| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2010 04:40:39 PM · #1851 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But do you understand that you are no longer describing "from Nothing"? |
I have never said the universe was created from nothing. That was YOUR suggestion ("no spacetime"). |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 04:42:25 PM · #1852 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But do you understand that you are no longer describing "from Nothing"? |
I have never said the universe was created from nothing. That was YOUR suggestion ("no spacetime"). |
Yes, but if there was something, then where did that something come from? See, it's just a rabbit hole. I think that Robert is going down the right path. It's non-linear and beyond our capacity to fully understand it. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 04:44:59 PM · #1853 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But do you understand that you are no longer describing "from Nothing"? |
I have never said the universe was created from nothing. That was YOUR suggestion ("no spacetime"). |
Yes, but if there was something, then where did that something come from? See, it's just a rabbit hole. I think that Robert is going down the right path. It's non-linear and beyond our capacity to fully understand it. |
Edit: wrong thread!
Message edited by author 2010-09-02 16:45:19. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 04:48:14 PM · #1854 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But do you understand that you are no longer describing "from Nothing"? |
I have never said the universe was created from nothing. That was YOUR suggestion ("no spacetime"). |
Then the conversation zigged without me knowing. We WERE talking about "from Nothing", but I guess we changed somewhere. If so, then carry on. And before someone reads what you wrote and takes away the wrong idea, I was suggesting it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be created from Nothing. You say that I suggested it did and I did nothing of the sort.
Message edited by author 2010-09-02 16:49:40. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 05:08:04 PM · #1855 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Yes, but if there was something, then where did that something come from? |
T=0 resulting from the curvature of spacetime from a sufficiently large amount of energy would mean it literally existed at the beginning of time, rendering energy infinite from our perspective. There was a time when wood didn't exist, and before that was a time iron didn't exist, before that stars didn't exist, before that atoms didn't exist, and before that matter didn't exist, yet all of them still came into being from natural processes that we couldn't explain mere decades ago. Whether or not we ever find an explanation for the origin of energy, claims that 'god did it' only push the question back to "where did god come from?" rather that actually providing an answer. The only difference is that we know energy exists! ;-) |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 05:14:44 PM · #1856 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was suggesting it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be created from Nothing. You say that I suggested it did and I did nothing of the sort. |
A. Is it any more logically possible for a creator of the universe to exist from nothing?
B. If a sufficiently large amount of energy results in complete curvature of spacetime, then T=0 and there is no space. No space and no time = "nothing" from a material standpoint even though it would actually be the consequence of an enormous something! |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 05:21:21 PM · #1857 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...yet all of them still came into being from natural processes that we couldn't explain mere decades ago. Whether or not we ever find an explanation for the origin of energy, claims that 'god did it' only push the question back to "where did god come from?" rather that actually providing an answer. The only difference is that we know energy exists! ;-) |
See, in my honest opinion, your explanation is no better than the God did it one. "all of them came into being from natural processes" is no better assertion than "God did it" if you are including the ultimate origin rather than just talking about post-inflationary processes.
Energy exists. Natural processes cause it to ultimately form everything. Where did those natural processes come from?
Energy exists. God caused it to ultimately form everything. Where did God come from?
I find these two lines of argument to be identical, especially since we have very little concept of any "natural processes" from a pre-inflationary period. At this point you may as well insert the word "magic".
Energy exists. Magic caused it to ultimately form everything. Where did the magic come from?
That's my opinion anyway. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 05:23:37 PM · #1858 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was suggesting it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be created from Nothing. You say that I suggested it did and I did nothing of the sort. |
A. Is it any more logically possible for a creator of the universe to exist from nothing?
B. If a sufficiently large amount of energy results in complete curvature of spacetime, then T=0 and there is no space. No space and no time = "nothing" from a material standpoint even though it would actually be the consequence of an enormous something! |
The answer to your A is "no". That's why the answer tends to be "he always existed" and we then jump to the "it always existed" model. And don't think I'm arguing that the idea that God always existed is superior to something else always existing.
LOL. Your B is complete Greek to me except that it sounds like an attempted asterisk for what "nothing" entails. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 05:39:52 PM · #1859 |
| Don't get me wrong, Hawking is brilliant, but he's a theoretical physicist. For those of you who are skeptics, atheists, or just simply not religious, how are intangible scientific theories preferable to religion? |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 05:52:27 PM · #1860 |
I don't know if you saw this review eqsite in the LA Times, but I wonder if the book is a little less than what you are looking for. The review leaves me with a bit of a "been there, done that" feeling.
Review |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 06:00:36 PM · #1861 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Energy exists. Magic caused it to ultimately form everything. Where did the magic come from? |
Ah, now you're ascribing magic to the natural processes. Therein lies your mistake, and why our two positions are not at all equivalent. Until very recently, we didn't know the origins of post-inflationary things like stars and iron either. As we learn those origins one by one, magic has never been the answer. Superstitious belief has the worst track record of any explanation in history. Suggesting that natural processes and "god did it" are equally plausible answers to cosmology is like saying it's equally likely that an unlabeled toy was manufactured in China or "Santa's elves made it." |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 06:09:25 PM · #1862 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Don't get me wrong, Hawking is brilliant, but he's a theoretical physicist. |
So was Einstein, which is why we now have nuclear power and accurate GPS systems. Neils Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Wolfgang Pauli, Otto Stern, Erwin Schrodinger, Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck... all contributors of "intangible scientific theories." You got yourself wrong by using "but" to suggest theoretical physics is somehow unworthy of consideration.
Message edited by author 2010-09-02 18:11:42. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 06:09:32 PM · #1863 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Superstitious belief has the worst track record of any explanation in history. Suggesting that natural processes and "god did it" are equally plausible answers to cosmology is like saying it's equally likely that an unlabeled toy was manufactured in China or "Santa's elves made it." |
Only if we're unsure if China is a real country... :P
I was using "magic" in the sense of the famous quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Any insufficiently understood process is indistinguishable from magic.
The beef I have is that it feels like you are making the analogy similar to understanding how a carbeurator works versus saying "it's magic!" We understand how a carbeurator works very well and there is an obvious natural explanation. Our understanding of pre-inflationary happenings is nothing like our understand of how a carbeurator works.
But we have definitely been here and done this.
Message edited by author 2010-09-02 18:12:45. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 06:26:55 PM · #1864 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Don't get me wrong, Hawking is brilliant, but he's a theoretical physicist. |
So was Einstein, which is why we now have nuclear power and accurate GPS systems. Neils Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Wolfgang Pauli, Otto Stern, Erwin Schrodinger, Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck... all contributors of "intangible scientific theories." |
Yes, and many of those scientists also theorized about the beginnings and inner workings of the universe. All of their work either contributed to something useful, such as nuclear energy, or their work just led to more questions about the universe. No scientist, regardless of their brilliance, has been able to answer the most fundamental questions of the universe. They've all tried, but none have succeeded. Scientists still can't prove how or why the universe came to exists, they can only theorize. In my mind, Hawkins' theories are no different than Bohr's or Einstein's. They just happen to be more complex and advanced. Getting "closer to the answer" doesn't really excite me all that much, but maybe it excites some.
Originally posted by scalvert:
You got yourself wrong by using "but" to suggest theoretical physics is somehow unworthy of consideration. |
Well, theoretical physics is important, but I'm more interested in theories that result in something practical and useful, i.e. nuclear energy. A scientific knowledge of how the universe came to exist is neither practical, nor useful in my opinion.
Message edited by author 2010-09-02 18:31:36. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 06:50:53 PM · #1865 |
| Sometimes basic and theoretical research has practical applications nobody imagined while it was being done. I think these endeavors are noble quests and I wouldn't give these people too hard a time. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 07:29:45 PM · #1866 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes basic and theoretical research has practical applications nobody imagined while it was being done. I think these endeavors are noble quests and I wouldn't give these people too hard a time. |
That's exactly my point. The practical applications are worth the excitement, not the theories. If Hawking's theories turn into something, that's great. I just don't see why the new book is so exciting. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 07:38:15 PM · #1867 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes basic and theoretical research has practical applications nobody imagined while it was being done. I think these endeavors are noble quests and I wouldn't give these people too hard a time. |
That's exactly my point. The practical applications are worth the excitement, not the theories. If Hawking's theories turn into something, that's great. I just don't see why the new book is so exciting. |
Oh, I suspect a great deal of hype in all this. Nothing gets headlines like declaring "God is dead!" Trying to understand our origins though is a universal desire. Even scientists want to know. :) |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 07:41:16 PM · #1868 |
| As a scientist, shouldn't you be taking him to task for his appalling position on theoretical research (in which he essentially says it's a waste of time), rather than inventing the position an author has taken over a book that hasn't been released? |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 07:48:11 PM · #1869 |
Originally posted by Louis:
As a scientist, shouldn't you be taking him to task for his appalling position on theoretical research (in which he essentially says it's a waste of time), rather than inventing the position an author has taken over a book that hasn't been released? |
I think you either misread or misunderstood my last few posts Louis. I said theoretical is important, but it just doesn't excite me. I never said it was a waste of time. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 08:43:38 PM · #1870 |
Originally posted by Louis:
As a scientist, shouldn't you be taking him to task for his appalling position on theoretical research (in which he essentially says it's a waste of time), rather than inventing the position an author has taken over a book that hasn't been released? |
Uhh, didn't your read post #1865? |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 09:15:52 PM · #1871 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes basic and theoretical research has practical applications nobody imagined while it was being done. I think these endeavors are noble quests and I wouldn't give these people too hard a time. |
That's exactly my point. The practical applications are worth the excitement, not the theories. If Hawking's theories turn into something, that's great. I just don't see why the new book is so exciting. |
Oh, I suspect a great deal of hype in all this. Nothing gets headlines like declaring "God is dead!" Trying to understand our origins though is a universal desire. Even scientists want to know. :) |
Science is beneficial, valuable, good, and noble when it is used properly, but like anything else, science can be misused too. I appreciate science, but new theories don't excite me. That's all I'm trying to say. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 10:01:49 PM · #1872 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Yes, and many of those scientists also theorized about the beginnings and inner workings of the universe. All of their work either contributed to something useful, such as nuclear energy, or their work just led to more questions about the universe. No scientist, regardless of their brilliance, has been able to answer the most fundamental questions of the universe. They've all tried, but none have succeeded. Scientists still can't prove how or why the universe came to exists, they can only theorize. |
The same may be said of religion... minus contributing something useful and inviting further inquiry. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 10:03:24 PM · #1873 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know if you saw this review eqsite in the LA Times, but I wonder if the book is a little less than what you are looking for. The review leaves me with a bit of a "been there, done that" feeling.
Review |
Hard to tell from a review like that. It sounds like there is an anthropological element to the book. Personally I would find that to be rather interesting. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 10:42:53 PM · #1874 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think you either misread or misunderstood my last few posts Louis. I said theoretical is important, but it just doesn't excite me. I never said it was a waste of time. |
This sure doesn't sound that benign.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
A scientific knowledge of how the universe came to exist is neither practical, nor useful in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
09/02/2010 11:55:59 PM · #1875 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Yes, and many of those scientists also theorized about the beginnings and inner workings of the universe. All of their work either contributed to something useful, such as nuclear energy, or their work just led to more questions about the universe. No scientist, regardless of their brilliance, has been able to answer the most fundamental questions of the universe. They've all tried, but none have succeeded. Scientists still can't prove how or why the universe came to exists, they can only theorize. |
The same may be said of religion... minus contributing something useful and inviting further inquiry. |
So to clarify, it is your opinion that religion contributes nothing useful to society?
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think you either misread or misunderstood my last few posts Louis. I said theoretical is important, but it just doesn't excite me. I never said it was a waste of time. |
This sure doesn't sound that benign.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
A scientific knowledge of how the universe came to exist is neither practical, nor useful in my opinion. |
|
Basically I'm saying that the study of science is beneficial, but I don't see how possessing an exact scientific explanation of the formation of the universe would be beneficial. |
|
