Hawking says there are no gods

[theprestige]

is 40 degrees Celcius warm? What is the scientific basis of your answer?

Please tell me you've given more thought to the ethical problem of murder than this half assed analogy.

If you don't understand the basis of your own ethics, what they are and why you chose them, how can you explain it?

If you can't explain your ethics even to yourself, how can you hope to explain them to anyone else?

If you can't even explain your ethics in their own terms, what makes you think you can explain them in terms of a temperature scale?

 

[Cheetah]

Quantum mechanics isn't a cause of random fluctuations. It merely describes them. We can't identify the causes because we have currently reached a limit to how much farther we can break down the universe.

QM is entirely probabilistic, with individual events being entirely random. Quantum fluctuations happen randomly, they cannot be affected. They certainly don't appear to have a cause apart form being a property of existence.
Since (according to QM) a QF gave rise to the universe it must be a property of something more elemental.
You could say nature abhors a vacuum at the quantum level. Something is better than nothing. Existence better than non-existence. Even if there is literally nothing, no time, no space, NOTHING, a QF happens, from nowhere.
That's as good a reason as any for existence.
If the potential for something to exists wasn't there the universe would not be here, a QF creates/is the potential, from nothing.

 

[qayak]

Can you please name one of these modern moral values, that have been arrived at scientifically?

And none of this derived-from-assumptions crap. I want the base assumption itself.

The moral values have not been arrived at scientifically, they are like the temperature of a spring day. It isn't warm or cold, it just is. The measure of the temperature is scientific and whether it is warm or cool is decided by the context. Same with certain moral values. All cultures believe killing is wrong. Science can put a value on the specific act and then each culture decides if it is good or bad based on the context.

Science doesn't need to be a deep study with microscopes, telescopes and Hadron colliders. It can be a simple set of numbers that must be put into context before they are of much value.

"Is the spring day warm or cool?"

"Well, it's colder than this day last year, warmer than this day two years ago, freaking sweltering compared to interstellar space, or frigid compared to the surface of the sun.

"Is that killing good or bad?"

You just need a system of measure and then the context to decide. Courts already try to do this. Accidental, premeditated, self defence, multiple murder, time to decide, events going on at the time, were you threatened, etc., all affect how long, or short, a sentence is. using the scientific method to put a value on morals would definitely make things more fair and would help in moving society along in the direction we want.

 

[qayak]

Please tell me you've given more thought to the ethical problem of murder than this half assed analogy.

If you don't understand the basis of your own ethics, what they are and why you chose them, how can you explain it?

If you can't explain your ethics even to yourself, how can you hope to explain them to anyone else?

If you can't even explain your ethics in their own terms, what makes you think you can explain them in terms of a temperature scale?

Please tell me you don't think we are talking about my personal ethics here? How can we hold a discussion when you can't even sort out the subject?

 

[autumn1971]

Your fallacy is:

Appeal to False Authority

(also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)

Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority.

/I did find it amusing that so many anti-theists who spit furious venom at religious believers are swooning that someone would dare to make the same type of jokes that Hawking made about himself.

Right? And why do the blacks get so upset when whites call them ******?

 

[psionl0]

QM is entirely probabilistic, with individual events being entirely random. Quantum fluctuations happen randomly, they cannot be affected. They certainly don't appear to have a cause apart form being a property of existence.
Since (according to QM) a QF gave rise to the universe it must be a property of something more elemental.
You could say nature abhors a vacuum at the quantum level. Something is better than nothing. Existence better than non-existence. Even if there is literally nothing, no time, no space, NOTHING, a QF happens, from nowhere.
That's as good a reason as any for existence.
If the potential for something to exists wasn't there the universe would not be here, a QF creates/is the potential, from nothing.

You make it sound like nature/QF is a god or something. I do not subscribe to this theory of gaps.

Our current gravitational/relativistic/quantum formulas are useful for describing what is currently observable but they don't reveal anything that is hidden. They also have limits in what they can describe and hence the search for a "unifying" theory.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You'd have a devil of a time proving or disproving the existence of a Gnostic-style god: a force without personality or will that exists outside the universe and never interacts with it. Fortunately for the tidy-minded there is no difference in impact if such a god exists or doesn't, the results are exactly the same, so nobody need bother with it.

You stated this so clearly at the front end of this argument that I just though maybe some people arguing with you must have missed it.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Cheetah]

You make it sound like nature/QF is a god or something. I do not subscribe to this theory of gaps.

None of that makes any sense to me, could you please elaborate.

 

[Cheetah]

Our current gravitational/relativistic/quantum formulas are useful for describing what is currently observable but they don't reveal anything that is hidden. They also have limits in what they can describe and hence the search for a "unifying" theory.

Yes QM and GR need unification, but the unified theory will have to include the principles of both QM and GR, not replace them. QM and GR have been thoroughly tested. It will have to reduce to GR at GR scales and QM at quantum scales.

In QM, QFs happen randomly and spontaneously without cause, that is as likely to change with the discovery of a unified theory as the invariant speed of light.

 

[qayak]

You make it sound like nature/QF is a god or something. I do not subscribe to this theory of gaps.

Our current gravitational/relativistic/quantum formulas are useful for describing what is currently observable but they don't reveal anything that is hidden. They also have limits in what they can describe and hence the search for a "unifying" theory.

Holy Hannah! And what in your expert opinion is unobservable in our universe. Used to be germs and planets were unobservable. Then it was atoms and black holes. So what is unobservable now that will in theory remain unobservable?

 

[psionl0]

None of that makes any sense to me, could you please elaborate.

You personified QF (and nature) although that is probably just a pattern of speech.

However, you also claim that a "random force" (QF) actually exists. That I don't subscribe to. A "random" event is one whose outcome can neither be predicted nor controlled. At best we can only calculate the relative probabilities of each outcome. These calculations do not identify any mechanism for determining the outcomes.

QM is just another way of calculating probabilities. It makes no assumption about how the outcomes come about (for example, we don't know the path that an electron will take in its travels). In particular, it doesn't prove that some "random" QF actually exists.

Yes QM and GR need unification, but the unified theory will have to include the principles of both QM and GR, not replace them. QM and GR have been thoroughly tested. It will have to reduce to GR at GR scales and QM at quantum scales.

Yes, the first test of any new theory is necessarily that it predicts the same outcome as the old theory in applications where the old theory is known to be correct. This is not sufficient though. String theory can be made to make the same predictions as existing theories but we have a long way to go before we can find out if any of the underpinning assumptions of String theory are true or not.

In QM, QFs happen randomly and spontaneously without cause, that is as likely to change with the discovery of a unified theory as the invariant speed of light.

Any new theory could completely replace the models that existing theories are based on. For example, the "action at a distance" model of gravity was replaced with "space/time distortion" in the theory of relativity.

Holy Hannah! And what in your expert opinion is unobservable in our universe. Used to be germs and planets were unobservable. Then it was atoms and black holes. So what is unobservable now that will in theory remain unobservable?

I would suggest that anything smaller than a quark would be difficult to observe. That doesn't mean that it will be unobservable for the foreseeable future but the next smaller thing will be even more difficult to observe.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Holy Hannah! And what in your expert opinion is unobservable in our universe. Used to be germs and planets were unobservable. Then it was atoms and black holes. So what is unobservable now that will in theory remain unobservable?

Everything that has receded over our local horizon, to name one class.

 

[TragicMonkey]

is 40 degrees Celcius warm? What is the scientific basis of your answer?

Warm compared to what? Warm for what purpose--for cooking it wouldn't be considered warm at all. For room temperate it would be quite warm indeed. For a blood temperature it would be extremely unhealthy. For melting tungsten it's totally inadequate. But that is not really the same kind of question as "is killing wrong?" Temperature isn't an ethical question. It's a science question if you're asking "what is the temperature?" I'm not sure what your question is. It seems to want a value judgment, but devoid of context it doesn't really have enough information to get one.

 

[ynot]

Morals and ethics are the product of consideration of empirical causes, effects, consequences, intellectual and emotional concerns, etc (aka – a form of science). That philosophers endlessly brain-wank over morals and ethics doesn’t make them the exclusive product of philosophy (if even).

“Is killing wrong?” is neither a purely emotional nor philosophical question. Unless you define all questions and thoughts as being philosophical.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Morals and ethics are the product of consideration of empirical causes, effects, consequences, intellectual and emotional concerns, etc (aka – a form of science). That philosophers endlessly brain-wank over morals and ethics doesn’t make them the product of philosophy.

“Is killing wrong?” is not a purely emotional question.

No, it's an ethical question. That you don't want to use the word "philosophy" doesn't make it science.

How about this? You are Archie. You have a choice before you: you can get with Betty, or with Veronica. First you consider the facts:

Sociology tells you that Veronica's wealth will make life easier for you as a couple and your future children. However, Veronica never worked for her money so she's quite spoiled. By contrast Betty's repressive Lutheran upbringing has instilled a strong work ethic and frugality: she will manage the household finances better, and pass those virtues to your children. Betty's also got wide, child-bearing hips, whereas Veronica is more delicate. DNA tests reveal that Betty has a small chance of passing a very severe disorder to her offspring, whereas Veronica has a large chance of passing a very minor disorder to hers. Veronica is far better in bed than Betty, but she only wishes to mate infrequently. Betty's appetites are more frequent but the sex is of a much lower quality with her. Veronica's family is very annoying to you personally. Betty will insist on keeping multiple cats. Veronica has a bad temper but when she's not yelling at you she's more fun to be with. Betty is more steady but you sometimes find her dull.

How will you choose? Science gave you access to several important facts to consider-- medicine, sociology, biology. But science isn't going to offer a conclusion to go with one or the other. You have to assign value to each of the points, what is more important to you? What are you willing to trade off? Which bad things overwhelm the good? Which are dealbreakers? Science will not answer those questions. Science will give you facts but it can't tell you what action to take based on them. You have to decide what's good, what's bad, and how they weigh against each other.

And then obviously you choose Veronica because duh, she's hotter.

 

[ynot]

Unjustified killing is wrong.
Justified killing is not wrong.
“Wrong” and “justified” are defined by a particular, subjective set of moral principles. What’s “wrong” and “justified” for one set of subjective moral principles may not be wrong” and “justified” for another. There’s no universal/intrinsic set of moral principles.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Unjustified killing is wrong.
Justified killing is not wrong.
“Wrong” and “justified” are defined by a subjective set of moral principles. What’s “wrong” and “justified” for one set of subjective moral principles may not be wrong” and “justified” for another.

Congratulations: you're participating in the branch of philosophy called "ethics".

There’s no universal/intrinsic set of moral principles.

I don't recall claiming there were. It's not a requirement of ethical philosophy that there be anything universal or intrinsic. Did you assume it was?

 

[ynot]

No, it's an ethical question. That you don't want to use the word "philosophy" doesn't make it science.

How about this? You are Archie. You have a choice before you: you can get with Betty, or with Veronica. First you consider the facts:

Sociology tells you that Veronica's wealth will make life easier for you as a couple and your future children. However, Veronica never worked for her money so she's quite spoiled. By contrast Betty's repressive Lutheran upbringing has instilled a strong work ethic and frugality: she will manage the household finances better, and pass those virtues to your children. Betty's also got wide, child-bearing hips, whereas Veronica is more delicate. DNA tests reveal that Betty has a small chance of passing a very severe disorder to her offspring, whereas Veronica has a large chance of passing a very minor disorder to hers. Veronica is far better in bed than Betty, but she only wishes to mate infrequently. Betty's appetites are more frequent but the sex is of a much lower quality with her. Veronica's family is very annoying to you personally. Betty will insist on keeping multiple cats. Veronica has a bad temper but when she's not yelling at you she's more fun to be with. Betty is more steady but you sometimes find her dull.

How will you choose? Science gave you access to several important facts to consider-- medicine, sociology, biology. But science isn't going to offer a conclusion to go with one or the other. You have to assign value to each of the points, what is more important to you? What are you willing to trade off? Which bad things overwhelm the good? Which are dealbreakers? Science will not answer those questions. Science will give you facts but it can't tell you what action to take based on them. You have to decide what's good, what's bad, and how they weigh against each other.

And then obviously you choose Veronica because duh, she's hotter.

Neither will philosophy. Science however will give you a good base to work from.

You think whether "you get with Betty, or with Veronica" is an ethical or moral question?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Neither will philosophy. Science however will give you a good base to work from.

You think whether "you get with Betty, or with Veronica" is an ethical or moral question?

Assigning values to characteristics and deciding what course of action to take are not scientific questions. Your personal philosophy is what determines the values you assign, because it's your personal view of what is good and what is bad. Which course you pursue is based on your philosophy, whether you use the term or not.

 

[ynot]

Congratulations: you're participating in the branch of philosophy called "ethics".

Is there any brain actrivity that can't be defined as philosophy?

I don't recall claiming there were. It's not a requirement of ethical philosophy that there be anything universal or intrinsic. Did you assume it was?

It wasn't addressed to you or anyone on particular.