Home » Cosmology » We are living in a giant hologram, or a giant trailer filled with poop, or whatever Stephen Hawking says we are living in

We are living in a giant hologram, or a giant trailer filled with poop, or whatever Stephen Hawking says we are living in

File:Hologrammit.jpg

/Meutia Chaerani

So says Ars Technica at Wired (August 1, 2011)

“Hawking used quantum theory to derive a result that was at odds with quantum theory,” as Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft described the situation. Still, that wasn’t all bad; it created a paradox and “Paradoxes make physicists happy.”

“It was very hard to see what was wrong with what he was saying,” Susskind said, “and even harder to get Hawking to see what was wrong.”

The arguments apparently got very heated. Herman Verlinde, another physicist on the panel, described how there would often be silences when it was clear that Hawking had some thoughts on whatever was under discussion; these often ended when Hawking said “rubbish.” “When Hawking says ‘rubbish,’” he said, “you’ve lost the argument.”

Settles it then. Hawking is right.

What was missing from the discussion was an attempt to tackle one of the issues that plagues string theory: the math may all work out and it could provide a convenient way of looking at the world, but is it actually related to anything in the actual, physical Universe? Nobody even attempted to tackle that question. Still, the panel did a good job of describing how something that started as an attempt to handle a special case—the loss of matter into a black hole—could provide a new way of looking at the Universe. And, in the process, how people could eventually convince Stephen Hawking he got one wrong.

Which is all that matters. Rest.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

54 Responses to We are living in a giant hologram, or a giant trailer filled with poop, or whatever Stephen Hawking says we are living in

  1. I remember one comment when Hawking’s ‘Grand Design’ first book came out. The guy made it clear he wasn’t being mean spirited, but he honestly wanted to know:

    ‘if stephen hawking can figure out how the entire universe was made, how come he cant figure out how to get out of that wheelchair and talk?’

    Kind of rough, but it does expose the sheer arrogance of Stephen Hawking’s thinking in a direct way.

    ,,,My take on all this was that if Stephen Hawking was really concerned about being ‘scientific’, instead of just furthering his atheistic religion, then perhaps he should try to violate the first law of thermodynamics and actually create a single photon from scratch before he exercised such hubris as to pronounce how the entire universe was created.

    ,,, As well, recently

  2. I believe Stephen Hawking may have also used ‘quantum tunneling’ in his model for the universe being created from scratch,,, But it has also now been found that quantum tunneling is essential for DNA repair:

    Can Quantum Mechanics Play a Role in DNA Damage Detection?, – video
    http://www.scivee.tv/node/25476

    So exactly what are we to make of having a quantum effect in our body which some atheists are so enamored with as to use it for creating universes from scratch???

  3. The first link gives me a 404 File Not Found error.

  4. “Hawking used quantum theory to derive a result that was at odds with quantum theory,” as Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft described the situation.

    If that is what Hawking did, then one of possibilities is true:
    1) Hawking made a mistake;
    2) Quantun theory is self-contradictory; which is to say, false.

  5. SCheesman at 3: Error fixed. Thanks for notiff.

  6. Ba:

    ‘if stephen hawking can figure out how the entire universe was made, how come he cant figure out how to get out of that wheelchair and talk?’

    Kind of rough, but it does expose the sheer arrogance of Stephen Hawking’s thinking in a direct way.

    Kinda rough? Don’t be so modest, it is awful and awful on
    many levels.
    First a snide way of demeaning him because he has ALS ,he can’t be that smart,haha
    Second,”expose..sheer arrogance”, so he should be humbled by his disease and not act like he is smarter than us walking guys? If you got a problem with Hawking fine, leave the low blows,it is distasteful

  7. Well velikovskys, I did not originally make the statement. I thought I made that clear. And though I feel sorry for the man with his horrible disease, the point, though rough, is none the less very fitting and valid for the claim he is making. Just think of it velikovskys, here the man is claiming to have figured out how the entire universe, in all its grandeur and glory, was brought into being, and despite this grandiose claim, a claim that certainly shows no signs of modesty (nor does it show signs of ever garnering a Nobel prize), he has not the slightest clue how to solve his own debilitating disease. A problem that should be, perspective-wise, a far easier problem to figure out than creating a universe.,,,

    ,,,But hey velikovskys I am open to any actual evidence he may have presented but he has presented none. In fact, he has not even created a single photon from scratch!!! Shoot, creating a single photon from scratch would at least give him some credibility,,, and would certainly earn him a Nobel prize as well. ,,,, So velikovskys, the brute reality is that it all boils down to a sad crippled man in a wheelchair, with delusions of grandeur, imagining that he can create universes, with not one single photon of credible substantiating empirical evidence. All the while his own debilitating disease clearly testifies against him that his ability to solve problems is much more limited than he, or his supporters, would care to admit the reality of to the general public.

    notes:

    ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.” – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip:

    Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5278793/

    Hawking gave the game away for his ‘omnipotent’ claims for M-theory with this quote that he gave in response to a question from Larry King at the beginning of a interview King had with Hawking about his book:

    Larry King: “If you could time travel would you go forward or backward?”

    Stephen Hawking: “I would go forward and find if M-theory is indeed the theory of everything.”

    Larry King and others; “Quietly laugh”

    The following expert shows why the materialistic postulation of ‘string theory’ is, for all intents and purposes of empirical science, a complete waste of time and energy:

    Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law:
    Peter Woit, a PhD. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn’t predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they’re willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors.
    http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even.....0465092756

    Here is Professor Peter Woit’s blog where he has been fairly busy showing the failure of string theory to pass any of the experimental tests that have been proposed and put to any of its predictions:

    String Theory Fails Another Test, the “Supertest”
    http://www.math.columbia.edu/~.....ss/?p=3338

    ,,, as to Hawking creating a photon from scratch, the only problem that Hawking has with that problem is that he will have to figure out where to find the right kind of infinite specified, and transcendent, information:

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of quantum information in this universe must be complete and instantaneous.)
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    More supporting evidence for the transcendent nature of information, and how it interacts with energy, is found in these following studies:

    Single photons to soak up data:
    Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201

    Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon
    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    ,,,velikovskys, so there you have a brief outline of it,,,, specified, Infinite, quantum information is required to create a single photon,,,, perhaps that is why the first law of thermodynamics became a law of science in the first place???,,,,, by the way velikovskys, I’ve heard said God is infinite, and perfect, in knowledge (information).,, moreover I heard that He defeated death, for our behalf, out of His love for us,,,

    AIN’T NO GRAVE (Can Hold My Body Down) Johnny Cash
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66QcIlblI1U

  8. What? Hawking gets a free pass because he’s crippled?

  9. BA77

    Shame on you ….

    Just think of it velikovskys, here the man is claiming to have figured out how the entire universe, in all its grandeur and glory, was brought into being, and despite this grandiose claim, a claim that certainly shows no signs of modesty (nor does it show signs of ever garnering a Nobel prize), he has not the slightest clue how to solve his own debilitating disease

    I think you and many of the others on this site are pretty certain about how the universe came into being – are you not? (And I see zero signs of modesty from most contributors). How come you have failed to find the cure to any serious diseases? Could it because it is different area of expertise?

    You are trying to use his condition to make his claims less plausible when it is utterly irrelevant.

  10. BA :
    Well velikovskys, I did not originally make the statement. I thought I made that clear. And though I feel sorry for the man with his horrible disease, the point, though rough, is none the less very fitting and valid for the claim he is making

    Sorry that doesn’t wash, it doesn’t matter who said it, you choose to use it as an insightful comment. Has he arrogantly claimed to know everything? Does expertise in physics translate into expertise in all fields? If not, then it is neither fitting or valid to claim that his diease is somehow proof that his theory is wrong

    Stephen Hawking: “I would go forward and find if M-theory is indeed the theory of everything.”

    Gee, BA, he said he would go ahead and find if m-theory is …theory of everything. How arrogant to try to prove something. Not everyone is sure they have the correct
    answer to the theory of everything as you are.

    BA :( just in case the real point of the story was too subtle) All the while his own debilitating disease clearly testifies against him that his ability to solve problems is much more limited than he, or his supporters, would care to admit the reality of to the general public

    BA, he is a physicist, not a physician. It is an incurable disease . He has never claimed to be able to cure it. This is kindergarten stuff. I get you don’t like him. Everything he says is not necessarily correct, but none of it is incorrect because he has ALS.

    Prove him wrong with math not with ad hominem.

  11. Ilion:
    What? Hawking gets a free pass because he’s crippled?

    No, whether he is crippled is irrelevant to the validity of his views unless he cites it as proof that he is correct, has he?

  12. 12

    Perhaps ba77 is under the impression that a “Theory of Everything” in the sense used in cosmology is actually a theory that explains every single phenomenon in the universe including the causes and cures of ALS.

    It’s not – it’s just a theory (non-existent yet) that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity.

  13. HMMM, and yet though Hawking has ZERO empirical support for his mathematical conjectures, his views are held as absolutely authoritative by atheists because,,, because,,, because by-golly the alternative is unthinkable!!! Well excuse me for not being so easily swayed by appeal to the authority of the lead atheistic mathematical sorcerer and all his smokes and mirrors, and await ANY empirical evidence.,,, Empirical evidence as perhaps creating a single photon from scratch?!?

  14. velikovskys you state:

    Stephen Hawking: “I would go forward and find if M-theory is indeed the theory of everything.”

    Gee, BA, he said he would go ahead and find if m-theory is …theory of everything. How arrogant to try to prove something. Not everyone is sure they have the correct answer to the theory of everything as you are.

    Now velikovskys, you seem to have missed the obvious point here. Hawking, in appealing to M-theory as his basis for his ‘theory of everything’, has stated in no uncertain terms, in his ‘Grand Design’ book, that he knows God did not create the universe, yet here we have Hawking admitting before Larry King, on national TV, that he does not even know for sure if M-theory is correct in the first place, and he would like to go to the future and see if it is correct. Thus velikovskys if Hawking himself is not sure that his m-theory equations are correct exactly why in blue blazes should you or I put any faith whatsoever in what he says about what equations indicate??? There is absolutely no scientific warrant to do so, and for you to pretend that he is being forthright is certainly not honest on your part.

  15. velikovskys, as fate would have it;
    John Lennox Takes On Stephen Hawking in Seattle, Friday, August 19
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....49021.html

    Lennox is a mathematics professor!

  16. EL,

    Perhaps ba77 is under the impression that a “Theory of Everything” in the sense used in cosmology is actually a theory that explains every single phenomenon in the universe

    Surely BA realizes that has been answered. 42

    Not to sound too fanboy, EL, but Thanks for All the Fish.

  17. You people make a conscious and concerted effort to misunderstand and invent insult where none exists, don’t you?

    Hawkins asserts that he has Explained The Total System. Well, he, himself — and his disease — are both parts of The Total System He Has Explained. And, still, he is crippled by the disease.

  18. BA,

    First ,thanks for dropping that argument and second,thanks for a link free post. Refreshing

    BA:
    Hawking, in appealing to M-theory as his basis for his ‘theory of everything’, has stated in no uncertain terms, in his ‘Grand Design’ book, that he knows God did not create the universe
    Two points
    1) Grand Design is a popular science book,not a formal mathematical explanation for his confidence in the M theory.

    2)In response to criticism, Hawking has said; “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but science makes God
    unnecessary.”
    So you are correct that even if M-Theory is correct that is no proof on the nonexistence of God. So if math can’t prove his nonexistence ,it seems odd to believe it can prove his existence . ( I am begging you no links,just your own words). Hawking agrees with your complaint and has modified or changed his position.

    BA:
    the future and see if it is correct. Thus velikovskys if Hawking himself is not sure that his m-theory equations are
    correct exactly why in blue blazes should you or I put any faith whatsoever in what he says about what equations indicate

    They could be the recipe for a chocolate cake for all we know. There are lots of math smart people who can’t
    completely understand what the blue blazes they mean. So our opinion is meaningless as to whether they are correct,unless you are hiding your lamp under the basket.

    But he still has to show his work, and prove to his peers that his ideas are sound.No free passes.

    BA :
    says about what equations indicate??? There is absolutely no scientific warrant to do so, and for you to pretend that he is being forthright is certainly not honest on your part.

    And now you have to ruin it, Yes BA I believe he is forthright about his equations and his views, since you know of course forthright doesn’t mean correct only honest and open, it seems hard to accuse me of dishonesty on whether that was my true opinion.

    Sorry for the length

  19. Ilion:
    Well, he, himself — and his disease — are both parts of The Total System He Has Explained

    I see,his mathematical proofs are invalid if he doesn’t know the secret of a perfect soufflé? That is certainly a tasty part of the total system. The secret of the perfect golf swing? That would more valuable to me than m- theory. Do I understand your argument correctly?

  20. velikovskys, I haven’t dropped the argument. I still think it is the ultimate of arrogance for a man to presuppose he can figure how the entire universe came into being, in all its stunning glory, all the while something vastly more trivial, perspective-wise, his disease, testifies to the extreme limit he has to solve problems of much more limited scope. That you do not see the hypocritical arrogance he exercises in the matter concerns me not one wit as I have seen atheists do completely insane things over and over, all the while pretending they are being rational.,,, Moreover, you are right with the word forthright, I should have used the word dishonest as i did with you,,, i.e. that you yourself would not demand at least some fairly concrete scientific evidence substantiating his ‘recipe for a chocolate cake’ is what makes you dishonest scientifically, whether you are aware of it or not. The same goes for the ever shifting sands of Elizabeth’s method of argumentation!!

  21. BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.faqs.org/periodical.....27241.html

  22. Also of humorous note in Hawking’s use of math to try to disprove the existence of God, is that without God math would be impossible in the first place; :)

    This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

    Proof That God Exists – easy to use interactive website
    http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

    Infinite Multiverse vs. Uniformity Of Nature – Presuppositional Apologetic – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139

    Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:

    Dr. Bruce Gordon – The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/

    Moreover the atheist argument for ‘truth claims’ falls apart in the neo-Darwinian framework:

    Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? – Joe Carter
    Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....onkey-mind

    What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? (‘inconsistent identity’ of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

    Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881

    It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a cause for objective morality;

    The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE

    Stephen Meyer – Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M

    “Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth.
    As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain.” Creation-Evolution Headlines
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20110227a

  23. This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground objective beliefs within the materialistic worldview;

    John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

    further notes on the absurdity inherent within atheistic/materialistic thought

    Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation – Granville Sewell – audio
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012

    At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation;

    ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+b^i, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.

    John Lennox – Science Is Impossible Without God – Quotes – video remix
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/

  24. BA,
    Is it something that I said? You seem a little angry. I agreed with you that if Hawking said science can disprove the existence of the divine he was wrong that is outside the scope of science. That should be honest

    I’ll even agree that I would not be surprised if he was arrogant,that should be honest in your view

    Of course your proof of his ” hypocritical arrogance” is a bone of contention , I find it mean spirited but worse it doesn’t work. I think a much better argument would be to be straight up with it…for instance,” I can’t believe a wheelchair bound atheist with an incurable disease can be arrogant enough to act like a theist who knows for a fact how the universe came to be” , that way the whole ridiculous ” he should cure himself ” thing goes away. That way you can be more honest as well

    So is this it? BA : some fairly concrete scientific evidence substantiating his ‘recipe for a chocolate cake’ is what makes you dishonest scientifically

    As I honestly said before I am incapable of personally judging the accuracy of his math, and truth be told whether we are a multiverse or not is way down on my list. I am origins ambivalent. I’m glad someone wants to spend their time doing it. It has nothing to with the divine. People can believe whatever they want, it is what it is.

    One question, we agree that science can’t prove the God doesn’t exist,right? Why do you believe it can prove he does? This doesn’t seem contradictory? Why believe God leaves an inadvertent trail of bread crumbs that our primitive science can detect,outwitting His obvious reluctance to come forward?

    BA :The same goes for the ever shifting sands of Elizabeth’s method of argumentation!!

    Not sure what this means, but I think it is a compliment. Thanks for the discussion or whatever this is, BA

  25. BA77 #20

    I still think it is the ultimate of arrogance for a man to presuppose he can figure how the entire universe came into being, in all its stunning glory, all the while something vastly more trivial, perspective-wise, his disease, testifies to the extreme limit he has to solve problems of much more limited scope.

    Stephen Hawking’s disease testifies to the inability of anyone to cure that disease. Therefore, it is the ultimate of arrogance for anyone to presuppose they can figure out how the entire universe came into being. So should we all stop hypothesising about the origin of the universe (theists, agnostics or atheists)until all the world’s problems have been solved?

  26. velikovskys and the fact that science, and math, is not even possible without God in the first place, and Hawking is using ‘science’ and math to try to make God ‘unnecessary’, is lost on you how? ,,, As well, If you like being compared to Elizabeth’s ever shifting argumentation style, I’ll be sure to compliment you in that way again. I find it dishonest to its core!!!

    markf, atheists do not truly ‘practice’ science, since science is impossible without God, instead atheists make up elaborate ‘scientific sounding’ excuses so as make God ‘unnecessary’. And in that exercise of ‘making excuses’ is the ‘atheistic arrogance’ of thinking one is smarter than God revealed;

  27. markf, I’ve been thinking about this statement of yours;

    ‘So should we all stop hypothesising about the origin of the universe (theists, agnostics or atheists)until all the world’s problems have been solved?’

    And what has become clear to me from this statement of yours is that atheists did not invent modern science in the first place, but modern science was indeed overwhelmingly founded by Christian Theists who believed the universe and the world to be intelligible. and that this intelligibility could be discovered. They believed this simply because they believed that the ‘rational’ mind of God had made the universe AND created humans in His image. Moreover the Christian theist held, and holds, that God became incarnate in the material universe in the form of Christ. Thus the Christian theist had every right to presuppose the universe to be intelligible and orderly, and it is not arrogant for him in the least for him to try to discern the handiwork of God in creation. Indeed that very presupposition is essential for science to even be possible. Whereas, on the other hand, the atheists are on the absolute opposite end of the spectrum as far as the founding of science is concerned. The in-congruence between atheism and the practice of ‘true’ science is best illustrated by the fact that the atheists demand, as a foundation precept in their non-theistic beliefs, that chaos/chance be given the primary role as the ultimate creator of everything. Which explains exactly why there are ZERO atheists on the honor roll of the founding scientists of modern science. i.e. Why should anyone look for rational order in the universe, and in life, when one presupposes that no ultimate rational order exists for the universe in the first place??? Therefore the atheist, ignorant of this flaw in his own logic, must highjack theistic presuppositions in order to practice modern science in the first place, but the insanity inherent in his thinking comes to fruit in the fact, as clearly illustrated by Hawking, is that at the end of the day the atheists ultimate goal in using modern science is to prove that science does not need God but that chaos/chance will suffice. And indeed, the insanity (arrogance) does not stop there for the atheists,,, for instance Darwinian evolution has no hard solid empirical evidence that it is true, and even though Darwinian evolution is for all intents and purposes pseudo-science, which never has had any solid evidence, it has held onto its place in ‘science’ by making, get this, theological arguments.,,, Which again is completely insane!!! The atheists highjacks the Christian presupposition of order in the universe, finds some trivial thing in life or the universe that he doesn’t think is quite orderly and then pronounces ‘AHA God would not have done that that way!!!’ All the while the atheists forgets the Theistic foundation from which he has made his defiant declaration.

  28. BA77

    Your most recent comments seem to a rather long-winded way of saying:

    When Christians make assertions about the beginning of the universe it is not arrogant but when atheists make such assertions it is arrogant and the reason is that Christians are right and the atheists are wrong.

    I notice all that Stephen Hawkings medical condition has dropped out of the argument altogether. Do you accept at least that the inability to cure incurable diseases is irrelevant?

  29. markf, Well atheists are wrong and Christians are right as to the proper use of science!!! :) That is just a simple fact laid bare by what we now know.,,,, Who says his disease is incurable, by-golly markf, you hold that the man actually knows how the entire universe was brought into being without the necessity for God. Surely if the man can pull off that unrivaled feat of human intellect, which makes all other discovers pail in comparison., then that puny disease should be no match for his super-genius once he puts his mind to it!!!.

  30. BA,

    the fact that science, and math, is not even possible without God in the first place, and Hawking is using ‘science’ and math to try to make God ‘unnecessary’, is lost on you

    Unnecessary for what BA ? To be the direct cause of the universe? Your concept of God sort of restrictive, she obviously as a non contigent being is not bound by cause and effect, she is unlimited by definition.

    I think your argument about science is wrong headed, a coherent universe is necessary for science but God is not restricted to create a rational universe. If it was an irrational universe would that prove it was not created by god? Is there any type of universe that would be proof there was no god?My guess is no. Then it seems to me that the coherence of the universe is no argument one way or the other for Her existence.

    Finally BA ,just because someone disagrees with you does not make them dishonest. Just because you view supporting views as facts does not require others to reciprocate .

  31. velikovskys, ignoring, and disagreeing with, the overwhelming evidence for the creation, and design, of the universe, as well as ignoring, and disagreeing with, the overwhelming evidence for design in life, is what makes you ‘scientifically’ dishonest. It is nothing personal in the least when I call you ‘scientifically’ dishonest, it is the evidence itself that testifies against you and for which I am concerned with!!!. But Hey velikovskys, it is not me that you have to try to convince that you are being rigorously honest with the evidence, One day, as sure as daylight comes in the morning, you will have to give account to God for why you have done as such!!!

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    Trust in Jesus – Third Day
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6koz1p2Q6Bw

  32. BA :
    velikovskys, ignoring, and disagreeing with, the overwhelming evidence for the creation, and design, of the universe, as well as ignoring, and disagreeing with, the overwhelming evidence for design in life, is what makes you ‘scientifically’ dishonest.

    BA , no offense but it is overwhelming only to you,in fact it would be dishonest to say I believed it. I agree that some things appear design like, prove that the only way that occurs ,thru science, is thru god,preferably the christian one.Now of course id is not about god but come on BA you know it is really as long as we are being honest.I’m open to new ideas BA ,on the otherhand you believe your eternal life hinges on your dogma. Is there some part of you that sees that your impartial judgement is questionable ?

    BA ,do you know what a hyper Calvinist is?

  33. velikovskys; like I said you don’t have to convince me that you are being reasonable with the evidence, it is God you got to worry about!!! I’m just warning you as best I can.

    Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

    The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences – Dr Jeffery Long – Melvin Morse M.D. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627

    Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
    http://findarticles.com/p/arti....._65076875/

  34. velikovskys, To see how reasonable you are with the evidence, can you please tell me where the information in the ‘simplest’ life came from???

    Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
    “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?”
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/c.....2-2-29.pdf

    First-Ever Blueprint of ‘Minimal Cell’ Is More Complex Than Expected – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae’s transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    “At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....173027.htm

    There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism – November 2009
    Excerpt: In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....s-of-life/

    Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20091229a

    velikovskys, You will have to falsify this following null hypothesis, with concrete evidence, to give me a ‘reasonable’ explanation:

    The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    http://www.scitopics.com/The_L.....iency.html

    Another small problem velikovskys, is that you will also have to falsify Alain Aspect’s work on quantum non-locality to explain the non-local quantum information that is now found in DNA:

    Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place.

  35. Velikovskys:Hawkins asserts that he has Explained The Total System. Well, he, himself — and his disease — are both parts of The Total System He Has Explained. And, still, he is crippled by the disease.

    Ilíon:I see,his mathematical proofs are invalid if he doesn’t know the secret of a perfect soufflé? That is certainly a tasty part of the total system. The secret of the perfect golf swing? That would more valuable to me than m- theory. Do I understand your argument correctly?

    As I’ve said, you people seem to have a highly developed talent for misunderstanding clear statements. I often wonder whether you take special classes to hone that skill-set.

    Indeed, if he as Explained Everything, as he claims, then, necessarily, his Explanation For Everything includes within it the Explanation of All Things Within The Set ‘Everything’ (including, it seems, his Explanation itself).

    But hey! Perhaps that particular disease can never be cured … and he, having Explained All Things, knows this, but for his own Mysterious Reasons chooses not to tells us this fact.

  36. oh, shoot! I clearly got the quote-attributions backwards in the prior post.

  37. There is another amusing thing about the criticisms (coupled with moral indignation) in this thread of BA making reference to someone else having pointed out that Hawkins, despite Having Explained Everything, is still crippled by a disease … and is, seemingly, not yet God.

    Consider again, this statement directed at me — “I see,his mathematical proofs are invalid if he doesn’t know the secret of a perfect soufflé? That is certainly a tasty part of the total system. The secret of the perfect golf swing? That would more valuable to me than m- theory. Do I understand your argument correctly?

    Does that remind Gentle Reader of anything? It should: it’s the converse of the “who designed the designer?” and “who is the designer?” pseudo-arguments of the ID “critics”. What I mean is this — the IDists propose to develop metrics for the identification of actual design in the world, and in biology. And the ID “critics” respond: “Unless your metrics identify the designer, then they are worthless at identifying designs.” Now, above, Velikovsyks is (falsely) accusing me of having made an argument of the same form against Hawking’s assertion that he has Explained Everything, and he is objecting that such an argument is invalid. Yet, what, I ask you, are the odds that he will likewise object the next time an ID “critic” *does* argue in that invalid form?

  38. #35 Ilion

    Indeed, if he as Explained Everything, as he claims, then, necessarily, his Explanation For Everything includes within it the Explanation of All Things Within The Set ‘Everything’ (including, it seems, his Explanation itself).

    Hawking has not claimed to explain everything – only put forward a hypothesis about the origin of everything. I cannot believe it is necessary to point this out.

  39. markf you state:

    ‘Hawking has not claimed to explain everything – only put forward a hypothesis about the origin of everything.’

    markf, I encourage you to look at this following interview of Hawking and to show me exactly where he has restrained himself in modesty to make clear this conjecture is merely a unsubstantiated hypothesis:

    Stephen Hawking: ‘Science Makes God Unnecessary’ – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyJfzJB-kA

  40. BA77 – I didn’t say it was an unstubtantiated hypothesis – just that it was a hypothesis. This is clear when he says at the beginning that you cannot prove that God does not exist but God is unnecessary to explain the origin of the Universe.

    But more to the point it is not a hypothesis about everything – including the causes of ALS. It is a hypothesis about the origins of the universe. Your strategy of mocking him for being unable to cure his own shocking disease is utterly irrelevant and not at all like you – I normally think of you as being as nice chap (although deeply confused and mistaken).

  41. markf, keep your ‘damn me with praise’ flattery to yourself!!! You state;

    ‘I didn’t say it was an unstubtantiated hypothesis’

    Please do provide the substantiating evidence, or else concede it is unsubstantiated conjecture!!! (this should be interesting :) )

  42. BA (and others):

    Please let us watch out language.

    The use of vulgarities or profanities will open the door to that deterioration of atmosphere that is exactly what we do not want.

    GEM of TKI

  43. markf, perhaps you would like to defend Hawking’s statement here:

    ‘The laws of gravity rather than the intervention of a divine being set the Universe in motion,’ – Hawking

    Please tell me markf how the laws of gravity existed before space-time existed since, as shown by General Relativity, the laws of gravity depend on the existence of 4-D space time to operate.

  44. markf, please explain how a unchanging law, like gravity, can have causal power attributed to it so as to bring the universe into being??? But of more pressing concern of Hawking’s complete failure to substantiate his claims, is that String Theory and M-Theory have failed to be verified by empirical evidence time and time again,,,

    Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein – June 30, 2011
    Excerpt: Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity describes the properties of gravity and assumes that space is a smooth, continuous fabric. Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the smallest scales, like sand on a beach. One of the great concerns of modern physics is to marry these two concepts into a single theory of quantum gravity.,,, However, Integral’s observations are about 10,000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller.,,, “This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,” says Dr Laurent.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....stein.html

    Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law:
    Peter Woit, a PhD. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn’t predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they’re willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors.
    http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even.....0465092756

    Here is Professor Peter Woit’s blog where he has been fairly busy showing the failure of string theory to pass any of the experimental tests that have been proposed and put to any of its predictions:

    String Theory Fails Another Test, the “Supertest”
    http://www.math.columbia.edu/~.....ss/?p=3338

    Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio
    Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,, For the first time, limits on the possible variability of the electron to proton mass ratio are low enough to constrain dark energy models that “invoke rolling scalar fields,” that is, some kind of cosmic quintessence. They also are low enough to eliminate a set of string theory models in physics. That is these limits are already helping astronomers to develop a more detailed picture of both the cosmic creation event and of the history of the universe. Such achievements have yielded, and will continue to yield, more evidence for the biblical model for the universe’s origin and development.
    http://www.reasons.org/Testing.....nMassRatio

    ‘it is clear that the string landscape hypothesis is a highly speculative construction built on shaky assumptions and,,, requires meta-level fine-tuning itself.” – Bruce Gordon

    ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.” – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip:

    Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5278793/

    Quantum Mechanics Not In Jeopardy: Physicists Confirm Decades-Old Key Principle Experimentally – July 2010
    Excerpt: the research group led by Prof. Gregor Weihs from the University of Innsbruck and the University of Waterloo has confirmed the accuracy of Born’s law in a triple-slit experiment (as opposed to the double slit experiment). “The existence of third-order interference terms would have tremendous theoretical repercussions – it would shake quantum mechanics to the core,” says Weihs. The impetus for this experiment was the suggestion made by physicists to generalize either quantum mechanics or gravitation – the two pillars of modern physics – to achieve unification, thereby arriving at a one all-encompassing theory. “Our experiment thwarts these efforts once again,” explains Gregor Weihs. (of note: Born’s Law is an axiom that dictates that quantum interference can only occur between pairs of probabilities, not triplet or higher order probabilities. If they would have detected higher order interference patterns this would have potentially allowed a
    reformulation of quantum mechanics that is compatible with, or even incorporates, gravitation.)
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142640.htm

    But alas for these researchers, Godel clearly showed decades ago that a complete mathematical model for a ‘theory of everything’, such as Quantum Gravity, String Theory and M-theory attempt to be in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity , was impossible to construct in the first place, so their efforts are in vein save for further verifying what Godel proved:

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.faqs.org/periodical.....27241.html

    Thus, as Godel clearly showed in his theorems, and as the subsequent experiments repeatedly bear out, the ONLY theory that can possibly be a complete ‘theory of everything’ must include God in its premise. Thus,,,

    ,,,the ‘irreconcilable problem’ that mathematicians have in unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is this;

    Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/

    ,,,Although the physicists/mathematicians, in the preceding video, rightly feel they are at a dead end in reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, I would like to put forth the case that Jesus Christ, Himself, being God incarnate, is the most parsimonious solution to the number one problem in science today. The problem of the unification of Quantum Mechanics(QM) and General Relativity(GR)into a ‘theory of everything’.
    As noted in the video, the unification of QM and GR, into a ‘theory of everything’, has been a notoriously difficult problem for physicists and mathematicians to solve. In fact, Einstein himself spent many of the last years of his life on earth vainly searching for a solution to the QM-GR split. Moreover, the subsequent years of persistent search, by many leading, brilliant, physicists and mathematicians in the world, has not yielded any plausible solution to the problem. At least no solution that has not involved highly speculative, ‘verification-less’, appeals to string theoretic multiverses, M-Theories, Quantum Gravity etc.. etc.. And as mentioned previously the problem shows no experimental support of ever abating, nor do Godel’s theorems give us cause for hope,,,

    ,,,The main problem, mathematically, for the split, between GR and QM, seems to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the ‘zero/infinity’ conflict that arises in different places of each framework;,,,

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

  45. continued;

    ,,,One of the things I find interesting about the preceding zero/infinity mystery, of QM and GR, is that the ‘infinity’ of the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity is related to black holes in the universe. The reason this is interesting for me is because black holes are now verified to be, by far, the largest contributors of ‘entropic decay’ in the universe;,,,,

    Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010
    Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.
    http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

    Moreover, Black Hole singularities are completely opposite the singularity of the Big Bang in terms of the ordered physics of entropic thermodynamics. In other words, Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order.

    Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang?
    “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”

    ,,,Moreover, besides entropy being the primary reason why the universe, without ‘supernatural intervention, is steadfastly heading for ‘entropic heat death’,,,

    The Future of the Universe
    Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. — Not a happy ending.
    http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/p.....uture.html

    ,,,entropy is also the primary reason why we will all grow old and eventually die,,,

    80 years in 40 seconds – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9wToWdXaQg

    ,,,Thus ‘Death’, itself, of the universe and of us, seems to semi-directly linked to the fact that this ‘inaccessible infinity of destruction’ is found in black holes. At least it seems readily apparent that black holes are forever an ‘inaccessible infinity of destruction’ as far as the endeavors of mortal man are to be concerned. Yet Quantum Mechanic offers its own unique infinity that can, in principle, counterbalance the ‘destructive infinity’ of Black holes (as they tried to accomplish in the video). Yet the problem that QM has in overcoming the entropic decay of the universe, besides the problem mentioned by Michio Kaku in the video of at about the 7:00 minute mark of a ‘repeating infinity’, is, as mentioned previously, this,,,

    “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.”

    ,,,thus it seems readily apparent that QM requires a ‘space’ within the 4-D space-time of General Relativity, separate from the zero point infinity of Black holes, in which to ‘pour its infinity’. That is QM needs this space separate from the Black Holes if the destructive, ‘Death Causing’, entropic infinities of Black Holes were ever to be successfully overcome by Quantum Mechanics. And if physics were ever to be ‘unified’ into a ‘theory of everything’. And indeed, subtle, yet strong, hints that this ‘unification’ is possible are now available,,,,

    Quantum mind–body problem
    Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....dy_problem

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

    Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007

    ,,,I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, “Since you ultimately believe that the ‘god of random chance’ produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?”,,,

    ,,,The following is particularly interesting,,,

    “Most people think that the matter is empty, but for internal self consistency of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, there is required to be the equivalent of 10 to 94 grams of mass energy, each gram being E=MC2 kind of energy. Now, that’s a huge number, but what does it mean practically? Practically, if I can assume that the universe is flat, and more and more astronomical data is showing that it’s pretty darn flat, if I can assume that, then if I take the volume or take the vacuum within a single hydrogen atom, that’s about 10 to the minus 23 cubic centimeters. If I take that amount of vacuum and I take the latent energy in that, there is a trillion times more energy there than in all of the mass of all of the stars and all of the planets out to 20 billion light-years. That’s big, that’s big. And if consciousness allows you to control even a small fraction of that, creating a big bang is no problem.” – Dr. William Tiller – has
    been a professor at Stanford U. in the Department of materials science & Engineering

    ,,,The following offers a ‘hint’ as well,,,, though Dr. Dembski, in the following quote, does not directly address the zero/infinity conflict of QM and GR, he does offer interesting insight that, ‘serendipitously’, parallels the problem we find for reconciling QM and GR;

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    ,,,Moreover, unlike Quantum Gravity, String Theory and M-Theory, there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Jesus Christ:,,,

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

    While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ since all things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a ‘unification into a theory of everything’ for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of
    what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.

  46. further note as to the ‘incompleteness’ of General relativity:

    The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity – Igor Rodnianski
    Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity – While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity.
    http://www.icm2006.org/proceed.....l_3_22.pdf

  47. MarkF @ 38:Hawking has not claimed to explain everything – only put forward a hypothesis about the origin of everything. I cannot believe it is necessary to point this out.

    What an incredibly foolish attempt to weasel out of the truth of the matter – though I do not at all find it difficult to believe that one of you ‘atheists’ would attempt it. Even your attempt to reclassify Hawking’s assertions merely an hypothesis is false and dishonest.

    To explain the origin of a mechanistic universewhich is, after all, the only one that atheism can allow — is to explain all subsequent states of it.

    And among those subsequent states is not just Hawking’s existence, and not just his crippled state, but also his having asserted his “explanation” – for, if his “explanation” is the truth about the nature of reality, then he did not assert it either because he believes it to be true nor because he knows to be false but desires that others believe it to be true, but simply because his very existence and all he has ever done or will ever do are among the the inevitable results of the initial state of “the universe”. IF his “explanation” is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN he can never *know* it to be true.

  48. #41 BA77

    As I said my main point was not how well the hypothesis is substantiated but that it is a hypothesis about the origin of the universe not about everything that happens in the universe. Therefore, the fact that he cannot also cure incurable diseases is irrelevant.

    I do not have even a first degree in cosmology, one of the hardest subjects to understand, and can get nowhere close to understanding the credibility of Hawking’s claim (Do you have a qualification or background in this area?).
    My reason for thinking his hypothesis is substantiated (which is not the same as proven) is indirect. He is a world famous expert in this area who is unlikely to make whimsical assertions with no basis. When it comes to you versus Stephen Hawkings on cosmology (however long your list of references) I have to give the edge to Hawkings. He may be wrong – but I am sure he didn’t make it up without good reason.

  49. Miss Priss @ 42The use of vulgarities or profanities will open the door to that deterioration of atmosphere that is exactly what we do not want.

    If Miss Priss is objecting to BA’s post #41, there is no other way to have said what he meant to say. Moreover, there was nothing at all objectionable, nor profane, nor vulgar about BA’s use of ‘damn’ in that post.

    Hell! (that was vulgar) I wonder, has Miss Priss ever read some of the things that God is recorded in the Bible to have said?

  50. #47 Ilion

    To explain the origin of a mechanistic universe — which is, after all, the only one that atheism can allow — is to explain all subsequent states of it.

    Ilion – do you really believe that if someone understands in general terms the origin of the universe they therefore must know the detail of every subsequent event that happens in it including the cure of every disorder that happens to every individual in the entire universe? If so, I fear for your sanity.

  51. ONCE AGAIN, silly, silly man: To explain the origin of a mechanistic universewhich is, after all, the only one that atheism can allow — is to explain all subsequent states of it.

    That you will try to weasel and hand-wave out of even seeing this truth, much less admitting its truth, is not my problem.

  52. markf, you state:

    ‘My reason for thinking his hypothesis is substantiated (which is not the same as proven) is indirect. He is a world famous expert in this area who is unlikely to make whimsical assertions with no basis.’

    So you appeal directly to the authority of Hawking alone, and blatantly ignore the fact that you can cite no substantiating evidence yourself??? And yet Penrose, who worked closely with Hawking during his most fruitful years in the 70′s and 80′s, stated this about Hawking’s most recent book/work:

    ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.” – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip:

    Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5278793/

    Perhaps since you are so easily swayed by appeal directly to authority alone, with no substantiating evidence, then is it OK if I may now just quote scripture alone, with no substantiating evidence, just to refute your atheistic ‘beliefs’ that have no evidence????

    Revelation 4:11
    “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

    You know what is funny, in my ‘appeal to authority’ trying to counter your appeal to authority, is that, contrary to your atheistic claims, I can actually cite substantial evidence confirming my Theistic beliefs showing that the universe had a transcendent cause for its origin as well as has a transcendent cause for its continued existence! :)

    Phillips, Craig & Dean – Revelation Song lyrics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsiDukXIeVY

  53. markf you stated:

    My reason for thinking his hypothesis is substantiated (which is not the same as proven)

    And yet the dictionary states:

    Definition of SUBSTANTIATE
    transitive verb
    1
    : to give substance or form to : embody
    2
    : to establish by proof or competent evidence : verify

    ,,, And you were saying what about substantiate markf???

  54. #53 BA77

    Not sure which dictionary you were using. According to Concise Oxford:

    provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

    I was thinking “support” rather than “prove”.

    But it is childish to get into a dispute over the meaning of the word “substantiate”. What I intended to say was that I am sure Hawkings had reasons which he believed in for his theory. He might be wrong. But surely it is not arrogant to put forward a theory you believe in, especially when you are an acknowledged expert in the field. If that were true then every scientist whoever proposed a theory in their area of expertise is arrogant.

    Meanwhile can I confirm the main point that drew me to this thread. Do you really believe that his inability to cure his own illness has any relevance whatsoever to the validity of his theory? It appears that Ilion does – which is truly bizarre – but I am not so sure if you would agree having had time to consider.

    Mark

Leave a Reply