Go Hawking!

If the universe is expanding until it reaches a point that it stops expanding and implodes, condenses, explodes and starts expanding again, it still exists in an infinite space–it has to right–I can’t imagine a wall. And even if there is a wall–there must be something on the other side. So when we talk about the universe we don not really talk about space. Space must be infinite, and if it is–maybe other universes are expanding from multiple directions, and imploding…or maybe the universe is contained in a cell and their are infinite cells, levels and dimensions behaving in similar or dissimilar ways. What if our universe is expanding, but a parallel universe in a cell beneath us is NOT. Perhaps our universe is defective. An exploding universe. An atomic explosion of colossal cosmic proportions, or a fire, a cell under attack from intense heat or microwaves. What is beyond the infinite cells? What if similar universes exist on a sub-atomic level inside human cells? What if our universe is part of being that exists in some larger world. What if that being is killed in a horrible way? if it dies? What if Horton hears a who?

I loved that list, Joshua. I like trying to push the boundaries of imagining what’s out there, then realizing that all of our imaginations are probably insufficient. There are so many unknown unknowns – there may be fundamental aspects of reality out there that are stranger than any sci fi ever dreamt up.

Joshua, the “Big Bang” model is not about an explosion within a larger space; rather, it’s about the rapid expansion _of_ a space, which need not have anything “outside” of it.

Perhaps you can’t imagine there not being an infinite space around it, and neither can I really, but that’s because our brains were designed to deal with a world much, much, much bigger than we are, so it’s very easy for us to believe that it must all go on forever. The maths involved, however, from which this model falls out, definitely do _not_ require the embedding of our 4-D universe in a 5-D hyperspace—you can do geometry and tensor calculus on an N-dimensional surface whether it’s embeddable at all or not.

Two-dimensional beings living on the surface of a perfect sphere could potentially develop all the maths necessary to measuring things on their sphere without reference to their being “within” something else. If their sphere were expanding quickly enough, they could tell by things’ being further away from each other than
expected—and since they lived and evolved on the surface of a sphere, if it were small enough relative to their size, they would _instinctively_ understand the finiteness of their world.

gemli:
I agree overall, but I think you’ve got childhood mortality rates a bit exaggerated…sources I’ve found, using Google, Inc.’s search-engine for the World-Wide Web, jibe, seem to suggest 30-50% mortality rates, which range gratified me because I remembered them as being ‘around 40%’—so “one child in 3/2s survived” would be closer to the facts. And it’s _really_ important that we never distortthe facts, as that’s the (loosely construed and broadly over-generalised) Other Side’s job (they don’t really need facts because they’ve got The Truth).

Best to your cousin, balen.

A LITTLE POEM BY STEPHEN CRANE

A man said to the universe:
“Sir I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”

Scientific certitude is totally dependent upon repeatable observable phenomena, whether microcosmic or macrocosmic. Current cosmological theories point to an initial “singularity”, i.e., a point of NO DIMENSIONS, from which Space and Time, energy and matter, whether visible or not, evolved.
Since there has been no evidence of a pre-existent God, isn’t Science unable to make any scientific statement to the contrary, i.e., that there is no God?

Correction:
Not all religious thoughts and philosophies – and esp. non-Abrahamic ones – have the same/similar concept of God, and some like (Theravada) Buddhism are silent on that concept of who or what caused the origin of the universe.

“the embedding of our 4-D universe in a 5-D hyperspace”

You assume much, Mr. Fnord, but what is your level of understanding? You obviously assume that time is the Fourth Dimension, as do most amateur sci-fi fans. Time is not the Fourth Dimension … time is four dimensional. Review Einstein. Space is not space, and time is not time. Everything is space-time. There are three dimensions in space, and by definition also three dimensions in time. (6 so far) Where’s the 7th? It’s the inverse of time — T-zero. (NOTE: If there is such a thing as time, there is also such a thing as “no time.” Zero-space and zero-time both represent division by zero and yield infinity OR, if you prefer, eternity).

You arrive at 5 as the number of dimensions. You’re right about one thing — 5 is a prime number. (So is 7, by the way) Without the number of dimensions being prime, the math yields harmonics in the system, leading to false conclusions like multiple universes, and worse still, the silliness of a parallel universe.

Where’s Stephen Hawking!!! This segment was sold as an interview including him…false advertising!!!

Isaac Newton was not a “very rational physicist”. He was a religious zealot. He spent much of his life obsessed with Revelations. He believed there was a secret code in the Bible, which, if decoded, could tell exactly when the Apocalypse would happen. This was suppressed by the scientific community of the time, because Newton was a hero of science, and this would hurt the cause.

Your guests still have only asserted that universes are created “out of nothing” via gravity and physics; yet they have not explained how that is possible. That is, what is their definition of nothing? Gravity is something. How can there be gravity when there is “nothing” for gravity to affect? Is the space into which universes are created nothing? When believers say that God created “out of nothing,” they mean that there was not any thing, not time, space, matter, energy, etc.

I respect Dr. Hawking and his contributions…however, he misses the point. Science/physics/cosmology, and the existence of God DO go hand-in-hand. God created the Universe…and us humans. He/she gave us the brains to work w/ all the elements/thoughts to create technologies to take care of this planet, including each other. Next time, include Dr. Francis Collins, esteemed molecular biologist in this discussion GROUP. Thank you! K

If it is impossible for the universe to have been created out of nothing without god, how can god have been created out of nothing?

Speaking of HHGG…
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’
`But,’ says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’
`Oh dear,’ says God, `I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.”

gemli:

Your post reminds me of a bad joke I heard once.

There is a huge flood and a very religious man refuses to leave his home. The man says “God will save me”. The waters rise and a neighbor comes by in a boat to rescue the man, the man says “God will save me”. The waters continue to rise and the man gets on his roof, another boat comes by to rescue the man but the man says “God will save me”. Waters rise more and the man stands on his chimney, a helicopter comes by to rescue him and the man says “God will save me”. Finally the waters rise and the man drowns.

He gets to the pearly gates and says “God why did you not save me” and God says, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more can I do?”

So while you say God didn’t answer anyone’s prayers until penicillin came around, maybe that was the way God answered prayers…

Also Joshua I enjoyed that list of what-ifs as well. Sometimes I think of infinite paradoxes like that. For instance we look at a cell break it into smaller parts we find atoms, we break down atoms we find protons, we break down protons we find quantum particles, we break down these and get to super strings, who is to say that is the lowest we can go. The same goes in the other direction. We have planets, then solar systems, then galaxies, then universes. My best guess is it goes further than that, perhaps there are clusters of universes separated by unimaginable distances…

Who knows…

What happened to the theory of singularity from which the universe began? Singularity is not nothing.

“Time traveling tourists are either avoiding our time, or choose to avoid interacting with us socially, that’s why we are not aware of them. I don’t blame them.”

Bet on ‘gravity’ accounting for dark matter/energy (from other multiverses), so that there can never, really, be nothing…

I love this kind of talk. I can understand maybe 10% of it at the point of hearing it, so I have to go over it again and again and it sinks in eventually (hopefully). It’s like listening to good jazz music, I get surprised on repeated listening.

Hawking may be a brilliant physicist, but he is a mediocre, pop-philosopher.

One should always be very wary of arguments from authority — one needs to evaluate his metaphysical or speculative pronouncements on their own merits and not on his reputation as a competent physicist.

He spouts opinions of matters for which he has no data, e.g. whether we should fear aliens.

Whenever you hear a physicist talking glibly about infinities in nature, be very suspicious — it’s a good marker that they are projecting their own fantasies well beyond what can possibly ever be measured. The problem is not that they have active imaginations, but that they don’t seem to distinguish between their own projections and physical theory that predicts empirical observations. Whether this is their own self-delusion or bombastic scientism is somewhat irrelevant.

Miodinow makes reference to the Possible Worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics (“other universes with other laws”), but this is an inherently untestable hypothesis (metaphysical in the bad sense of the word).

Be very skeptical when a physicist says that quantum mechanics requires this or that — again, these arguments are often at their core arguments from authority (here the authority of quantum mechanics).

I find it interesting that this “new” book is saying that time has no beginning and no end. The old testament says God has no beginning or end. Also, the book is saying we are all star dust. O.T. again, dust you are and to dust you shall return. Maybe man has know this all along.

Hawkings ideas fit Nicely with Buddhist ideas of Emptiness and Karma. Nothing has a nature of it’s own. Buddhists also agree the idea of an omnipotent being is impossible.

The Abidharmakosa written by Master Asanga circa 350 AD includes many of these ideas.

J

If time is or ever was variable, wouldn’t that change distance? In other words, could the big bang actually just be the beginning of time because if time suddenly grew greatly, the time it takes light to travel from one point to another, (our current measuring tool) would then greatly increase, making it appear that planets and systems quickly expanded in distance?

enjoying the show,

thanks onpoint

This is getting worse and worse.

All discussion of mutiverses with different laws lies outside the realm of physics as empirical science.

The hypothesis is inherently empirically not-testable.
This discussion is now purely in the realm of metaphysics (or theology), but the speaker is scientistically using the prestige of Physics to make implicit arguments from authority. Physics says this…., quantum mechanics requires this…….etc etc etc. This is soooooo bad!

I’m not a professional philosopher, but this a realm in which we need good philosophy, not the scientistic pop-philosophy being proferred here.

If gravity is essential for the spontaneous generation of the universe or universes, then is gravity another way to explain God, another name to give God, the uncreated creator?

Also, what are the moral implications of any of this discussion, if any? In my own finite life, at least this version of it, does this perspective of origin inform any action of mine? Or is the whole notion of purpose and ethical conduct a human conceit?

This is more of the old thin gruel that has been coming out of this camp for years.

When I heard that the answer to the ultimate question was: “Something will spontaneously come out of nothing” I must tell you, I actually laughed out loud.

And to the question: “How is it that the laws of physics are just so perfectly tuned, one law after another, to enable life, to enable us…?

The response is: Well it just so happens that they are that way in this universe. There are an infinite number of other universes where the laws are not that way, and in those other universes there is no life as we know it.”

This argument is similiar to the one that says that if enough monkeys randomly type away for a long enough time, one of them will eventually spew out a Shakespearen play. Our universe, the one we live in, is just the one, out of an infinite number, that happended to enable life. There is nothing special about it. If you form enough universes, one of them is bound to have the conditions for life!

Thin gruel indeed.

It’s remarkable how many people feel compelled to react to this show as if it were an argument against the existence of God, despite Mr. Miodinow’s explicit explanations to the contrary. It seems to prevent really hearing the substance of the discussion. It seems to me that we still can’t really get over or around the idea that everything there ever was has occurred just to lead up to this moment, for some mystic purpose, to enable us to exist.

correction: Einstein was UNwilling to accept the uncertainty principle

“If time is or ever was variable, wouldn’t that change distance? In other words, could the big bang actually just be the beginning of time because if time suddenly grew greatly, the time it takes light to travel from one point to another, (our current measuring tool) would then greatly increase, making it appear that planets and systems quickly expanded in distance?” Posted by Scott, on September 9th, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Time is not an independent phenomenon. No clocks (in the greater sense of two or more things in relative motion) no time. No motion = no time. It is proven every day that time is variable by the offset needed for accuracy in the GPS system.

“It is characteristic of modern times to regard the world as ultimately knowable, so much so that mysteries are quickly swept under the bed with crude explanations.”
Posted by AW, on September 9th, 2010 at 12:20 PM

The absolute crudest and least accurate of which is superstition. Religion is no better. Religion has little to do with ANY reality outside of the delusional memes they coddle because of fear and ignorance. And most of all, religion has absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment. which is the origin of all conceptions of a higher dimension of conscious experience, which when erroneously understood by those who have never had a taste of the physical reality of this quantum leap of consciousness results in religion. I repeat religion has nothing to do with enlightenment. Science may have something to do with it someday. They may come to explain its metabolic mechanisms but this will not be the experience and the belief that the explanation and the experience are related is almost totally incorrect.
Religion is one of the most evil things ever foisted upon the minds of humans, especially those that are derived from Judaism, and its unfortunate descendants. Although, though some parts of the conglomerate known as Hinduism seem to regard cosmic questions, mostly it is superstitious nonsense every bit as prone to hostility and insanity as the others. (witness the recent burning of Christian churches in India). Even Buddhism, especially Tibetan, incorporated earlier superstitions in order to win the minds of the ignorant.

@David,
I guess by “this camp” you mean the scientific camp, and the “thin gruel” includes the theories that gave us space flight, modern medicine, instantaneous worldwide communication, electricity, weather satellites, and a whole lot of other things. It may not be intuitively obvious that empty space is not “nothing” in the everyday sense, but once our perceptions of the world were expanded beyond what we could see, touch, hear, smell, and feel, whole new worlds opened up. We know they’re real, because the world you and I live in is built on the theories that came out of “this camp.”

On the conditions of the universe being just right for human evolution, Dr. Mlodinow’s point was that we can’t evolve in a universe that doesn’t permit us to evolve. The universe didn’t have to be designed to allow us to live. If we’re alive, then the universe we see around us can only be one that supports our form of life. This seems pretty obvious.

Science is not secret dogma, handed down to a select few. With a little effort and study, anyone can verify everything that science holds to be true. Suddenly seeing how the parts of the universe fit together can elicit a number of emotions, and laughing out loud is sometimes one of them. It’s not typically a laugh of derision though, but of wonder.

There is no such thing as “nothing”. Nothing is just a concept, a mathematical place holder for things not present (in context). This same misunderstanding is evident in the poplar conception of the famous Zen and Vedic “void” by westerners.

Another thing that doesn’t exist is a multiverse or multiple universes. If you find an additional universe in your math or where-ever it just means you were only considering a fraction of the universe as the whole before you came upon it. Universe means the entire cosmos, so to say you have many universes is just an inaccurate modification of the language.

from the Online Etymology Dictionary
“the whole world, cosmos,” from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum “the universe,” noun use of neut. of adj. universus “all together,” lit. “turned into one,” from unus “one” (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere “to turn” (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon “the universe,” noun use of neut. of adj. holos “whole” (see safe (adj.)).

A poster requested the presence of Francis Collins in the next scientific discussion group.

I have no qualms with Collins’s illustrious scientific achievments, and his handling of the stem-cell controversy has been very fair. However, Collins is famous less for his achievments (for which he deserves fame) and more for his minority status as a believing Christian in a field where about 9 out of 10 of his colleagues are atheists.

Collins is entitled to his beliefs. I must say however that I found the story of how he came to those beliefs out of an agnostic background to be quite hackneyed, involving a bit of coincidental symbolism that was objectively meaningless. He has claimed that he was once asked by a believing medical patient what his own beliefs were, and was embarassed that he didn’t have any and didn’t know why. He ought to have understood that not having a belief in something intangible is not an indefensible position; it is those who have faith in things unseen that need to defend their position.

Collins is a smart and valuable member of the scientific community, but he is not any kind of authority on God … not that any kind of authority actually exists, since God is an imaginary concept, and therefore everyone (and no one) is an authority.

“I am not at all sure that philosophy has not kept up with science, are you?”
Posted by Jack, on September 9th, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Well Jack, it is my experience that philosophy as it is presented in our educational institutions has taken a wrong turn long ago. In my experience, the real principle philosophic is a dynamic organic process that actually modifies the physical properties of the nervous and endocrine systems that pursues it. However that is my own experience, and since there is no possibility of anyone identifying me without spending a fortune to do it, I will confess that I have been successful in doing things that would cause the prophets of old to salivate with envy before attributing their erroneous conceptions to these phenomenon. The problem is that once one’s mind (automatic flow of association that one calls “I”, has been transcended and rendered lusciously mute by the appearance of a suprafunctional luminous conscious experience (that is, as I reported in the past characterized by overflowing compassion) nothing accurate can be noted about it by the old associative compulsive grasping that is the mundane mind. The attempt to do this can even bring the whole thing to an end. There are no postcards that can be sent from such nonrelative illumination to back home. If you are starting with the ordinary associative mechanical process of mind: “You just can’t get there form here.” Even to people with a real suspicion about its existence and a longing to get there, nothing accurate can be expressed in words or thoughts that is not of the nature of telling what it is not. And anytime anyone with even a little charisma who has been there opens his mouth, look what happens. The ignorant turn it into religion and spooky nonsense while it’s as physical as a heart attack. Everything in the universe is material: your hopes your beliefs and your inaccurate conceptual representations of the qualities of existence are all physical. Hell, even Gurdjieff knew that.

“The cosmos may not need a creator, and it may not need observers, but without the latter, the cosmos literally does not exist unto itself. We are Being.”
Posted by Joshua Hendrickson, on September 9th, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Two cents on this:
This would be correct if there were such a thing as inanimate matter. everything IS alive, and there is a Life of life. That is, there is that which has the same relationship to life as most believe “self-aware” (and I use the term loosely)life has, to what they assume from a minute’ frame of reference, to be inanimate. If this seems too strange, perhaps it can be approached from the evidence of self-similarity as an intrinsic symmetry in nature?

gemli – though it may seem that God did not answer prayers in times of struggle, as you mentioned, God DID answer, and those answers are penicillin and the polio vaccine. He gives scientists the ability to create these medicines; they are merely deliverers of His gifts. God gave us those medicines via scientists.

Start with a famous historical anecdote: The French mathematician described to Napoleon how mathematics could be used to predict the orbits of the planets around the sun. Napoleon asked, “But what place is there for God in all this?” Laplace replied, “I have no need for that hypothesis.” That’s the crux of the whole debate about proving or disproving the existence of God. God is a hypothesis created by the mind of man. Moreover it is a hypothesis that while it could be proved, if someone prayed to God that the sun would not rise again for the next 48 hours and this came true, it would make strong case for the existence of God, it cannot be disproved. I am an unbeliever but I can’t prove God does not exist and will never be able to. God could just exist but have never given evidence of his existence. That could also be true for invisible aliens from the galaxy Andromeda that live among us without our knowledge. No I don’t believe this, it’s just an equally disprovable hypothesis.

Man’s need for religion, a need that extends far back in time to before monotheism, has always centered around some questions posed here: “Why do I exist (and the universe)?” “What happens to me when I die?” The simplest answers are: No reason, just chance. Nothing, you are dead. That’s Occam’s Razor in action.

Thanks NPR for allowing us to indulge in cocktail party theology.

jacflashe:

your take on all the universe being self-aware sounds like pantheism to me. I admit that if there is a God, it is probably Spinoza’s God (as Einstein claimed), but as there is no empirical evidence for this, I prefer to assume that biological life is the sole source of awareness in the universe.

Professor Hawkings is such a genius. Imagine what more he can achieve if he is not paralyzed.

“jacflashe:

your take on all the universe being self-aware sounds like pantheism to me. I admit that if there is a God, it is probably Spinoza’s God (as Einstein claimed), but as there is no empirical evidence for this, I prefer to assume that biological life is the sole source of awareness in the universe.”
Posted by Joshua Hendrickson, on September 9th, 2010 at
9:21 PM

Perfectly understandable. My dogmatic statements must seem like utter nonsense or at least something that the associative mind can relate to, to most people, such as pantheism. I am only too aware of my inability to express that which is basically the only thing I find worth refering to, when considering the human condition. This also allows me the luxury of being utterly bombastic and humble at the same time. Since not only does my associative mind and feelings, draped as they are, upon a magnetic toroidal scaffold like everyone else, understand the impossibility of explaining that lucid ultra consciousness from which mind is absent (void) but I am continually aware that the very part of me which at times has fun with just blabbing about the real secret (as opposed to the fake secret which recently appeared in pop spiritual books and films and which was really just the ten thousandth rehashing of the power of positive thinking) (the real secret keeps itself because it cannot be told) despite the fact that my mind itself if not capable of the things to which it is refering (nor is any mind including Einstein) and it (that is to say “I”) understands that anything it says about This is incorrect. Nevertheless it is just THIS to which all this nonsense (popular belief systems) refers. At least before they got turned around and upside down by the native polar based thinking of we humans. I tell you, now that I can’t be burned at the stake or even identified. I find it really kind of interesting to just throw this stuff out there even though there is really only a chance that ten to the minus four percent of people who think they have an interest in such matters actually do.
By the way I didn’t say that all the universe is self-aware. I said that there are things that are more aware than humans. I said that all the universe is alive, but not of course in the sense that we define biological life within our cosmic locale. There are humans who themselves have been more aware than humans. Ask anyone who has taken a strong psychedelic drug. I can tell you for sure that the endogenous experience of enhanced consciousness is exponentially more beneficial, enlivening, revealing, and strange than any experience induced by external drugs. But it is far less accessible. Part of this is that outside of a few hidden schools (hidden to protect themselves from the true believers) it has always been associated with external miracles and other nonsense. Another part is that no system or technique, or amount of prayer or practice can lead to it, despite what the associative polar based mind would LIKE to be the case. Religion is like a cheap burlesque of the real science of how human consciousness can evolve beyond itself within a persons lifetime, but with everything turned ass backwards.
But please don’t get the idea that I am complaining. It always sounds like a criticism when someone just points at something point blank for what it is (religions being 98% misleading destructive nonsense) But the idea that a scientist, no matter how brilliant, who is only utilizing a kind of high resolution polar thinking, and has no real experience of the immediate visceral physical ecstatic nature of a quantum leap in consciousness is the wise man of our age because he has some theory that approximates reality in a more or less coherent fashion in our locale at this time, is equal nonsense. But between the preacher and the physicist there is no contest as to their accuracy. Unfortunately an individual only has a life time, so if you intend to wait until science delineates the mechanisms of enlightenment you will be dead before you get started. I am not refering to you Joshua, by “you” I mean all of us, that is, anyone who really has an unquenchable thirst for consciousness and loves insight and realization. As Carlos Dwa said, “If you wait for how long it will take you, you will never get it done.”

jacflashe:

thank you for your lengthy, detailed response to my comment about pantheism. I can’t say I followed all of it very well. Some of the fault must be mine; “polar thinking” is not a concept I am familiar with. Some of the fault is yours: your prose is not always clear or coherent. When it is lucid, however, your points are interesting and thought-provoking.

You make references to secrets that keep themselves, and also refer to yourself as (I think) being a keeper of such secrets, possibly in danger of being discovered (protecting your true identity seems to be a real issue for you). This is a little too much mysticism for me. I get your point; after all, I have had my psychedelic experiences in the past and understand the power of mental spelunking. I just think that, since everything is in our heads, we must be careful about ascribing thought and life to the rest of the physical universe. Of course, let us all feel free to speculate as wildly as we like; the best questions don’t lead to answers but to even better questions.

Interesting stuff!

I’ve gone over most of the comments and I’m sad to say that they reflect what seems to be the prevailing view that most Americans are “faithers” rather than thinkers. One salient exception is Gemli, who clearly understands how life improved as rational thought finally began mastering religious orthodoxy. Folmkus also seems to appreciate the wonder of this amazing universe. To echo his remarks I cite this great quote from the late Sir Arthur Eddington: “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” And Jim nicely captures the anthropomorphic quality of imposing purpose one universe.

William Bracy captures the believers point of view when he says that “most” individuals cannot talk about the “ultimate questions” without “naming god”. Well that’s the problem isn’t it? And what about those of us who can? Shall we be ignored in order to insulate theology from skeptical inquiry?

Charlie Mc makes the curious claim that because there is no evidence to support the existence of god, science cannot prove that god does not exist. Of course it is not possible to prove a negative, but you can say that if there is no evidence to support a proposition, it is reasonable to assume that the proposition is false. It demonstrates how weak the argument for the existence of god is that proponents must cite the lack of evidence for the existence of god as an argument in its favor.

If I understand his comments, Gerald Fnord seems to be a skeptic, however he misunderstands the Blind Watchmaker allegory. Dawkins’ 1986 book by that name was a falsification of the anthropomorphic reasoning behind intelligent design – just the opposite of his observation.

Millard Fillmore’s point that the meaning of the word “god” varies from speaker to speaker is quite relevant. The primary variable is whether or not the word is used to refer to an impersonal force responsible for creation (deism) or to a personal entity with human-like qualities and an interest in our individual lives (theism). Neither idea has explanatory power since they simply posit a notion out of whole cloth (faith). Deism is less idiosyncratic and therefore often less objectionable, while theism makes quite ludicrous claims.

Edosa Eweke makes several rather strange and groundless pseudo scientific statements and finishes rather defensively by saying “well, this is my view”. It’s all well and good to have views, but it is helpful if they are informed views. It is much easier to make declarations of belief than to pursue evidence-based truth.

F William Bracy questions Gerald Fnord’s “level of understanding”, and then goes on to claim that there is a different time dimension for each spacial dimension, which is a novel invention on his part. He goes on to talk about dimensional harmonics (sic) and the absurdity of multiple or parallel universes (concepts that have been developed by some of the smartest minds on the planet – including Edward Witten) with an almost breathless certainty. Faith-based physics is no better than theology.

Steve T says that evolution in the bible. Very interesting, considering that Christianity fought this heresy tooth and nail ever since Darwin presented the idea. Anyone remember the Scopes Monkey Trial? He goes on to say that he knows that your godly connection to spirituality (whatever that means)is just there, but as he himself says, “whatever you think that don’t make it so until you can prove it.”

And Michael Dickson claims that the interpretation of physical theory is metaphysics. Metaphysics has nothing to do with science. It is unfounded, meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Brian says that Newton believed some pretty weird stuff, which he did, but that does not invalidate his science which has survived the test of time. He talks about hurting “the cause” as if we were still in the pre-enlightenment period when the church could suppress free thought. Thank god (pun intended) that this is no longer the case.

Paul says that science can’t explain how something came from nothing, but he goes on to say that believers can –that god made it. This is not an explanation, it’s merely an assertion. It explains nothing.

Kristina says that science and god (religion) go hand in hand. I beg to differ. Science is based on evidence and free inquiry. Religion is based on faith and obedience to prescribed ideas. They are implacable foes. It was not until we began to shed the shackles of religious orthodoxy and totalitarianism that true progress in improving the lot of mankind began. And as far as recruiting Dr. Francis Crick, maybe the conversation would have been more interesting, but truth is not measured by plebiscite, and in any event, far more scientists are athiests than believers. Dr. Crick is the exception.

Jim K unequivocally says that, in spite of the amazing progress in our understanding of the universe, especially during the last century, we will never understand how there can be an uncaused cause. While he may not have this vision, many others who do the science – or, like I, follow it with fascination – do. It will not be something that will happen soon, and the answers will probably be more alien to us than we can imagine today, but it is the pursuit of truth that is so inspiringly human. “Higher Power” or “God” are ideas that explain nothing and obstruct real progress in understanding our world.

Ann Stout says that god exists because there has to be a source for all things. Well, maybe there does have to be a source, but this is no proof that the Christian god is that source, or, indeed, that it is any more than a figment of the imagination. She cites a medieval theologian (Aquinas) as one of the greatest thinkers of all time while omitting the brilliant scientists who have toiled, often in the face of mortal threats from the church, to discover how the world really works and, in the process, to create the unprecedented lifestyle that we enjoy today. That is very strange to me.

Well, that’s as far as I’ve gotten. Not a very impressive outing for the American thinker. Well, this is not a controlled study. Perhaps those who are more serious about these ideas don’t post these comments.

Why everyone is stumped by the concept of spontaneous creation when everyone does it all the time. Every dream at night is a spontaneous creation of a total universe. Genesis says God put Adam to sleep but it never says he awoke. The physical universe/reality is an illusion and Hawkins and all the other brilliant minds are examining all parts of the illusion to explain it. They miss the point. The dreamer is where the focus should be not the dream.
The illusion of seperation is the source of all human suffering. There is only one being and we are all parts of it.

Tom caught Mr. Mlodinow when he asked what caused the initial bang/combustion to take place. That’s an easy question to answer, and I felt he didn’t answer this well. He seemed to default back to the 10 to the minus 34th equation – which still begs the question.
Conditions were ripe for combustion like our big bang to take place – even if it took billions of years of nothingness and probably billions of previous near hits which may or may not have included various elements (well, molecules of) floating around in various levels of strength or weakness. Now I’m no Physicist or Molecular Biologist or even an Astronautical Engineer, but this is what I think: Combustion can only happen where conditions are ripe to take place, including deepest space. Maybe the fact that deep space is necessary for it to happen, and when the molecular collision is perfect – featuring enough of two or more elements and the absolute perfect force and timing, there you have it – a more or less simple explanation of how we perhaps got here. Then consider that several trillion previous collisions or almost-collisions amounted to nothing, or very little, due in part or wholly because conditions were not absolutely perfect. There is absolutely nothing to suggest our bang was the first, nor the last. it’s just one of an infinite number. The problem usually is we simple humans haven’t developed the where-with-all or patience to figure out the hugely crazy numbers we are talking about. Infinity is a tough thing to grasp. but because infinity is infinite, there is no God. God was purely created by man as a theory the theorists (sometimes over millenia) felt many people will buy into, to answer the big questions. At the very least the God theory, they felt, ought to satisfy the majority (we can imprison those that go against this theory), and taking it further, maybe the God theory – they felt again – is actually correct (they contrived this theory when science and its truths was not around, was not considered, or allowed to be considered or outright crushed). It was all contrived and sold as true. The son of God theory is brilliant in its contrivization as well. What was missing from their God theory, particularly among a ruthless society at the time? Somehow bring man closer to God. And voila: find a unique, bright person, add some some God-like qualities (even though this was done later by scribes who never met Christ), but keep him looking and suffering as a human. Martyrdom was a beautiful quality for their aims.
Our big bang, like the one sperm that embeds in the egg making a human, was the one that worked and made us the survivors we are today. It was the one in multi-trillions of previous bangs of various sizes and energy levels that may or may not have made it as far as we have. there will be multi-trillions more after we are long gone. There are probably billions and billions of universes, but they only come into existence, again, when conditions are ripe for formation. Here’s something else to consider: there never was a beginning, there never is an end, everything that comes into existence will evolve constantly, will work as it is for a while, then eventually fade into something else or away for one reason or many and become something else, and then something else, and so on and so on. Who says this stuff is hard to figure out?

If we had evolved under a permanent cloud deck (like Venus) it would never have occurred to us that there was anything beyond.

By the way billydee: Bravo

jacflashe,

J.B.S. Haldane (using terminology that is dated and which has assumed new meanings, but I utilize the originals rather than changing to the equivalent because I am just that way) famously wrote:

“The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.”

Arthur C. Clarke called this Haldane’s Law. It certainly qualifies as a law in my book.

You write:

“The reality of existance if far more wonderful than anyone thinks it is, and far more wonderful than anyone is capable of thinking.”

Now, maybe you knew Haldane’s Law and maybe you didn’t when you wrote that sentence. Either way, all I am trying to say is, I’m with you, Brother. I just don’t need to have experienced the fact of that queerness/wonder in a subjective manner to accept it as fact.

For fun:

From Douglas Adams, the proof that there is no life in the universe (not a quote but close):

The universe being infinite, there are an infinite number of planets. However, not all planets contain life. An infinite number divided by a finite number is as near to zero as makes no damn-it. Therefore, there is no life in the universe.

RIP, Douglas Adams. You always were the best answer to the common claim that atheists have no sense of humor.

“Folmkus also seems to appreciate the wonder of this amazing universe. To echo his remarks I cite this great quote from the late Sir Arthur Eddington: “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”. . .”
Posted by Dan, on September 10th, 2010 at 11:03 AM

* * * * *

“So Joshua I understand that my bombastic babbling is difficult, I deeply apologize for this. If I were a more clever person perhaps I could come up with an effective way to transmit the truly wonderful state of things. I can tell you this, and you can take it for what you will. The reality of existence if far more wonderful than anyone thinks it is, and far more wonderful than anyone is capable of thinking. It is more astonishing than if a fairy tale turned out to be physically true. However believing what I am saying or not is meaningless. If you are the right genetic type you can see for yourself, given the breathing space from your habitual modes.”
Posted by JacFlasche, on September 10th, 2010 at 12:32 PM

* * * * *

““The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.”

Arthur C. Clarke called this Haldane’s Law. It certainly qualifies as a law in my book.

You write:

“The reality of existance if far more wonderful than anyone thinks it is, and far more wonderful than anyone is capable of thinking.”

Now, maybe you knew Haldane’s Law and maybe you didn’t when you wrote that sentence. Either way, all I am trying to say is, I’m with you, Brother. I just don’t need to have experienced the fact of that queerness/wonder in a subjective manner to accept it as fact.”
Posted by Joshua Hendrickson, on September 11th, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Joshua, I read Dan’s post right after I posted my own, and almost felt it was synchronistic (that’s a joke), however it’s just my experience. It doesn’t matter if everybody in the world said it first or second or whatever. To say it is one thing, to see it is another. I can appreciate what you said about not needing to experience this to accept it as fact, and I fully agree with your conclusion that we are not in opposition. Nope, quite the contrary.
Still, I’m sure you would agree that there are vastly desirable results in individual discovery. As in the case were someone creates a math equation that would solve a variable but consistent problem they were having at the “shop”. Beyond the feelings of satisfaction about accomplishment, and the fun of having had a creative thrust, they would have developed physically, neurally, differently than they would have if they had looked up a formula and memorized it’s proof for a test the next day. My emphasis must point to the physical aspect here, because it is easy to dismiss. If a person finds pleasure in intellectual discovery and/or other creative acts, that in itself makes them different physically.
A few years ago somebody told me that homosexual males (and all women) have a more robust corpus callosumthan than do heterosexual males (it connects the hemispheres in our brains and allows them to communicate). Therefore: (he concluded) homosexuality was a genetic quality that is determined (in males) before one’s birth.
I was of the opinion that because of recent evidence of the unexpectedly dynamic nature of the brain and it’s ability to rewire itself, any evidence that was the bases for his conclusion would have to be derived solely from virgin homosexuals who did not stimulate themselves. Otherwise we would never know if they were born with the more robust corpus callosum or if some behavior of homosexual males caused a thicker connection.

This really irked my friend for some reason.

I do have reason to believe that though the above three quoted statements are similar, and can mean very much the same thing, perhaps they didn’t mean exactly the same thing to the people who made them. While existence is certainly queer and strange, these two qualities don’t necessarily have a positive aspect to their meaning that wonderful does. I meant wonderful not strange. Though things are strange, I always sort of expected things to be strange, just because of the nature of the organic structure of the brain and the intrinsic problems in modeling concepts based on other concepts, and language and such secondary neural activity as is not connected with survival in the moment, the propensity to reify fantasies and all the strangeness of a culture that those within it are blind to etc., etc. It had to be strange, it would have been too strange if it wasn’t, like some inescapable Ozzy and Harriet dimension of enthropic doom hiding in a quagmire of bland repetition.
I never expected it to be wonderful, not really. In fact, now that I consider it, that is one of the strangest thing about it.

TT (tangent time)

One time Omni mag. apparently tested a large group of scientists on general scientific knowledge. One of the questions that most of them got wrong went like this.

An average 150lb male processes how much ATP through the Krebs cycle in a twenty-four hour period?

A. 150 milligrams
B. 15 grams
C. 15 ounces
D. 15 pounds
E. 150 pounds

answer below

The answer is 150 pounds. Are we also too dynamnic and energetic to imagine also?

jacflashe,

you’re right in concluding that the three similar statements don’t necessarily mean precisely the same thing; that’s what language is all about. “Queer” meaning “strange” or “odd” definitely is not the same as “wonderful.” Anything truly new in our experience is strange. An open, questing mind will consider that strange new experience to be wonderful. It is in perception rather than in the perceived where meaning is to be found.

I don’t get the OMNI question at the end; don’t have a grasp of ATP or Krebs Cycles. (My relative “expertise” in the sciences is limited to the fields of astronomy and physics.) But I did understand your references to Gurdjieff in an earlier post. Not that I am anything more than passingly familiar with the author of BEELZEBUB’S TALES TO HIS GRANDSON, but as an armchair philosopher, he does come within my sphere of interest.

Are you familiar with the Zoroastrian concept of Frashokereti, or “Making Wonderful”? It is a divine concept that we human beings would do well to enact in the real world. I just finished writing a novel that, among other things, makes use of this concept as part of my overall theme on the imaginary but central role of God in our world.

jacflashe:

well then.

Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing. However, since you (and all others so enlightened) always claim it is unconveyable, indescribable, beyond language, etc., then I will never be certain that we are not. Without language there is no communication, and without communication, you may as well not have had an experience at all, so far as I or anyone else is concerned.

The kind of enlightenment that you seem to be talking about has always struck me not as an external phenomenon but rather a particularly pungent brain fart. I know I’m being puerile, but I have done my share of lsd and shrooms, and while those experiences were ineffable and influential (very much so), in the end I had to dismiss them for what they are: neurochemical states boasting only as much substance and wisdom as the tripper brings to them.

As a novelist, whose life is all about what words can convey and the imagination that inspires those words, it is difficult for me to comprehend or find interest in an ineffable experience. Such experiences, rare as they are, almost always seem to leave the enlightened one rather obsessed with them. This obsession can (but does not always) lead the enlightened one down a path that may well terminate in mental illness. I have seen it happen in one of my favorite authors. I am not equating enlightenment itself with madness, but neither can I in good conscience equate enlightenment with any force whatsoever beyond that of neurochemistry.

You say that the experience is enormously profound and transforming … and that it is also meaningless. I am glad that you can see it that way; it vouches, I believe, for your ultimate good mental health.

Perhaps the thread is dead, after all. Best to you … and keep posting here. You’re an interesting poster.

Mr. Mlodinow doesn’t seem to be saying that everything that exists came out of nothing, but rather that the universe came out of nothing — but that is because, woops, what we thought was the universe is actually only a tiny part of an even larger MULTIVERSE . . . that we can’t explain how it came to be . . . . Nothing has been answered, except that the mystery is no longer “why does the universe exist”, but rather why does the MEGAVERSE (along with the laws of quantum theory and gravity) exist????

“Why something rather than nothing” isn’t answered by saying/implying that the laws of quantum theory make this possible . . . since, presumably, the laws of quantum theory would need to EXIST in the first place. Something coming out of nothing being a possibility due to quantum theory is not really something coming out of nothing, a causal connection still exists since if quantum laws did not exist neither would this possibility (i.e., the possibility of something coming from nothing is causally dependent on the prior existence of quantum laws). When they can explain how the laws of quantum theory and gravity came out of nothing (without referring to yet another set of pre-existing laws), then I’ll listen! But until then they are just dressing up the same age old question in new garb.

But it is great to know that the deeper physicists dive into these questions, the stranger, more mysterious, and frankly more interesting the universe seems to become . . . almost religious.

What a huge diversity of views! I am reading the book (on Kindle Ipad App). I love all the thoughts!

And what if other life that is “intelligent” as, or more than us! And here we are trying to communicate with them. And what if their Planet is, SUN sized and they are Huge creatures! And suppose that life in the Universe is like life on earth that mostly eats other life. Maybe we would just be protein powder for their blenders.

But even worse!! Would be a scenario where these beings are BREAKING OUR PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAWS and listening to illegally copied music! Ripping movies without paying the creators of this work! OMG. . . . For sure this is a reason to attack every system that could support other “Intelligent” life out there.