Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stephen Hawking

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 7:22:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.

Please go on.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 7:53:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Haha, read the comments.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 7:53:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 5:02:18 PM, belle wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

still an attention whore. i will probably read his book anyways though lol.

Damn, he even looks like the spawn of satan, heard his name a few times but I've never seen him.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 7:58:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 5:02:18 PM, belle wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

still an attention whore. i will probably read his book anyways though lol.

Let me know if it's any good.

At 9/2/2010 7:53:14 PM, Korashk wrote:
Haha, read the comments.

Yikes.

Some idiot named Nestor wrote:
STEPHEN MY BROTHER, SOON YOU WILL MEET YOUR CREATOR, DO YOU BELIEVE HIM AS YOUR CREATOR OR YOU WERE WITH THE THEORY OF FAMILY OF MONKEYS THAT EVOLVED ACCORDINGLY, YOU WILL BE JUDGED THEN BY THE CHIMPANZEES HEHEHE. YOUR INTELLIGENCE DID NOT COME FROM YOU IT WAS YOUR GIFT FROM GOD.READ SPIRITUAL BOOKS, READ THE BIBLE, MAN IS NOT ONLY A PHYSICAL BEING, PSYCHOLOGICAL OR EMOTIONAL BEING OR INTELLECTUAL BEING BUT HE IS A SPIRITUAL BEING YOU ARE LIMITING THE REALITY OF A PERSON YOU ARE INSULTING GOD. MAY GOD BLESS YOUR SOUL. I will be praying for your enlightenment brother.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 8:09:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 7:53:56 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/2/2010 5:02:18 PM, belle wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

still an attention whore. i will probably read his book anyways though lol.

Damn, he even looks like the spawn of satan, heard his name a few times but I've never seen him.

What?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 8:19:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 7:22:00 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.

Please go on.

Because usually when scientists speak of "nothing" they are not actually speaking of the absence of any and everything.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 8:47:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 8:19:16 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/2/2010 7:22:00 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.

Please go on.

Because usually when scientists speak of "nothing" they are not actually speaking of the absence of any and everything.

He's probably referring to hyperspace, which, theoretically, universes actually do emerge from.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 8:51:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 8:09:03 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 9/2/2010 7:53:56 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/2/2010 5:02:18 PM, belle wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

still an attention whore. i will probably read his book anyways though lol.

Damn, he even looks like the spawn of satan, heard his name a few times but I've never seen him.


What?

Did you seen his picture?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 11:50:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.

Yea does anyone have a simple layman's explanation for that?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 12:15:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 11:50:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.

Yea does anyone have a simple layman's explanation for that?

For what I said or for what Hawking said?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 9:32:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 5:02:18 PM, belle wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

still an attention whore. i will probably read his book anyways though lol.

Damn, Belle, you beat me to the punch...I wanted to post it. Oh well.

The quote in the article is there to simply sell books. Obviously, there is so much wrong with it from a physics point of view, creating controversy, thus leading to book sales.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
I think popculturepooka already hit the nail on the head with this one:
At 9/2/2010 8:19:16 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Because usually when scientists speak of "nothing" they are not actually speaking of the absence of any and everything.

This is exactly true. When scientists refer to "a nothing," they are talking about singularity (i.e. something singular.) Like a white canvas which we say is "blank" or has "nothing" on it. This kind of nothing is actually something, not like the other "nothing" which is a concept, albeit a paradoxical concept.

The other quote was: "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Here I am not certain which "nothing" he's referring to. In the case of the "non-existence nothing", I vehemently disagree. The reason things exist is because there is no other possibility. There isn't some "collection" of things that exist that's separate from another "collection" of things that do not exist. This is how most of us tend to think about this intuitively, but this is wrong and clearly a contradiction. Things don't move from existence to non-existence & vice versa; that idea is fundamentally flawed. Simply put, non-existence does not exist: existence is the default state of things.

Now if by Spontaneous Creation, he means the conversion of a singularity into a plurality, then I don't disagree so strongly. In this case, he's referring to the "nothing" that does exist: the one that means singularity. I only disagree here with perhaps the terminology, because there isn't necessarily anything spontaneous about it. The reason that there is plurality instead of singularity, is because there are many more possibilities with plurality; there are more possible states. With singularity, there is only 1 state but with plurality, there are an almost limitless amount of states. That's why we exist in this fashion.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 9:58:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 12:15:07 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/2/2010 11:50:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.

Yea does anyone have a simple layman's explanation for that?

For what I said or for what Hawking said?

Hawking.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 5:11:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 9:58:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2010 12:15:07 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/2/2010 11:50:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2010 5:12:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

I'll be severely disappointed if "nothing" involves equivocation.

Yea does anyone have a simple layman's explanation for that?

For what I said or for what Hawking said?

Hawking.

Science.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:04:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 9:32:30 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
This is exactly true. When scientists refer to "a nothing," they are talking about singularity (i.e. something singular.) Like a white canvas which we say is "blank" or has "nothing" on it. This kind of nothing is actually something, not like the other "nothing" which is a concept, albeit a paradoxical concept.

pretty sure the idea of a singularity before the big bang has been pretty much abandoned by physicists... unless you are referring to something other than an infinitely dense point
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 11:51:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That didn't sound simple at all, especially for a layman. But I am pleased scientists are at least using their imagination now rather the old clapped out theories - its far more entertaining. So... everything just happened... and from nothing - in the sense of an unknown condition prior to the big bang... then substance with all its laws began to analyse itself and imagine answers - after the old 'get out clause' - lots and lots of time. But I am pleased scientists at least admit a prior big bang nothing-something rather that nothingness which is an absolute term. Anyway, I prefer to imagine a God - its more believable.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2010 9:33:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 3:04:16 PM, belle wrote:
pretty sure the idea of a singularity before the big bang has been pretty much abandoned by physicists... unless you are referring to something other than an infinitely dense point
Well, as far as i can tell, physics doesn't "go" before the Big Bang as it's rather undefined at that point. Those that do go back, tend to be purely speculative.

As far as the Big Bang singularity, it would be a state where all things were indistinguishably part of a singular whole. It might be a point of infinite density but, then again, the definition of volume at this state is quite muddled.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2010 3:11:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 11:51:49 AM, Ogan wrote:
That didn't sound simple at all, especially for a layman. But I am pleased scientists are at least using their imagination now rather the old clapped out theories - its far more entertaining. So... everything just happened... and from nothing - in the sense of an unknown condition prior to the big bang... then substance with all its laws began to analyse itself and imagine answers - after the old 'get out clause' - lots and lots of time. But I am pleased scientists at least admit a prior big bang nothing-something rather that nothingness which is an absolute term. Anyway, I prefer to imagine a God - its more believable.

Unless your talking about string theory; classical physics, including the big bang ends at the point of the singularity; which means the phrase "before the big bang" is very similar to "North of the North Pole."

There has been a lot of reaction to the concept of something being spontaneously created; but the most important thing to understand, is that it is possible to physically measure the effect of particles that are created spontaneously; for example the Cassmir effect.

While my understanding of this sort of heavyweight physics gets a bit ropey, there is no reason why this same principle can't be applied to the wider universe.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:54:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/7/2010 3:11:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Unless your talking about string theory; classical physics, including the big bang ends at the point of the singularity; which means the phrase "before the big bang" is very similar to "North of the North Pole."
Great analogy!

There has been a lot of reaction to the concept of something being spontaneously created; but the most important thing to understand, is that it is possible to physically measure the effect of particles that are created spontaneously; for example the Cassmir effect.
This is one way of looking at it, but it is not the only way. The Casimir Effect can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual particles of quantum fields. Which of course means that nothing was created spontaneously.

While my understanding of this sort of heavyweight physics gets a bit ropey, there is no reason why this same principle can't be applied to the wider universe.
It can, but it is not necessary. Additionally, that type of explanation is fundamentally flawed.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 2:43:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:54:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/7/2010 3:11:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Unless your talking about string theory; classical physics, including the big bang ends at the point of the singularity; which means the phrase "before the big bang" is very similar to "North of the North Pole."
Great analogy!

There has been a lot of reaction to the concept of something being spontaneously created; but the most important thing to understand, is that it is possible to physically measure the effect of particles that are created spontaneously; for example the Cassmir effect.
This is one way of looking at it, but it is not the only way. The Casimir Effect can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual particles of quantum fields. Which of course means that nothing was created spontaneously.

I would welcome such a description; as well as that for all the other effects that are explained by virtual particles.


While my understanding of this sort of heavyweight physics gets a bit ropey, there is no reason why this same principle can't be applied to the wider universe.
It can, but it is not necessary. Additionally, that type of explanation is fundamentally flawed.

Howso?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 3:06:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 2:43:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would welcome such a description; as well as that for all the other effects that are explained by virtual particles.
Not I, as those concepts are fundamentally flawed.

While my understanding of this sort of heavyweight physics gets a bit ropey, there is no reason why this same principle can't be applied to the wider universe.
It can, but it is not necessary. Additionally, that type of explanation is fundamentally flawed.

Howso?
If when they say "nothing" they are actually referring to "something" that they are not aware of (i.e. coming from something unknown) then that is fine. My only objection is that they should word it differently like "arising from something unknown."

If however, they mean "nothing" as in the absence of all things, then that is contradictory definition, a paradox, meaninglessness. This is what they seem to be insinuating, and that's why I dismiss them so.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 7:20:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 9:32:30 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The quote in the article is there to simply sell books. Obviously, there is so much wrong with it from a physics point of view, creating controversy, thus leading to book sales.

No, nothing means absolutely nothing, not even vacuum! I have only read the first couple chapters of the book, but a main point is that physics defies analogy with our everyday experience. The only way we came operate is to write the equations, see what they predict, and then check to see if the predictions match what we observe in our everyday world. It isn't possible to "make sense" of the equations in any traditional way. You just have to get used to not having that level of understanding.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:36:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 7:20:30 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/3/2010 9:32:30 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No, nothing means absolutely nothing, not even vacuum!
This type of "nothing" is a contradiction; contradictions cannot exist (physically.)

I have only read the first couple chapters of the book, but a main point is that physics defies analogy with our everyday experience.
Sometimes, but not always.

The only way we came operate is to write the equations, see what they predict, and then check to see if the predictions match what we observe in our everyday world.
Which doesn't always happen ESPECIALLY with theoretical physics.

It isn't possible to "make sense" of the equations in any traditional way. You just have to get used to not having that level of understanding.
Are you implying that we have to get used to accepting that a contradiction can physically exist? Doesn't that throw logic and science right out the window?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:32:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
(from a friend) re: an interview with leading evolutionary researcher David Sloan.

Here is a noteworthy extract:
Quote
"I piss off atheists more than any other category, and I am an atheist. One of the things that infuriates me about the newest crop of angry atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, is their denial of the beneficial aspects of religion. Their beef is not just that there is no evidence for God. They also insist that religion "poisons everything", as Christopher Hitchens subtitled his book. They are ignoring the scientific theory and evidence for the "secular utility" of religion, as Émile Durkheim put it, even though they wrap themselves in the mantle of science and rationality. Someone needs to call them out on that, and that person is me."

Notice how he accuses Dawkins of ignoring theory and evidence?

In my view (and I've been dabbling in this subject for over 30 years) Dawkins is not actually a scientist, he never really was. He likes to pretend he is, but he is no more a "real" working scientists than I am. He has done almost no serious research on genetics, biochemistry etc yet regularly abuses those who have simply because they dare to question some assumptions.

He disagrees with and ridicules others, especially ID supporters - yet many of these ARE scientists - far more so than Dawkins. Does Dawkins know more about cell biochemistry than Behe? of course not, will he debate Behe? no, he avoids this terrifying prospect by first labelling Behe a "creationist? and then invoking his rule "I don't debate creationists" that's how sincere the man is.

I think Dawkins has done a lot of harm to science education, because he has done little more than prattle on and on about Darwin and his own fantasies than he has science, I complained to Charles Simonyi about this once, because the billionaire Simonyi financed the creation of the "Professor For The Public Understanding Of Science" and appointed Dawkins to the role.

I suggested to Simonyi that the title should be changed to "Professor For The Public Indoctrination Of Evolution" because that is the only thing Dawkins ever talks about.

How many young people actually have been taken in by Dawkins' waffle and developed a narrow and intolerant attitude about science? As I say elsewhere religion has never held back science, almost all major revolutionary scientific thinkers up until at least the late 19th century have been religious or believers in God in some way.

This obsessive fretting over religion cannot therefore be because it endangers science, it must be for some other reason, that reason is ego, the psychosis that Dawkins suffers from is so extreme, that he cannot tolerate dissent, he doesn't just want to never be proved wrong, he wants to prevent anyone gaining the ability to prove him wrong and that is not honest or scientific.

No wonder David Sloan wants to bitch slap Dawkins, he just needs to get in line first though, because a lot of people are already waiting to do just that.

Harry.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:33:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:32:44 AM, Ogan wrote:
(from a friend) re: an interview with leading evolutionary researcher David Sloan.

Here is a noteworthy extract:
Quote
"I piss off atheists more than any other category, and I am an atheist. One of the things that infuriates me about the newest crop of angry atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, is their denial of the beneficial aspects of religion. Their beef is not just that there is no evidence for God. They also insist that religion "poisons everything", as Christopher Hitchens subtitled his book. They are ignoring the scientific theory and evidence for the "secular utility" of religion, as Émile Durkheim put it, even though they wrap themselves in the mantle of science and rationality. Someone needs to call them out on that, and that person is me."

Notice how he accuses Dawkins of ignoring theory and evidence?

In my view (and I've been dabbling in this subject for over 30 years) Dawkins is not actually a scientist, he never really was. He likes to pretend he is, but he is no more a "real" working scientists than I am. He has done almost no serious research on genetics, biochemistry etc yet regularly abuses those who have simply because they dare to question some assumptions.

He disagrees with and ridicules others, especially ID supporters - yet many of these ARE scientists - far more so than Dawkins. Does Dawkins know more about cell biochemistry than Behe? of course not, will he debate Behe? no, he avoids this terrifying prospect by first labelling Behe a "creationist? and then invoking his rule "I don't debate creationists" that's how sincere the man is.

I think Dawkins has done a lot of harm to science education, because he has done little more than prattle on and on about Darwin and his own fantasies than he has science, I complained to Charles Simonyi about this once, because the billionaire Simonyi financed the creation of the "Professor For The Public Understanding Of Science" and appointed Dawkins to the role.

I suggested to Simonyi that the title should be changed to "Professor For The Public Indoctrination Of Evolution" because that is the only thing Dawkins ever talks about.

How many young people actually have been taken in by Dawkins' waffle and developed a narrow and intolerant attitude about science? As I say elsewhere religion has never held back science, almost all major revolutionary scientific thinkers up until at least the late 19th century have been religious or believers in God in some way.

This obsessive fretting over religion cannot therefore be because it endangers science, it must be for some other reason, that reason is ego, the psychosis that Dawkins suffers from is so extreme, that he cannot tolerate dissent, he doesn't just want to never be proved wrong, he wants to prevent anyone gaining the ability to prove him wrong and that is not honest or scientific.

No wonder David Sloan wants to bitch slap Dawkins, he just needs to get in line first though, because a lot of people are already waiting to do just that.

Harry.

Bravo!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 10:13:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:32:44 AM, Ogan wrote:
This obsessive fretting over religion cannot therefore be because it endangers science, it must be for some other reason, that reason is ego, the psychosis that Dawkins suffers from is so extreme, that he cannot tolerate dissent, he doesn't just want to never be proved wrong, he wants to prevent anyone gaining the ability to prove him wrong and that is not honest or scientific.

Dawkins tolerates scientific dissent to evolution; it is un-scientific religious dissent that he takes issue with.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 12:37:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:36:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/10/2010 7:20:30 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/3/2010 9:32:30 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No, nothing means absolutely nothing, not even vacuum!
This type of "nothing" is a contradiction; contradictions cannot exist (physically.)

I have only read the first couple chapters of the book, but a main point is that physics defies analogy with our everyday experience.
Sometimes, but not always.

Of course, everyday experience is a subset.

The only way we came operate is to write the equations, see what they predict, and then check to see if the predictions match what we observe in our everyday world.
Which doesn't always happen ESPECIALLY with theoretical physics.

Nonsense. The predictions of scientific theories are tested all the time. For example, one theory predicted that protons should spontaneously decay with a half-life of 10^32 years. so scientists put 1000 tons of water deep in a mine (to block cosmic rays) and waited for a proton decay. They disproved the theory, establishing that proton decay must have a half life of at least 10^34 years.


It isn't possible to "make sense" of the equations in any traditional way. You just have to get used to not having that level of understanding.
Are you implying that we have to get used to accepting that a contradiction can physically exist? Doesn't that throw logic and science right out the window?

No, a contradiction disproves the theory. What we have to get used to is accepting theories that make accurate predictions, even if we cannot understand how they work in terms of everyday experience. A simple example is the speed of light being an absolute limit. Our everyday eperience tells us that we ought to always be ale to go faster, but physics tells us we cannot. The theory is well tested and proved, to the point where it is not even slightly controversial. Yet we still cannot relate to it in terms of everyday experience.

Some other things seem like contradictions, but are not. A good example is wave/particle duality. Particles like photons and electrons sometimes behave like waves and other times like discrete particles. It seems superficially like they must be one or the other, but in fact they have a dual nature that is not easily related to everyday experience.