Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Intersubjectivity is neither objectivity nor subjectivity because this dilemma has not any sense in moral affairs.

I don't know any value that can be objectivelly settled up. I know some values that are common to more or less wide communities. Some values are practically universal. This points the way. Of course this is only a path, not a direct goal. For example: we want to finish the hunger in the world. Even if we never acomplish it, this is a path. Morality works in the same way.

I don't necessarily want to end hunger in the world. So stop talking for me and using an universal we. You don't speak for all humans. If you actually think that, then you are irrational, because no single human can speak for all humans.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

If b has shown to be repeatedly false, a is with all probability right. This is how reason works.

Yes, but then it is not rational* to claim b. So a deist who claims b is not rational.

I am not rational, just because I say I am rational. The same goes for all other humans. That is how words are cheap.

*Rational is an intersubjective standard for which we can't actually agree on what it is in an universal sense. It has an element of cognitive relativism and depends on the given cognition of each individual human claiming it. That includes you and I.

 

[David Mo]

No, it means you haven't been able to reassess that question and look at it from a different scientific POV.

You are not alone, but that's what's happening.

Take a completely different example. See if you can't see the parallels.

I was teaching an occupational safety class and no matter what I said, people did not change their behaviors. When I discussed it with a professional educator (I'm a clinician) she pointed out the obvious which I hadn't considered. The problem was not a knowledge deficit.

I had only ever thought of education as addressing a knowledge deficit. You are there to impart knowledge your students don't have. Turns out, that's not the only deficit people have.

Back to the thread, we know gods are myths (I do anyway). And we address woo all the time, that's what the JREF was all about. So why the double standard just because there are so many god believers out there? Since when is the majority the arbitrator or fact?

(With global warming the majority is part of the argument, but that's because they have the science behind them. It's a different issue in case anyone confuses the arguments.)

Back again to the thread. The existing paradigm is the usual: science doesn't look for creators, science doesn't address the supernatural, non-overlapping magisteria, science based vs faith based and so on.

OK, science doesn't address those things, it's a great excuse to dodge the issue and not offend any god believers.

I think it's time to move past that. If science can address other forms of woo, what the heck is the problem addressing god beliefs?

Simple, people need a paradigm shift. Why are we asking people to disprove the existence of gods when we don't ask them to disprove invisible pink unicorns or Hogwarts?

It's not an evidence deficit, it's a failure to ask the right question. What best explains god beliefs?

Think about it, we have evidence of god beliefs. We don't have evidence of gods.

I have thought many times on it.

Your comment is very interesting but it has nothing to do with the value of true or false under scientific conditions.

There are a lot of circumstances where majority was wrong and minority had right. Even more in the past where religious beliefs were omnipresent. I don't know if they're attractive beliefs or not. I find them rather repellent, but that doesn't mean anything about whether they are true or not.

Belief in gods has many causes to exist. Some are psychological, other sociological and other political. This has nothing to do with truth.

 

[David Mo]

Care to provide a single sliver of evidence for gods existing beside people believe it?

I cannot. I believe that there is not any sliver of evidence that gods exist.

 

[David Mo]

I don't necessarily want to end hunger in the world. So stop talking for me and using an universal we. You don't speak for all humans. If you actually think that, then you are irrational, because no single human can speak for all humans.

Don't you think that stop children to die is a good thing?

 

[David Mo]

Yes, but then it is not rational* to claim b. So a deist who claims b is not rational.

I am not rational, just because I say I am rational. The same goes for all other humans. That is how words are cheap.

*Rational is an intersubjective standard for which we can't actually agree on what it is in an universal sense. It has an element of cognitive relativism and depends on the given cognition of each individual human claiming it. That includes you and I.

Rationality is, grosso modo, a set of rules that have proved its efficace in controlling reality and/or improving human condition. If you don't accept some basic rational rules all communication is impossible.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Don't you think that stop children to die is a good thing?

It depends on context.
Let me give you an example. In areas with low water access and herd-farming(no crops) you could get more livestock and thus less hunger right now with drilling for deep fresh water. The problem is that it leads to destruction of the food for the livestock because of over-grassing and thus it leads to hunger again.
You have to watch out for the Nirvana fallacy; i.e. the world would be a better place if we stopped hunger. That is not certain, because you have to be critical of how you do that.

Let me give you another example. Prematurely born babies, while we can save more babies today some of them have so bad disabilities that the rest of their live will be a life of primarily pain.

Another example. This time you have a patient with a life threatening condition and the patient is in pain. You treat the patient, that leads to side-effects, which are life threatening. You treat the side-effects, that leads to new side-effects, which are life threatening. This goes on for 40 days, while the patient is in pain. You realize you can't save the patient and stop treatment.

So yes, I want a better world, but sometimes it is not that easy. Further I am not a we. I am Tommy and I don't control humanity, so I do what I can do. And I don't speak for other humans. I only speak for myself.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Rationality is, grosso modo, a set of rules that have proved its efficace in controlling reality and/or improving human condition. If you don't accept some basic rational rules all communication is impossible.

While we can agree on some form of rules, it is not certain that they would cover everything. If you look closer in some cases, you can't solve some problems only using reason and logic, because you can't find a set of basic suppositions only using reason and logic. You do know that philosophical rationalism failed, right?
In the end it boils down to different sets of suppositions, which can't be resolved using reason, logic and scientific evidence.

The highlighted part: For which humans and in what sense? What makes a human a human? And we are back to different sets of suppositions.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Theoretical physics can be tested. Some of it hasn't been tested yet. There may be specific theories that we are never able to test, but there are experiments going on every day and new angles for testing these theories are being thought of all the time.

There are some things that we don't know. There are other things that we do know.

The highlighted was a typo I assume.

We agree.

 

[Chanakya]

So philosophy is kinda like cheap porn. It allows you to stay home and pleasure yourself while saving you the real work of getting a real girlfriend.

That's a pretty weird argument. What's wrong with wanking off to porn?

Indeed, I'd say that if the sole reason for you to get a girlfriend -- and that's the generic 'you', I don't mean you personally -- is simply to obtain sexual release (and that is what one would have to assume, as far as your actual argument), then I'd argue that it's actually better to go solo. That way you won't end up unnecessarily hurting another person. (Of course, if you happen to get together with someone who's using you only for sexual release themselves, then this won't apply. But even then, while not 'better', I don't see why this should be 'worse'.)

People use these words, wanker, bastard, etc as put-downs, but I don't see there's anything wrong with being those things. Nothing wrong in masturbating, and nothing wrong in being born to unwed parents either!

And your implication seems to be -- do correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here, but this does seem to be what you're implying -- that philosophy only concerns oneself (that is, one's personal entertainment, one's personal 'development', that sort of thing). Even if that's all it does, then that's plenty! And that, in itself, can result in a lot of greater good as well. (And all of that, even if one grants you this self-containment of philosophy for the sake of argument. That's by no means a settled issue.)

 

[Chanakya]

Oh foolish padwa, you have much to experience... I'd say learn but no it's really just an experience.

I've no clue what that means. Either literally, or in the context of what I'd asked.

 

[Chanakya]

It is not. Math is a process in a brain/computer. It doesn't follow that it corresponds to the rest of reality. I.e. that t=0 can be true in theoretical physical math, but it doesn't mean that is true outside theoretical physical math. That requires testing/observation, but we can't do that, because we are in time. Thus what happens in reality outside theoretical physical math at t=0 is unknown. There is a reason it is called theoretical physics.

That's a bit different than how I'd meant it.

You seem to be saying that all of mathematics, as it applies to theoretical physics, will not apply to reality. I don't think that makes sense to me. I mean, making sense of reality, isn't that the only utility of this sort of thing, the only reason why people do this sort of thing (leaving out outlying reasons like people enjoying this work, and similar inconsequential tangents)? And the fact that these theories make predictions that are borne out by reality seems to prove that they do represent reality.

I'd meant this only in the context of quantum mechanics. True, all of my objections would apply to QM as well : but apparently that's what the Copenhangen Interpretation says. Yeah, that POV is counter-intuitive (as is everything about QM!), but there you are.

 

[Chanakya]

As to the Copenhagen Interpretation, it doesn't directly apply here but I see why you bring up Bohr's philosophical position. I am not a fan, to be honest.

Yeah, well, the first time I'd come across that POV, it did seem downright weird to me. A bit of a disingenuous cop-out, actually. Still, everything about QM is weird, so why not the "philosophy" one follows in parsing the math? Or so I reasoned, as I fell in with this viewpoint.

I'm not really that well-versed in this : Isn't the "philosophy" mainstream among actual physicists? Is your objection to it -- which seems perfectly reasonable, of course -- a personal, idiosyncratic opinion, or would you say many physicists actually share your objection to looking at QM in this way?

No, i don't think it's correct to say that time began at t=0, even if it turns out that there is no time before t=0. But that's just a semantic issue, really.

Are you saying that time is actually infinite both ways, but because at the Big Bang point we reach a limit beyond which we can know nothing, therefore we arbitrarily put this as a zero point. Is that the whole point of t=0?

If that is what this is all about, then what you say makes sense to me. If that is the case, then I agree, this does seem to be only semantics.

 

[Chanakya]

Are you a hard or a soft apotterist? How do you feel about the existence of Hogwarts?

3point14, haven't we already had this conversation before? And settled it to our mutual satisfaction?

There are two reasons why God gets more attention than Harry Potter :
(a) Lots of people actually believe in God, unlike with Potter;
and (b) Some God ideas do explain things in a manner that is internally consistent. (But we reject them, still, because there's no evidence. Occam's Razor, and so forth.)

In a crazy world -- perhaps a post-apocalyptic world which seized on Rowling's books as Gospel truth -- where a sizable proportion of the world's population ended up believing that Potter is real : yeah, in that situation, you'd actually need to seriously deal with the issue, why not?

(Of course, only if you wanted to. In that world, you wouldn't have to deal with the issue if you did not want to. Nor do you need to deal with the God issue at all, now, today, in this world of ours, at a purely personal level, if the subject does not interest you.)

 

[Roboramma]

Yeah, well, the first time I'd come across that POV, it did seem downright weird to me. A bit of a disingenuous cop-out, actually. Still, everything about QM is weird, so why not the "philosophy" one follows in parsing the math? Or so I reasoned, as I fell in with this viewpoint.

I'm not really that well-versed in this : Isn't the "philosophy" mainstream among actual physicists? Is your objection to it -- which seems perfectly reasonable, of course -- a personal, idiosyncratic opinion, or would you say many physicists actually share your objection to looking at QM in this way?

My understanding is that there are generally two views on this, though there are other interpretations which are also consistent and do have some adherents:
1. Just shut up and calculate. It's not so much that they think the Copenhagen Interpretation is the best view, it's that they think we shouldn't worry about these questions.
2. The Everett Interpretation. This is basically just taking the math at face value. Copenhagen adds something that's not in the math and doesn't even really say when "collapse" happens. It's all rather vague. The Everett (or Many Worlds) interpretation just takes the math at face value and says that there is no collapse. There is the appearance of collapse because when the wave function branches we branch too. Which of course we should, given that we are systems made up of particles that follow the laws of physics (which are quantum mechanical in nature). This interpretation is quite popular among physicists, at least those who actually think about these issues. It's hard to determine which interpretation is more popular though. Sometimes they do opinion polls at conferences, but they tend to vary wildly depending on the subject of the conference.

Are you saying that time is actually infinite both ways, but because at the Big Bang point we reach a limit beyond which we can know nothing, therefore we arbitrarily put this as a zero point. Is that the whole point of t=0?

No, though that is certainly a possibility. But it's also possible that there was nothing before t=0 (no negative infinity of time). But saying that time "began" at t=0 just seems to me to imply something happening there. Hawking's model is smooth all the way back to the big bang, and in as much as a beginning is like an edge to time, I think it's a misleading term.

If that is what this is all about, then what you say makes sense to me. If that is the case, then I agree, this does seem to be only semantics.

I think you misunderstood, I said it's semantics because my problem is just with the connotations of the word "began". But even in Hawking's model time is still finite.

Just to reiterate though, time may be infinite into the past. We don't know and there are people doing work on models that include an infinite past.

 

[David Mo]

It depends on context.
Let me give you an example. In areas with low water access and herd-farming(no crops) you could get more livestock and thus less hunger right now with drilling for deep fresh water. The problem is that it leads to destruction of the food for the livestock because of over-grassing and thus it leads to hunger again.
You have to watch out for the Nirvana fallacy; i.e. the world would be a better place if we stopped hunger. That is not certain, because you have to be critical of how you do that.

Let me give you another example. Prematurely born babies, while we can save more babies today some of them have so bad disabilities that the rest of their live will be a life of primarily pain.

Another example. This time you have a patient with a life threatening condition and the patient is in pain. You treat the patient, that leads to side-effects, which are life threatening. You treat the side-effects, that leads to new side-effects, which are life threatening. This goes on for 40 days, while the patient is in pain. You realize you can't save the patient and stop treatment.

So yes, I want a better world, but sometimes it is not that easy. Further I am not a we. I am Tommy and I don't control humanity, so I do what I can do. And I don't speak for other humans. I only speak for myself.

Don't beat around the bush. You know very well what I'm asking you.

Don't you think that stop children to die is a good thing?

 

[David Mo]

While we can agree on some form of rules, it is not certain that they would cover everything. If you look closer in some cases, you can't solve some problems only using reason and logic, because you can't find a set of basic suppositions only using reason and logic. You do know that philosophical rationalism failed, right?
In the end it boils down to different sets of suppositions, which can't be resolved using reason, logic and scientific evidence.

The highlighted part: For which humans and in what sense? What makes a human a human? And we are back to different sets of suppositions.

You're beating the bush again. You know that there are rules of reasoning that cannot be skipped without falling into irrationality. For example, you cannot defend a thing and its opposite at the same time and in the same.

Do you agree to maintain those rules reasoning of common use?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You're beating the bush again. You know that there are rules of reasoning that cannot be skipped without falling into irrationality. For example, you cannot defend a thing and its opposite at the same time and in the same.

Do you agree to maintain those rules reasoning of common use?

But you can't use reason and logic to show that I should care for other humans.
That is the limit; I can care or don't care.
So now show only using reason and logic that I should care.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Don't beat around the bush. You know very well what I'm asking you.

Don't you think that stop children to die is a good thing?

I think it is to vague, it is an appeal to emotion and has nothing to do with rationality or reason or logic.
So you use rationality when it suits you and emotion what that suits you.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That's a bit different than how I'd meant it.

You seem to be saying that all of mathematics, as it applies to theoretical physics, will not apply to reality. I don't think that makes sense to me. I mean, making sense of reality, isn't that the only utility of this sort of thing, the only reason why people do this sort of thing (leaving out outlying reasons like people enjoying this work, and similar inconsequential tangents)? And the fact that these theories make predictions that are borne out by reality seems to prove that they do represent reality.

I'd meant this only in the context of quantum mechanics. True, all of my objections would apply to QM as well : but apparently that's what the Copenhangen Interpretation says. Yeah, that POV is counter-intuitive (as is everything about QM!), but there you are.

No, if you have a theoretical theory derived from physics but itself only logical coherent(math), which hasn't been tested yet, then you can't now if matches the universe.