Hawking

[bytesplicer]

Anyone have any thoughts on Hawking's statements in his upcoming book?

First off, I'm not religious, unless you count my own possibly misguided pre-occupation with energy, but the statements Hawking has made (I'm only seeing excerpts, so may be misinformed at this point) seem like nonsense.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

This seems to be saying the law of gravity existed before the universe itself. Fine if he proves it, but it begs the usual questions of where did gravity come from, or maybe it was always there, like God?

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

Again, it's not spontaneous if it requires gravity. Also bearing in mind gravity is still probably the most mysterious of the forces.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Maybe so, but spontaneous creation, either without cause or requiring gravity, which just happened to be around, seems all a bit dubious to me.

I have enormous respect for Hawking & Dawkin, but these kind of statements seem to me to cause more harm than good to 'the cause'. They seem to be becoming what they're fighting against. Instead of coming up with stuff like this, why don't they target the exploitative aspects of religion, but leave religion itself alone. There's a hole in the foundation of science you can drive a busload of deities through. Not knocking science or its usefulness but these kind of pseudo-religious statements are starting to make me think of science as 'delusion with supporting evidence'.

[Nikolai]

Hi bytesplicer,

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist

If spontaneous creation occurs then perhaps it is happening in every moment? In which case there is no way of talking about The universe, or that We exist. From moment to moment we are something completely new and any notion of continuity is an illusion that occurs purely in our own minds. Yet this thought of continuity IS the entirety of the universe in this constantly spontaneous creation (which is also, of course, constantly spontaneous destruction of the old).

I like you posts, particularly on energy, because they highlight all the circularity that lies behind so much scientific theorising.

Best, Nikolai

[bytesplicer]

Hi bytesplicer,

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist

If spontaneous creation occurs then perhaps it is happening in every moment? In which case there is no way of talking about The universe, or that We exist.

There are so many possibilities, literally as many as we can think of and more. Though many claim to 'know' the truth of our reality, it occurs to me more and more how collectively lost we are

From moment to moment we are something completely new and any notion of continuity is an illusion that occurs purely in our own minds.

This appears scientifically true, it seems something like 98% of the atoms in your body are not the same as they were a year ago. Does fuel the debate about our sense of continuity!

Yet this thought of continuity IS the entirety of the universe in this constantly spontaneous creation (which is also, of course, constantly spontaneous destruction of the old).

I like you posts, particularly on energy, because they highlight all the circularity that lies behind so much scientific theorising.

Thanks again Bear in mind though that I'm not specifically targeting science, I think this circularity applies to human thinking in general, the way we do science and practice religion being sort of 'side effects'. Then again, how we think may be side-effects of how the universe (or God) made us. Once again, circular thinking :S

Best, Nikolai

[Nikolai]

ear in mind though that I'm not specifically targeting science, I think this circularity applies to human thinking in general, the way we do science and practice religion being sort of 'side effects'.

Yes. I couldn't agree more.

[chaz wyman]

Perhaps the lesson here is not to expect philosophy from a man tutored in science?
What does make sense is that he is basically saying that what we can understand of the world is that what we can find out is commensurate with what the world seems to be; that there is no ghost behind the machine; nothing that offering a superstitious explanation will help elucidate. In short saying there is a god does not help us explain anything.

Anyone have any thoughts on Hawking's statements in his upcoming book?

First off, I'm not religious, unless you count my own possibly misguided pre-occupation with energy, but the statements Hawking has made (I'm only seeing excerpts, so may be misinformed at this point) seem like nonsense.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

This seems to be saying the law of gravity existed before the universe itself. Fine if he proves it, but it begs the usual questions of where did gravity come from, or maybe it was always there, like God?

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

Again, it's not spontaneous if it requires gravity. Also bearing in mind gravity is still probably the most mysterious of the forces.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Maybe so, but spontaneous creation, either without cause or requiring gravity, which just happened to be around, seems all a bit dubious to me.

I have enormous respect for Hawking & Dawkin, but these kind of statements seem to me to cause more harm than good to 'the cause'. They seem to be becoming what they're fighting against. Instead of coming up with stuff like this, why don't they target the exploitative aspects of religion, but leave religion itself alone. There's a hole in the foundation of science you can drive a busload of deities through. Not knocking science or its usefulness but these kind of pseudo-religious statements are starting to make me think of science as 'delusion with supporting evidence'.

[Richard Baron]

I don't know precisely what Hawking is claiming, although I am sure that atheism is correct. Those who are interested in arguments in this general area might like to look at some of Quentin Smith's papers, available here:

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_religion.htm

[Rortabend]

I'm not sure Hawking is claiming anything. It's more likely to be his publisher misinterpreting the book for a press release!

[bytesplicer]

I'm not sure Hawking is claiming anything. It's more likely to be his publisher misinterpreting the book for a press release!

My internal probability calculator tells me you may be correct!

Chaz. I don't agree with your first point but your second makes sense to me (though I may have misinterpreted). So he (or his publisher) is not so much saying whether or not there's a God, but that either way it's irrelevant to our exploration and learning.

Richard. Thanks for that, seems to be a load of great stuff to go through, should keep me occupied for a while!

[Typist]

There are so many possibilities, literally as many as we can think of and more. Though many claim to 'know' the truth of our reality, it occurs to me more and more how collectively lost we are.

Yes, agreed. It seems the practical thing to do would be to face the fact of our ignorance, embrace it, celebrate it, and harvest all possible benefits.

If a full understanding of reality is forever beyond our grasp, we can look forward to an eternity of the joy of discovery.

What a bore it would be if reality turns out to be so small in scope and complexity that it can be fully comprehended by the human mind.

We have no compelling need to know the answer to every cosmic question, so why not focus on enjoying the mystery, something that is doable, right now.

Let's say we do a bunch of experiments, and somehow determine how the universe is created. Then what? What is the benefit to real world human beings?

Exploring the space between our own ears seems a far more practical exploration project.

[Typist]

I am sure that atheism is correct.

I am sure that if you are correct, it is due to the laws of random chance.

[John]

I'm not sure Hawking is claiming anything. It's more likely to be his publisher misinterpreting the book for a press release!

Very possibly. It's hard to offer much comment without reading the book. Typical press shorthand and simplification often doesn't help.

[Richard Baron]

I am sure that atheism is correct.

I am sure that if you are correct, it is due to the laws of random chance.

If I am correct, or if I think that?

A claim that I am correct by reason of "the laws of random chance" sounds like a claim that there could have been a god, but it just didn't work out that way. Such a claim would be theologically interesting.

A claim that I think what I do by reason of "the laws of random chance" sounds more plausible. But I do not think that such a random origin of thoughts would affect the truth value of any given thought, although it might well adversely affect the ratio of true thoughts to false ones.

[Typist]

If I am correct, or if I think that?

Like I said, if you are correct, it will be because you won the Philosophical Lottery.

A claim that I am correct by reason of "the laws of random chance" sounds like a claim that there could have been a god, but it just didn't work out that way. Such a claim would be theologically interesting.

Not theological or interesting really, just the same old claim that you have no way to be certain about your claim. Actually, I apologize for even making the comment, as this is such tired ground. Old habits die hard I guess, my bad.

[John]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

This seems to be saying the law of gravity existed before the universe itself. Fine if he proves it, but it begs the usual questions of where did gravity come from, or maybe it was always there, like God?

I think the problem here is that we shouldn't think of the laws of gravity as a thing that has to be created in the way we create laws in the social sense.

Whereas we create laws to proscribe behaviour scientific laws, such as the laws of gravity, are descriptive and not proscriptive so they don't need to be created as all they do is explain a particular phenomena.

If you then ask "who defined the nature of the interaction that causes the phenomena" then I believe your begging the question because the existence of that someone is what is actually at question.

[John]

Not theological or interesting really, just the same old claim that you have no way to be certain about your claim. Actually, I apologize for even making the comment, as this is such tired ground. Old habits die hard I guess, my bad.

Typist, have you read William James' lecture The Will to Believe that he gave at Harvard in 1896? If not I think you might find it interesting and it's fairly easy to find online.