I missed the fiery discussion over Hawking ( http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,26707,26740#msg-26740 ) because I was working far from civilization in the desert. Hat-tip to Cabbie for emailing me about it.

Hawking is reported in this blog to have backpeddled a little in a "it depends on what 'is' is" fashion from his Nietzche-esq statement that god is dead. Apparently, god is physics. I guess that makes us physicists the new clergy.

http://puntodigital.com/stephen-hawking-god-physics/224448/

Quote:“I never said that God does not exist. God is the name people use to explain why we are here. I think we are here thanks to the laws of physics and not due to an impersonal relationship with a impersonal God."

I happened to have an ebook version of The Grand Design, which I am planning to read soon. I glanced through it tonight and found in chapter 6 (the one called something like "Choosing the universe") that Hawking gives his view of why a mystical god is unneeded. Or at least, this is one of the views. There may be others in the book I've yet to read.

Quote (from the ebook, so no page numbers):

"If the origin of the universe was a quantum event, it should be accurately described by the Feynman sum over histories. To apply quantum theory to the entire universe--where the observers are part of the system being observed--is tricky, however. ... [description of photon at double slit exp] ... One can also use Feynman's methods to calculate the quantum probabilities for observations of the universe as a whole. There is no point A, so we add up all histories that satisfy the no-boundary condition and end at the universe we observe today. In this view, the universe appeared spontaneously, starting off in every possible way. Most of these correspond to other universes. While some of those universes are similar to ours, most are very different. ...many universes exist with many different sets of physical laws. Some people make a great mystery of this idea, sometimes called the multiverse concept, but these are just the different expressions of the Feynman sum over histories."

Here's my best layman's attempt to explain the above: Hawking alludes to the idea of quantum events generating something from randomness or nothingness. Particles appearing from the vacuum and that sort of thing. Then he describes the prototypical single photon at a double slit experiment (deleted from the quote). Which slit does the photon go through? Both. It is the sum of all possibilities/histories until it reaches the detection point (reality). He apparently is arguing that the universe is the same. It started (well, he doesn't say started, he says there is no point A; what he means by saying there's no boundary is confusing to me) as a quantum event and ended up where we are at this very moment. In between is the sum of possibilities or histories. This description means Hawking is selecting one interpretation of QM over others. The most accepted is the Copenhagen. He's pushing for a different one, the multiverse.

My quick take on this:
First off, multiverse is a hypothesis. Just like many other interpretations of QM. A good table summarizing the more popular interps are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison

Physicists still heavily debate which interpretation is correct. In fact, one of the last things Einstein worked on was a thought experiment with Rosen (The EPR thought exp) to show which is more 'real' relativity or quantum mechanics (because QM implies faster-than-light action). Sciencenews just put up an article about the 'dispute' of these interpretations.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/65056/title/Clash_of_the_Quantum_Titans

I'm a fan of Copenhagen and de-broglie's/bohm's. Some of the ones with commonality to multiverse are the many-worlds/mind and consistent histories. There might be some others too.


Second off, Hawking assumes no boundary at point A (which to me sounds like he's saying there's no beginning, or perhaps no end boundary), and I haven't seen his rationale for that. It appears to just be a guess for lacking more info. He argued something different earlier in his career.

Third, I've seen the Feynman path integrals (some of the math he references) used for interpretations not aligned with the multiverse.

The bottom line is, Hawking is expressing that there is a logical hypothesis (yet lacking evidence for support) that would allow the spontaneous generation of the universe.

Ok. Shrug. Other hypotheses have just as much (zero) support, and can claim to have a "super-intelligent conscious" mind at the helm. (Many minds, Relational interp, etc can be used to justify a 'higher intelligence', though not required as defined by religions).

In that blog article, another fun Hawking quote is this one: "According to Hawking, the brain is a computer and our reasoning is a program. '' It will stop working when the computer turns off. Theoretically, it could be recreated in a neural network, but that’s too complicated, because it would involve all the memories of a person,'' he said."

Well, that's just a cosmologist giving his opinion on neuroscience. We don't know for sure. But absent any evidence that consciousness survives death, it is the default position.

I'm agnostic on all of this. I just don't know. The one thing that stands out pretty clear to most rational people, whether god started the ball (dice?) rolling, he/she/it/they is/are not relevant in any currently measurable way as an active theistic deity.

Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm agnostic on all of this. I just don't know.
> The one thing that stands out pretty clear to most
> rational people, whether god started the ball
> (dice?) rolling, he/she/it/they is/are not
> relevant in any currently measurable way as an
> active theistic deity.

since the meme "God" has been hijacked by bible-based religions to mean "YHWH", and atheism (at least understood by christians in the narrow sense) means you do not believe in "God" (although the broader meaning is non-belief in ANY deities), you can be atheist in that sense. YHWH doesnt exist.

i am a YHWH-atheist, but agnostic in the sense that there are other possibilities as to why we are here or what happens when we die. science/archeology/evolution and pure reason disprove the old testament and all religions based upon it. our species did not begin to exist a mere 6000 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2010 07:32AM by Nick Humphrey.

But an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any higher power or god(s).

The definition you are looking for is deist. Or agnostic, but not atheist.

Tiff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in
> any higher power or god(s).
>
> The definition you are looking for is deist. Or
> agnostic, but not atheist.

i know, i wrote:
"(although the broader meaning is non-belief in ANY deities"

what i also meant was that OT religions hijacked the term "God" making it to mean YHWH (they dont ever think that there could exist any other gods, "God" always means their god YHWH) so an "atheist" to them is someone who doesnt believe in "God", which really is just one of many gods, whereas an atheist, to the rest of the world, means someone who doesnt believe in any gods...

Karen Armstrong in The Case For God makes that point that originally, atheist meant people who didn't believe in the Greek gods, then those who didn't believe in the Roman gods, then those who did not believe in the Christian god. It didn't mean you didn't believe in any god, you just didn't believe in any acceptable god.

So I see Nick's point. It's at least simular to Armstrong's. I think she is trying to say that just because you don't believe in a god with the characteristics of the fundamentalist Protestant god, doesn't mean you are an atheist.

speaking to a christian/believer:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Inductive_arguments_2

Without having read the book yet.

JS said: "I'm agnostic on all of this. I just don't know. The one thing that stands out pretty clear to most rational people, whether god started the ball (dice?) rolling, he/she/it/they is/are not relevant in any currently measurable way as an active theistic deity."

I don't know either. I agree adding a god is not really relevant. However those who think god started the ball (dice) have created another problem for themselves. What started the god rolling? Why can a god just pop out of nothing if a universe can't?

Either way there is the question of why the first "thing" came from nothing. It doesn't solve anything to add a god to the mystery of that we don't know. So, I don't think Hawking is the one overextending himself. To me it seems like he is only being more pragmatic.

I just got The Grand Design also. Should be a nice read.

dagny Wrote:
> Either way there is the question of why the first
> "thing" came from nothing. It doesn't solve
> anything to add a god to the mystery of that we
> don't know. So, I don't think Hawking is the one
> overextending himself. To me it seems like he is
> only being more pragmatic.


My complaints aren't that not believing in god isn't justifiable. My three issues had to do with hawkings pushing hypotheses as fact, especially multiverses. That's not being pragmatic, it's being biased before the data exist.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why can a god just pop out of nothing if a universe can't?

brilliant reasoning! =)

What did that nothing pop out from?

"
Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).
"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2012 03:00AM by Nick Humphrey.

I'm at a loss as to why Hawking thinks people care about his opinion about whether God exists or not. To me, that's like a Hollywood star spouting off about politics or other things that are dear to his heart. Who cares about his opinion? Everyone has an opinion. Perhaps Hawking should enlighten us at to his views about fashion as well.

Hawking is one of my heroes. He is an amazingly brilliant astrophysicist. I care about his opinion on things.

I did notice that this thread is two years old, and was revitalized by the troll two posts above you.

I care about his opinion on physics. Not on religion or fashion.

Being a scientist, I care about his opinion on the universe, which does or does not include God.

What area of science do you study, fidget?

My degree is in mathematics, but I dabble and plan on getting a degree in astrophysics. "being a scientist" was meant to refer to Hawking, not myself. Sorry, its only 4am, still waking up.

Psst.....I'm a bit biased with Hawking. Like I said, one of my heroes. :)

That's great fidget. The astrophysics, not the 4am part. I have that insomnia left over from grad school in physics too. Are you in CA or AZ or WA?

I'm still in Utah, am waiting to hear back from grad schools. I took a year off for my sanity. :)

I'm hoping to go to WA though.

All the cool people are in WA. B-)

I wish.

A lot of people DO care about the relationship between philosophy and science. A lot of people DO want to hear his thoughts and opinions.
You don't get to tell people what they can write. You don't have to read it, either.

I guess so. I found his initial POV arrogant. It sounds like he's softened it since.

I could care less whether Hawking thinks God exists or not. If he wants to say that the Universe came from nothing, fine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2012 07:37PM by summer.

I'm not sure what prompted Summer to raise this thread from almost two years back, but a lot has changed for me in the past two years. My perspective on this is different.

It isn't Hawking, exactly, that changed it.

Lawrence Krauss' book "Universe from Nothing" changed my viewpoint.

I think there is a lot of evidence to support much of the idea. Not the way (multiverse) that Hawking purports. That's not really needed.

For Krauss' work, see this thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,514199,514199#msg-514199

It wasn't me -- I think Flameater resurrected it. I didn't notice the date until after I had posted.

It seems like a lot of old threads have been coming up for air recently.

You said it well, yet wrote a lengthy essay on hypotheses we cannot prove. Disagreeing with Hawking is a OK.
I'd worry about you if you were to disagree with Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution.

"Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s revolving, and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour. It’s orbiting at ninety miles a second, so it’s reckoned, the sun that is the source of all our power. The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see are moving at a million miles a day. In an outer spiral arm at forty thousand miles an hour in a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars. It’s a hundred thousand light years side to side. It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light years thick. And out by us it’s just three thousand light years wide. We’re thirty thousand light years from galactic central point. We got round every two hundred million years. And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions in this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps expanding and expanding in all the directions it can whiz. As fast as it can go the speed of light you know twelve million miles a minutes and that’s the fastest speed there is. So remember when you’re feeling very small and insecure how amazing and unlikely is your birth. And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space. Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth." (Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life 1983)

The question of which interpretation of QM you use being germane to the discussion would be valid if you are showing that the argument works ONLY in that interpretation. The various interpretations of QM (Copenhagen, Feynman, Many Worlds, Bohm, etc.) lead to the same measurable results in the lab. If one could show that the argument does NOT work (as opposed to being difficult to make) in a different interpretation then you'd have a point in arguing interpretations.