Hawking says there are no gods

[Roboramma]

First just to address this:

But can we please stop this off topic sidetrack here? Unless you want to assert panspermia is evidence of gods, enough is enough. There are panspermia threads elsewhere.

I'm happy to do so and I think you're right that it's not worth going further down this derail, but I'd like to clarify my position first because I think you misunderstood me slightly.

Not whole organisms which is the only logical definition of panspermia.

I think everything I said can apply to whole organisms. The point was simply that it may be an incredibly rare event, for instance it could have only happened once that an organism of extraterrestrial origin arrived on earth and survived (and reproduced) here long enough for it's ancestors to take hold. In that case all life on earth would be the descendants of that organism (or perhaps small population of organisms).

Under this idea, either no other events (organisms arriving from space) took place or if other events took place none of them took hold (ie. left descendants).

Evolution theory, regardless of abiogenesis, currently supports that life began from only one source. There might have been some genetic exchanges in some sort of soup in the very beginning, especially before cells developed cell walls.

I basically agree.

In addition, while some microorganisms have survived for years in space, no meteorites with living organisms have ever been found.

Yes, but that is consistent with it's simply being very rare.

On the other hand and to be fair I do find the idea very improbable. Bacteria surviving for years in space is very different from the tens or hundreds of thousands of years that would be necessary for panspermia to work.

That's my POV, I understand yours. I also know I've had this discussion before, be it with you or not and I recall the changing of the definition of panspermia though I can't for the life of me see what useful hypothesis comes from using a useless definition.

Just thought it worth pointing out that it wasn't with me, though I think I did see one of those threads that you participated in, I never joined the discussion.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

And that's another view. But what says that the universe itself doesn't operate on probability? You could have laws that only allow that things will probably happen. For instance: Say it takes 10 inputs of various forms to be certain a particular thing happens. Then say that at only 5 inputs that thing will definitely not happen. We still have 6, 7, 8, and 9 inputs where the thing may or may not happen in progressively likely ratios.

But it is random, not free will. You are either caused in a determined or random way, but either way you are caused and have no free will. Free will is if you look closer Ex nihilo, it comes out of nothing and is not connected to the rest of the universe, because it is its own cause, i.e. functionally Ex nihilo.

 

[qayak]

That implies that "random forces" actually exist. This is just the God question with a different name.

No. Gods are supernatural, the laws of the universe are natural. Gods are outside the laws, there's nothing in what I said that allows for anything outside the laws.

 

[psionl0]

No. Gods are supernatural, the laws of the universe are natural. Gods are outside the laws, there's nothing in what I said that allows for anything outside the laws.

Po-TAH-to.

Read your post again. You posited: "You could have laws that only allow that things will probably happen". You can't say that nothing determines a final outcome. If that were true then there would be no basis on which to calculate a probability.

ETA This highlights the problem with positing that the laws of nature are fixed. It means that for a given state of the universe, there can only be one possible set of outcomes.

If you allow for more than one set of possible outcomes for a given state of the universe then what you posit is more feasible. However, it means that the laws of nature are not fixed so Hawking's conclusion is irrelevant.

 

[qayak]

But it is random, not free will. You are either caused in a determined or random way, but either way you are caused and have no free will. Free will is if you look closer Ex nihilo, it comes out of nothing and is not connected to the rest of the universe, because it is its own cause, i.e. functionally Ex nihilo.

You will have to put that into plain English because what you wrote here makes no sense.

So how did you look closer at free will and decide it was ex nihilo? What stops free will from being a result of the laws of the universe, like galaxies, solar systems, and Evolution?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No. Gods are supernatural, the laws of the universe are natural. Gods are outside the laws, there's nothing in what I said that allows for anything outside the laws.

Since this is also the sub-forum for philosophy another view is that they are different claims of metaphysics.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You will have to put that into plain English because what you wrote here makes no sense.

So how did you look closer at free will and decide it was ex nihilo? What stops free will from being a result of the laws of the universe, like galaxies, solar systems, and Evolution?

Then it is not free, but caused whether determined or random. Hence it is not there(ex nihilo), it doesn't come from the universe, so it comes from nothing.

 

[qayak]

Then it is not free, but caused whether determined or random. Hence it is not there(ex nihilo), it doesn't come from the universe, so it comes from nothing.

Let me rephrase: What stops humans ability to make choices (free will is a label not a descriptor) from being a result of the laws of the universe. You are conflating our ability to make choices with the choices themselves.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Let me rephrase: What stops humans ability to make choices (free will is a label not a descriptor) from being a result of the laws of the universe. You are conflating our ability to make choices with the choices themselves.

We don't make choices as "we". There is no "I", "the mind" and all that in itself. You don't make choices, you are the choices made by a brain. You are doing magical thinking as per Piaget, because the causation is different. You don't cause your choices or brain, a brain causes you and choices.

 

[qayak]

We don't make choices as "we". There is no "I", "the mind" and all that in itself. You don't make choices, you are the choices made by a brain. You are doing magical thinking as per Piaget, because the causation is different. You don't cause your choices or brain, a brain causes you and choices.

That's a lot of nonsense. I take it you read a book that really impressed you. If your brain had a disease and you were going to die and doctors decided to transplant a new brain from someone who had a heart attack and died into you, would you be you or them?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That's a lot of nonsense. I take it you read a book that really impressed you. If your brain had a disease and you were going to die and doctors decided to transplant a new brain from someone who had a heart attack and died into you, would you be you or them?

Correct, a given brain causes a given "I" and choices. We agree. Free will is not free nor will. It is the result of something else. It is caused by biological evolution. Free will is common folk belief.

 

[psionl0]

What stops free will from being a result of the laws of the universe, like galaxies, solar systems, and Evolution?

In a deterministic universe, free will doesn't exist. Any choice made by a human is strictly a function of the state of the entire universe at that moment.

Evidence against free will is the fact that if the brain is altered (damaged) then an individual will make different choices.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In a deterministic universe, free will doesn't exist. Any choice made by a human is strictly a function of the state of the entire universe at that moment.

Evidence against free will is the fact that if the brain is altered (damaged) then an individual will make different choices.

Bingo!

Now in a random universe choices are arbitrary.

 

[GDon]

In a deterministic universe, free will doesn't exist. Any choice made by a human is strictly a function of the state of the entire universe at that moment.

The philosophical position of compatibilism reconciles determinism and free-will. Here is the entry at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.

Evidence against free will is the fact that if the brain is altered (damaged) then an individual will make different choices.

That's not evidence against free-will. Of course brain injuries will result in different choices. The person is a different person. As long as they can make choices, they have free-will.

 

[psionl0]

The philosophical position of compatibilism reconciles determinism and free-will. Here is the entry at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.

You will have to find a better text. That is too long winded and slick for me to devote any time to.

If "hard determinism" is true then there is no room for free will. You can argue that "hard determinism" is not true but no mental acrobatics will prove that "hard determinism" and "free will" can co-exist.

That's not evidence against free-will. Of course brain injuries will result in different choices. The person is a different person. As long as they can make choices, they have free-will.

It is evidence - not proof. The fact remains that you can't have it both ways. Either the universe is deterministic or free will exists.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The philosophical position of compatibilism reconciles determinism and free-will. Here is the entry at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.


That's not evidence against free-will. Of course brain injuries will result in different choices. The person is a different person. As long as they can make choices, they have free-will.

They just moved the problem to responsibility. No human is objectively responsible because another human says so. What responsibility is, depends on the belief in what responsibility is and is not. Responsibility is no different that free will, it is a matter of belief.

 

[psionl0]

Bingo!

Now in a random universe choices are arbitrary.

It took me a while to parse this. Unless I missed my guess, I think that you are arguing that if random forces exist then our choices are dictated by a combination the state of the universe and the random forces.

 

[GDon]

If "hard determinism" is true then there is no room for free will. You can argue that "hard determinism" is not true but no mental acrobatics will prove that "hard determinism" and "free will" can co-exist.

From the Wiki article on Hard determinism:

Hard determinism is contrasted with soft determinism, which is a compatibilist form of determinism, holding that free will may exist despite determinism.​

So one can hold to determinism (soft-style) and free-will co-existing.

It is evidence - not proof.

No, it is not even evidence. One can have a brain injury and still have free-will to make choices. So why is having a brain injury and thus making different choices evidence against free-will?

The fact remains that you can't have it both ways. Either the universe is deterministic or free will exists.

'Soft determinism', allowing free-will, for the win!

 

[psionl0]

Define "soft determinism".

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It took me a while to parse this. Unless I missed my guess, I think that you are arguing that if random forces exist then our choices are dictated by a combination the state of the universe and the random forces.

Correct