Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Comments
#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. Markmarkf
August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
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???bornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
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=dsiDukXIeVYbornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
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.Ilion
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
#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.markf
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Miss Priss @ 42 "The 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?Ilion
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
#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.markf
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
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 universe -- which 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.Ilion
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
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/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdfbornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
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/phys240/lectures/future/future.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/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_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/documents/2009.05.end_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.bornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
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/2011-06-physics-einstein.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-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/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/~woit/wordpress/?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/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio '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/releases/2010/07/100722142640.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/periodicals/201008/2080027241.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/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htmbornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
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.bornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
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 TKIkairosfocus
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
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 :) )bornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
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).markf
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
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-kAbornagain77
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
#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.markf
August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
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?Ilion
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
oh, shoot! I clearly got the quote-attributions backwards in the prior post.Ilion
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
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.Ilion
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
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/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.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/releases/2009/11/091126173027.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/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-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/crev200912.htm#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_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.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.bornagain77
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
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/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/bornagain77
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
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?velikovskys
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
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=6koz1p2Q6Bwbornagain77
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
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 .velikovskys
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
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!!!.bornagain77
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
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?markf
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
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.bornagain77
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
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;bornagain77
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
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?markf
August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply