10
   

Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

 
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 11:22 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
By the way, what Thoth is writing is what you get when you throw a physics dictionary into a blender. What he is saying makes absolutely no sense to someone who has actually studied physics.

What Thoth writes so utterly resembles the kind of thing you can get from certain websites such as "New Age bullshit generators" using Markov chain algorithms that I really wonder if his agenda is deliberate provocation, although it is equally possible that his efforts are the result of mental derangement.

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Example:
Quote:
The paradigm shift of spacetime is now happening worldwide. It is in evolving that we are awakened. We must fulfill ourselves and awaken others.

It can be difficult to know where to begin. If you have never experienced this rebirth of the creative act, it can be difficult to vibrate. Although you may not realize it, you are psychic.

As you dream, you will enter into infinite rejuvenation that transcends understanding. Through affirmations, our third eyes are enveloped in peace. You will soon be awakened by a power deep within yourself — a power that is ethereal, zero-point.

The future will be a holistic maturing of stardust. Soon there will be a flowering of chi the likes of which the quantum soup has never seen. We are being called to explore the universe itself as an interface between joy and learning.

Reality has always been aglow with beings whose hearts are transformed into purpose. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the multiverse via meridians. Who are we? Where on the great journey will we be guided?


It seems that a bunch of buzzwords strung together in a plausible syntactic structure is capable of seeming profound to many people. What seems odd here is that it seems profound to its originator.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/71873/lots-people-think-complete-nonsense-profound-study-finds

Also quite interesting is the MIT automatic research paper generator, which uses a "context free grammar" which even includes charts and footnotes in its output.

https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/

Quote:
Many scholars would agree that, had it not been for active networks, the simulation of Lamport clocks might never have occurred. The notion that end-users synchronize with the investigation of Markov models is rarely outdated. A theoretical grand challenge in theory is the important unification of virtual machines and real-time theory. To what extent can web browsers be constructed to achieve this purpose? Certainly, the usual methods for the emulation of Smalltalk that paved the way for the investigation of rasterization do not apply in this area. In the opinions of many, despite the fact that conventional wisdom states that this grand challenge is continuously answered by the study of access points, we believe that a different solution is necessary. It should be noted that Rooter runs in Ω(log log n) time. Certainly, the shortcoming of this type of solution, however, is that compilers and superpages are mostly incompatible. Despite the fact that similar methodologies visualize XML, we surmount this issue without synthesizing distributed archetypes.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 11:24 am
@Angelgz2,
A question for you, Angel.

Assuming you are open minded enough, if you learn enough about Science to realize that your conception of God contradicts with the observation of science.

Will you drop your belief in God, or will you close your mind to the testable discoveries and experimental observations of science?

By the way... I once was a devout Christian, so this is not an empty question. This happened to me. I came to a point where the Christian God no longer made sense.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 11:25 am
@Angelgz2,
Prior to the Big Bang (if that has any meaning, since time as we conceive of it came into being with the Big Bang), we do not know what, if any, physical laws were in play.

Post-Big Bang, the law of conservation of mass/energy is in play.


So, no. No contradiction.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 11:57 am
@Angelgz2,
Angelgz2 wrote:
Also Standard Model only concerns itself with the Big Bang and scientists like Green, Hawking, all acknowledge that there will probably not be any good provable theory about what's before the big bang. So you'll have this something come out of nothing for a while.

To be more precise, it's something coming from the "unknown", which isn't the same thing as "nothing". A key distinction in the argument.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 12:05 pm
@rosborne979,
Unknown is a better word. However, I think us humans are learning quite a bit about our environment.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:25 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
your conception of God contradicts with the observation of science.

If by 'your conception of God' you mean a creator of the universe, I'd like more details or an example of that contradiction.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:29 pm
@Leadfoot,
I prefer the scientific explanation of our universe.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I prefer people who think for themselves rather than those who have faith in an unproven theory.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2016 04:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
Scientific theory is the best we've got. Scientific theory is what gets us improvements in our living standard, medical care and drugs.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2016 12:17 pm
@Angelgz2,
In several surveys of public and scientific opinion, SH is rated far higher by the public than by his peers. His GREAT mistake is to think that because something involves the physical it is a Physics question.

But this kind of dumbness is endemic. Krauss, Sagan, Asimov, De Grasse -- they all disparage philosophical thought while philosophizing themselves, on metaphysics, on ontology, on epistemology.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2016 05:35 pm
@AugustineBrother,
Would anyone fly on an airplane designed by philosophy.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2016 07:19 am
@maxdancona,
Every good airplane ever designed had a good philosophy behind it. That's why the F-35 is an over priced POS. Bad philosophy.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2016 12:30 pm
@maxdancona,
But airplane designers must have included men who were interested in and schooled in Philosophy. You can't separate out 'philosophy' like that.
AugustineBrother
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2016 12:31 pm
@rosborne979,
Maybe more foundational is the correct use of the word 'nothing' see this clip where Colbert Destroys Krauss saying 'Nothing is unstable"

https://vimeo.com/46564204

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2016 01:03 pm
@AugustineBrother,
That is a rather silly argument. It is like saying Shakespearean quotes were used to design planes because men who designed planes have read Shakespeare.
AugustineBrother
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2016 01:06 pm
@parados,
Well it wasn't an argument so I'm safe there.

And the Shakespeare analogy is false because I was saying that it is false to separate out 'philosopher' only when a person is explicitly a philosopher
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2016 01:10 pm
@AugustineBrother,
Being interested in medicine doesn't make me a doctor nor does being interested in philosophy make someone a philosopher. It certainly doesn't mean I use medicine when designing a computer program.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2016 03:03 pm
@rosborne979,
But more importantly,

Hey Ros, give me a report on No Man's Sky. Can't play till I get back to FL.
Angelgz2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 01:37 pm
@maxdancona,
He states that "asking what's before the big bang" is like asking what's south of the southpole?" To me, that's rather dodging the question. He also said in many documentaries that "To know .... is to know the mind of God". During interviews, he supposedly explained that he doesn't mean he believes in an omnipotent being, but just his way of saying that we can't understand [the topic] fully with our current science.

As for Brian Greene, if you watch his documentary, did however, say that AT THIS TIME, we probably can't prove any of the theories out there that postulates what's before the big bang. He mentioned several, like two membranes striking each other and each strike is a big bang (and thus multiple universe is possible) and that those are just theories. The math works but we can't observe or experiment with it because we are currently limited to our own universe.
You go watch his documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-fabric-of-the-cosmos/

So one scientist seem to say, if YOUR interpretation is correct, that is, T=0 means there's nothing before T=0. However, another scientist clearly said there could be something before T=0. Which is which?

You are just stretching the concept of undefined as well as you are stretching the concept of T=0. You said "At the beginning of time, all the of energy in the Universe (presumably) already existed." Who are you to presume that? So did Hawking or some scientist say to presume this or did you just invent that? Let's say if scientists agree that this "energy" already existed, then it's not actually something coming out of nothing. If T<0 = Nothing, T=0 = something, that's still something coming out of noting, let it be "Time" or whatever you call it, it's still something coming out of nothing. You keep stretching this concept of Time, but I am beginning to feel you don't fully understand it either. Einstein said Time and Space is essentially the same so if you said T<0 = no time, then T<0= no time space. So what's so unique about time?

Angelgz2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 02:22 pm
@maxdancona,
If I have definitive proof that God doesn't fit in, then sure. Why keep something that makes no sense, but I wish this day will never come, at least when I'm still alive? Why? Because science can hardly address the question of ethics. Not sure why you hate religion so much (I got it from your bitter tone about it), but have you considered in the total absence of religion, what would the world be like? I see many posts here that says the world will be better, but I can't visualize that happening and I don't want to live in a world of Chaos.

Disclaimer first: Everything I write, say, are based on my memory of documentaries I watched, stuff that I read, or lectures I've been to. They may NOT be 100% the exact wording of the author, but an interpretation. I only "quote" them if I know or can find the exact wording.

It is true that each day, you hear on the news that religions fanatics kills people. It is also true that many war has fought for religion. The crusade, for instance, is the Europe's biggest crime against Islam (no wonder why they hate the west so much). However, instead of religious feud, these wars are rather politically motivated, by the popes who wants power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

David Hume is a famous philosopher who attempted to prove that ethics can exist in the absence of a divine punisher, "God". Kant, on the other hand, doesn't believe in God, but says something like the illusion of God is a good one because it puts a moral limit on people who believes in Him. Atheist philosophers throughout history had tried to say that behaving ethically doesn't require religion, but none of these argument are sound. Hume, supposedly said something like you want to do good because the society will "praise" you for doing good and that bad things leads to "shame" which you don't want. Some others based their argument on the goodness of human nature. That's just purely and absolutely absurd. As we see from almost all cases of chaos, in the absence of law and order, how to people behave -- they behave like animals -- looting the store, beating up the weak...etc. Human nature is FAR from good. In fact, I sincerely believe it's evil -- human nature is greed, oppression of others, and dominance over others (clearly shown by you who eagerly wants to show you are smarter than me). If you still don't believe this, go look at all the forums, blogs ...etc. People make death threats, insulting others, being racist, and ...etc because it's the internet and no one knows who you are. Again, this shows in the absence of law, order and retribution, the real human nature shows. Just say, the way you speak to me, do you speak this way to your peers? Do you like to make your co-workers look dumb when they say something wrong?

Extending this, if, say, you REALLY hate your boss and you know with 100% certainty that you can get away with murdering him, and you know with 100% certainty that there's no God to punish you afterwards, will you do it? Why or why not? What's stopping anyone from committing any crime if they know they can get away with it (looking at OJ and Casey Anthony)? Perhaps you won't, but can you say with 100% certainty everyone else won't, If it is proven that THERE WILL BE NO RETRIBUTION for your actions? Illegal activities aside, what's stopping me from LEGALLY ruin your life or legally abuse my power and make everyone else miserable, if I feel like it? I theorize that in a world free of any religion, natural selection will dictate and the strong will survive and the weak will perish. It won't be a fun world to live in. If you don't believe it, consider yourself lucky that you haven't pissed anyone off seriously. Back then I subleased out my home to some dude over the summer. He completely trashed my place and threatened to bodily harm my neighbors which caused lots of trouble. My father got really pissed because he was paying for it. He is an attorney and he sued the 18 year old kid who did it, for $500,000. Imagine graduating college with a half million dollar debt on top of your load of student loan debts and **** load of legal bills and possibly a record. That's ought to ruin your life pretty bad. So, in the absence of religious belief, what do I care? An eye for an eye and I can do whatever I want within our legal system. However, is it morally correct? Sure he's 18 and should learn to bear some responsibilities, but ruining his life? Perhaps we should think that kids make mistakes and from 17 to 18 it ain't that different. What if it was you? Do you wish I'd forgive you and not ruin your life?

In fact, not all religion is based on pure faith of God. Buddism, based on the little stuff I've read and learned from a college class, mainly talks about relinquish your humanly desires. It teaches that we suffer because we want things we can't obtain. Life is a constant struggle for material pleasure and without limited abilities, we can't fulfill these desires and thus leading to suffering. Once we relinquish these desires, we become better, and eventually, we no longer suffer. To me, it is more of a philosophy.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/08/2024 at 08:49:22