Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jude View Post
    Texting by phone so pls excuse brevity

    The answer to your question is that as you note hawking is not a philosopher as shown by this quote of his. How does the universe create itself? Can it exist before it exists? Statements like this remind us poor philosophy even from the mouth of world class scientists is still poor philosophy. This after he announced earlier in the book that philosophy is dead.
    So I agree with Lewis that philosophy brings a lot to the table if only to answer bad philosophy.
    I answered the question and you did not respond. The nothing you refer to in Hawking's quote is a scientific cosmology nothing, not the philosophy/theology nothing refer to in the concept of ex nihilo. Hawking is not a philosopher, but he does have a consistent philosophy concerning his science and belief system.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I answered the question and you did not respond. The nothing you refer to in Hawking's quote is a scientific cosmology nothing, not the philosophy/theology nothing refer to in the concept of ex nihilo. Hawking is not a philosopher, but he does have a consistent philosophy concerning his science and belief system.
      Jude wasn't objecting to Hawking's invocation of "nothing." He was objecting to the idea that something can create itself-- an objection which I share.
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
        Jude wasn't objecting to Hawking's invocation of "nothing." He was objecting to the idea that something can create itself-- an objection which I share.
        Again, again and again the nothing referred to by Hawking's invocation of "nothing" DOES NOT refer to an anthropomorphic universe creating itself from nothing (the philosophical/theological nothing).

        The Quantum World (the scientific nothing) is the source of all of physical existence we see as universes based on Natural Law according to Hawking.

        If that does not explain it, I have two by four reserved for stubborn mules.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-19-2015, 02:07 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Again, again and again the nothing referred to by Hawking's invocation of "nothing" DOES NOT refer to an anthropomorphic universe creating itself from nothing (the philosophical/theological nothing).
          Again, again, and again, the objection set forth by Jude (and which I reiterated) is not about the word "nothing," so the fact that he meant something different by its use than philosophers often mean is irrelevant.
          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
            Again, again, and again, the objection set forth by Jude (and which I reiterated) is not about the word "nothing," so the fact that he meant something different by its use than philosophers often mean is irrelevant.
            Really???


            Again it is not literal 'create itself.' Quantum Gravity in the Quantum world naturally Creates muti-verses and universes naturally by Natural Law.

            Hawking believes: The Quantum World and Quantum Gravity (the scientific nothing) is the source of all of physical existence we see as universes based on Natural Law according to Hawking. If that does not explain it,

            I have a two by four reserved for stubborn mules.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-19-2015, 03:43 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Leave aside the fact that hawking is engaging in philosophy who's death he has already announced, the inconsistency that BP and I are noting is the bootstrap conundrum. If "P" does not exist it cannot create "P". If "P" does exist then it cannot create "P"

              I will add though that his nothing has properties and is not nothing and is another example of the need for philosophical rigor.

              Hee Haw

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Really???
                Yes, really.

                Again it is not literal 'create itself.' Quantum Gravity in the Quantum world naturally Creates muti-verses and universes naturally by Natural Law.
                Quantum mechanics are a description of the manner in which the universe works. Therefore, in order for the "quantum world" to naturally create anything, a universe which is described by that set of quantum mechanics must first exist.

                So, if Hawking meant to say that the universe created itself, he is positing an incoherence. If he did not mean to say that the universe created itself, then he chose words with precisely the opposite meaning of his intention. Either way, it's reflective of pretty poor philosophy.
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  Yes, really.

                  Quantum mechanics are a description of the manner in which the universe works. Therefore, in order for the "quantum world" to naturally create anything, a universe which is described by that set of quantum mechanics must first exist.
                  No, Hawking's view is that the greater (universe) cosmos exists as the Quantum world and Quantum Gravity exists from which all possible multi-verses and universes originate by Natural Law.

                  So, if Hawking meant to say that the universe created itself, he is positing an incoherence. If he did not mean to say that the universe created itself, then he chose words with precisely the opposite meaning of his intention. Either way, it's reflective of pretty poor philosophy.
                  Grow up, and please avoid demanding 'anal retentive' literal interpretations of citations such as these for layman audiences. Many people including scientists describe science using analogies and symbolism in layman's language to describe things to the public. This does not reflect whether Hawking's philosophy is good, poor or indifferent. It is best to read Hawking's more specific scientific work to understand what Hawking believes concerning the origins of the universe.

                  In simple terms, Hawking believes that our natural existence resulted from natural circumstances, and all possible universes, and multiverses originate from the Quantum World and Quantum Gravity naturally, and the existence of God is not necessary.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    No, Hawking's view is that the greater (universe) cosmos exists as the Quantum world and Quantum Gravity exists from which all possible multi-verses and universes originate by Natural Law.
                    Firstly, I don't really think you're accurately describing Hawking's position, since we don't even know if there is such a thing as Quantum Gravity, let alone understand its causal influence on anything-- universes or otherwise.

                    However, more importantly, even if you are accurately describing Hawking's position, you said "No," then proceeded to say precisely the same thing that I had said. First, the "greater cosmos" exists, then the "Quantum world and Quantum Gravity" act as the origin for all possible universes.

                    Grow up, and please avoid demanding 'anal retentive' literal interpretations of citations such as these for layman audiences.
                    I haven't demanded anything. I've described the quality of Hawking's philosophical discourse. I don't demand that Hawking be a great philosopher any more than I demand that Shelly Kagan be a great physicist.

                    Many people including scientists describe science using analogies and symbolism in layman's language to describe things to the public. This does not reflect whether Hawking's philosophy is good, poor or indifferent. It is best to read Hawking's more specific scientific work to understand what Hawking believes concerning the origins of the universe.
                    You misunderstand. When I say his philosophy is poor, I'm not saying that his conclusions on cosmogony are therefore false. I'm simply commenting on the quality of his philosophical discourse.
                    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      Firstly, I don't really think you're accurately describing Hawking's position, since we don't even know if there is such a thing as Quantum Gravity, let alone understand its causal influence on anything-- universes or otherwise.

                      However, more importantly, even if you are accurately describing Hawking's position, you said "No," then proceeded to say precisely the same thing that I had said. First, the "greater cosmos" exists, then the "Quantum world and Quantum Gravity" act as the origin for all possible universes.
                      Your conflating what science actually has evidence for with Hawking's philosophical view concerning the origins and the nature of the universe and all possible universes, concerning the Quantum World and Quantum Gravity.

                      Again the following summarizes Hawking's belief and philosophy concerning the origin of all possible universes and multiverses.

                      In simple terms, Hawking believes that our natural existence resulted from natural circumstances, and all possible universes, and multiverses originate from the Quantum World and Quantum Gravity naturally, and the existence of God is not necessary.

                      I haven't demanded anything. I've described the quality of Hawking's philosophical discourse. I don't demand that Hawking be a great philosopher any more than I demand that Shelly Kagan be a great physicist.
                      Ah . . . go back and read again. Jude and you are continually stubbornly asserting the literal meaning of Hawking's citation. You both, are judging Hawking's philosophy based on one citation, which is absurd, demanding that the interpretation be literal, when it does not reflect Hawking's world view that is reflected in his writings as whole.

                      You misunderstand. When I say his philosophy is poor, I'm not saying that his conclusions on cosmogony are therefore false. I'm simply commenting on the quality of his philosophical discourse.
                      Your moving the goal posts. When you say his philosophy is poor, you are saying his philosophy is poor. It is absurd to judge his philosophical discourse(?) based on one citation in a layman's publication without citing and understanding his more serious scientific work, which would be relevant to his philosophy.

                      As far as his philosophy, it is simply, he believes all of our physical existence has natural origins governed by Natural Laws, and God is not necessary.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-19-2015, 10:39 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jude View Post
                        Leave aside the fact that hawking is engaging in philosophy who's death he has already announced, the inconsistency that BP and I are noting is the bootstrap conundrum. If "P" does not exist it cannot create "P". If "P" does exist then it cannot create "P"

                        I will add though that his nothing has properties and is not nothing and is another example of the need for philosophical rigor.
                        Hawking seems to use a different definition for "nothing" to philosophers. Who gets to decide which definition is the right one? Surely this is just semantics, and as long as the individual is clear what he means, that is good enough. To say an opponent is wrong because he is not using a word in a way that you have decided to use it is bad reasoning, and yet that seems to be what philosophers are doing here.

                        If philosophers have an objection to Hawking, the only valid one would seem to be that he is wrong because we have good reason to believe that there was a philosophical-nothing before the Big Bang, rather than a Hawking-nothing. Is that the case? If it is, that would certainly blow the thelogians out of the water, who posit an all-power, all-knowing intelligent being - pretty much the opposite of nothing.
                        My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jude View Post
                          Leave aside the fact that hawking is engaging in philosophy who's death he has already announced, the inconsistency that BP and I are noting is the bootstrap conundrum. If "P" does not exist it cannot create "P". If "P" does exist then it cannot create "P"
                          The highlighted above is your assumption of the nature of our physical existence, and not what Hawking believes.

                          I do not agree with Hawking's conclusion that philosophy is dead, because he has one that determines his world view. The article I cited goes into this in more detail. You are neglecting the extensive writing of Hawking that reflects his philosophy and world view, and focusing on one citation in layman's language.

                          Hawking believes "P" (Quantum World and Quantum Gravity) has always existed, and is the source of all possible universes and multi-verses originate (created) by Natural Law. He believes this an infinite timeless existence, and time only exists relative to space in universes. He believes 'God is not necessary,' because he believes that our physical existence is self-generated (created).

                          I will add though that his nothing has properties and is not nothing and is another example of the need for philosophical rigor.
                          As cited many, many times, Hawking's "nothing" is not equivalent to the theological/philosophical nothing, ie ex nihilo.

                          Hee Haw
                          You do no need to get Hawking's philosophy correct based on his writings as a whole and not 'tunnel think' on one citation in layman's language. I have a two by four for stubborn mules if needed for those focused on frog hair and not the whole picture..
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-20-2015, 06:23 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                            Hawking seems to use a different definition for "nothing" to philosophers. Who gets to decide which definition is the right one? Surely this is just semantics, and as long as the individual is clear what he means, that is good enough. To say an opponent is wrong because he is not using a word in a way that you have decided to use it is bad reasoning, and yet that seems to be what philosophers are doing here.

                            If philosophers have an objection to Hawking, the only valid one would seem to be that he is wrong because we have good reason to believe that there was a philosophical-nothing before the Big Bang, rather than a Hawking-nothing. Is that the case? If it is, that would certainly blow the thelogians out of the water, who posit an all-power, all-knowing intelligent being - pretty much the opposite of nothing.
                            As stated previously, I do understand what you are saying. It just seems to me that using the word "nothing" is to be confusing. It's not just theists who have problems with Hawking's and Krauss' use of the word nothing. It seems to be a bait and switch. Sounds as if the "something from nothing" problem has been solved but then you go take a look and find out that no, it is just wordplay. It's really something from something. Why not call a spade a spade?

                            The difference between positing God vs quantum foam as it relates to the word nothing is that one is physical and one is not. If some people want to state that physical matter is eternal then why don't they just say that? Why be confusing?
                            Last edited by Jude; 05-20-2015, 07:19 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The highlighted above is your assumption of the nature of our physical existence, and not what Hawking believes.

                              I do not agree with Hawking's conclusion that philosophy is dead, because he has one that determines his world view. The article I cited goes into this in more detail. You are neglecting the extensive writing of Hawking that reflects his philosophy and world view, and focusing on one citation in layman's language.

                              Hawking believes "P" (Quantum World and Quantum Gravity) has always existed, and is the source of all possible universes and multi-verses originate (created) by Natural Law. He believes this an infinite timeless existence, and time only exists relative to space in universes. He believes 'God is not necessary,' because he believes that our physical existence is self-generated (created)
                              I appreciate your time SG. Thanks. I understand what you're saying but don't understand his need to be confusing. But wouldn't you say that the Quantum world is itself a physical entity? Complete with laws that are descriptive? Can a natural law exist, much less create if there is no matter to describe? So why not just come out and say the universe is static? He should hire you or at least someone to edit his work.
                              He is light years beyond me in intellect but his metaphysical musings are no more valid than anyone else's. Or would the QW even be considered META?

                              I know he says that God is not necessary to light the blue touch paper to get the universe going but as Lennox asks, where did the paper come from? It just seems like science of the gaps to me. I wonder if the big bang had never been articulated and demonstrated would we even have heard the word "multiverse".



                              As cited many, many times, Hawking's "nothing" is not equivalent to the theological/philosophical nothing, ie ex nihilo.
                              That seems purposely confusing. Why choose that word?



                              You do no need to get Hawking's philosophy correct based on his writings as a whole and not 'tunnel think' on one citation in layman's language. I have a two by four for stubborn mules if needed for those focused on frog hair and not the whole picture..
                              Why is the onus on me? He should be clearer if he doesn't mean what he is saying. The problem is not unique to me. There are world class philosophers and scientists who are not persuaded.

                              I focus on frog hair as it is fundamental having been the actual fuse that led to the blue touch paper.
                              Last edited by Jude; 05-20-2015, 07:20 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jude View Post
                                As stated previously, I do understand what you are saying. It just seems to me that using the word "nothing" is to be confusing. It's not just theists who have problems with Hawking's and Krauss' use of the word nothing. It seems to be a bait and switch. Sounds as if the "something from nothing" problem has been solved but then you go take a look and find out that no, it is just wordplay. It's really something from something. Why not call a spade a spade?

                                The difference between positing God vs quantum foam as it relates to the word nothing is that one is physical and one is not. If some people want to state that physical matter is eternal then why don't they just say that? Why be confusing?
                                The word "nothing" has different things. If I say there is nothing in my box, that does not imply the interior of the box is free from any laws. What exactly did Hawking say about the universe coming from nothing? What was his audience? Was he talking to philosophers, who have their own specific meaning? If not, why demand he uses the same meaning as them?

                                Quantum foam is not physical matter. If you are wanting people to call spades spades, you should do so yourself.

                                Hawking and theology both posit something non-physical prior to the universe. Why should theology get a pass and not Hawking?
                                My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-19-2021, 03:24 PM
                                8 responses
                                77 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 10:31 AM
                                3 responses
                                35 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 07:46 AM
                                0 responses
                                12 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by TheLurch, 10-01-2021, 10:26 AM
                                56 responses
                                306 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post lee_merrill  
                                Started by oxmixmudd, 10-01-2021, 09:43 AM
                                37 responses
                                200 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X