happy with less than completeness. Those whom are happy with less than completeness, constantly oppose those who believe that the human mind is incapable of understanding that which can not be understood.

Meaning, there are many a people who believe that there is nothing that can exist that mankind can not comprehend. Thus they throw the possibility of the existence of a God, out the window.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(23-06-2013 06:48 PM)JesuisSean Wrote:  Meaning, there are many a people who believe that there is nothing that can exist that mankind can not comprehend. Thus they throw the possibility of the existence of a God, out the window.

You're right -- let's not throw the possibility of the existence of a god out the window. But knowledge isn't built around "reasonable doubt". Just because the existence of a god isn't impossible doesn't mean that we ought to give skepticism a back seat. Let's go with the weight of the greater evidence, even if our limited minds can't possibly get the entirety of the evidence, because that's all we can do.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 08:46 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2013 08:50 PM by Elesjei.)
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(23-06-2013 06:48 PM)JesuisSean Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 10:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Last evening at CalTech, Stephen Hawking told us how Relativity and Quantum Field Theory may have produced the Big Bang. No god(s) required. Tongue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...t-off.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...4796.story

Imagine looking at a highly complex highly detailed piece of artwork. Its splendor can now be seen on today's HD 1920x1080 TV's. However, if you view such an art piece on a computer monitor with the screen resolution set to a mere 640x480, all of the details would be lost, perhaps even suffice enough such that people can't make heads or tails of the artwork itself.

Now, the human brain is made up of a finite number of parts, and so the mind is also made up of a finite number of parts. Thus there is a set limit to the resolution of the human mind itself.

Therefore, if the complexity of the completeness of reality is greater than that of which the limited capacity of the human mind can hold and comprehend, then what mankind will see is not that of which reality actually is.

That's not a good comparison. We can not see skin cells but we know our skin is made of them, because even though at our resolution all we see is a flat surface, we can use a microscope to see the cells individually. The 1080p file itself is not altered when viewed on a small screen. What is different is essentially the viewing distance, like viewing skin from a foot away versus viewing it through a microscope. If we fit the whole video on a small screen we can't see everything that is there, but we can if we zoom in on a section. The information exists for us to find, we just need the tools to look closer. Everything is made of small parts that can be ultimately described in simple terms such as mathematical equations. Because of this, there is nothing that a functional human brain is incapable of understanding.

The concept of quantum physics seems impossibly confusing, but it is actually pretty simple. The universe can be thought of as having seemingly endless layers, each one building up the one above it. To understand how something works, you have to peel back a layer. Chemical reactions can be understood by studying atoms. Atoms can be understood by studying subatomic particles. Subatomic particles can be understood by studying their building blocks, and we can keep going down as far as elementary particles. As long as you have the necessary tools, you can keep going further and further back. Each layer can be described by equations which reference the building blocks of it. Equations for components for equations for components for equations for components for equations, and so on. That is simply the nature of reality - small pieces making something bigger.

Simply put, if you don't understand something, it's because you aren't looking close enough, not because you can't understand it.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 09:03 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(23-06-2013 06:48 PM)JesuisSean Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 10:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Last evening at CalTech, Stephen Hawking told us how Relativity and Quantum Field Theory may have produced the Big Bang. No god(s) required. Tongue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...t-off.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...4796.story

Imagine looking at a highly complex highly detailed piece of artwork. Its splendor can now be seen on today's HD 1920x1080 TV's. However, if you view such an art piece on a computer monitor with the screen resolution set to a mere 640x480, all of the details would be lost, perhaps even suffice enough such that people can't make heads or tails of the artwork itself.

Now, the human brain is made up of a finite number of parts, and so the mind is also made up of a finite number of parts. Thus there is a set limit to the resolution of the human mind itself.

Therefore, if the complexity of the completeness of reality is greater than that of which the limited capacity of the human mind can hold and comprehend, then what mankind will see is not that of which reality actually is.

Therefore, those whom are happy with what the human mind CAN see, concerning reality, are those whom are happy with less than completeness. Those whom are happy with less than completeness, constantly oppose those who believe that the human mind is incapable of understanding that which can not be understood.

Meaning, there are many a people who believe that there is nothing that can exist that mankind can not comprehend. Thus they throw the possibility of the existence of a God, out the window.

First of all, fractal compression. Pretty ironic that you use an example to demonstrate complexity without knowing the hidden simplicity. Those who believe that the human mind is incapable of understanding that which cannot be understood, quit. And advancement fails. With fractal geometry, one turns from the human mind - to continue in your flowery vein - and towards the mind of nature.

Second of all, god. That "capital G" shit, we can throw out the window.

Third of all, a whole bunch of words does not necessarily encode a whole bunch of concept, a whole bunch of wisdom; as you have demonstrated, a whole bunch of words can also be used to obscure meaning. Next time, try to leave out the capital. It's a sure giveaway. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: