Hawking says there are no gods

[Pixel42]

If you could insert "randomness" (whatever magic that might be) then it would mean that for any given state of the universe, there could be more than one possible outcome. IE the laws of nature would not be fixed.

My understanding of what Hawking meant by fixed is that they don't change over time. Whether they do or do not allow the possibility of randomness is a separate question. I would think the fact that they include the laws of quantum mechanics means they must.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You didn't say that this thread is about the existence of gods?

Seriously, you're going to play that dumb?

I'm sorry you can't actually support your god beliefs when they are challenged, it's unfortunate.

 

[psionl0]

Seriously, you're going to play that dumb?

The only other interpretation is that you didn't say that this thread was about Stephen Hawking's claim. That would be ridiculous since the OP title is "Hawking says there are no gods" and the OP includes quotes from his final book "Brief Answers to Big Questions".

I'm sorry you can't actually support your god beliefs when they are challenged, it's unfortunate.

Is that what you imagine I am doing?

 

[psionl0]

My understanding of what Hawking meant by fixed is that they don't change over time. Whether they do or do not allow the possibility of randomness is a separate question. I would think the fact that they include the laws of quantum mechanics means they must.

Would you say that the result of a coin toss is governed by "random forces"? Most people wouldn't. If you knew exactly all of the factors that went into the coin toss you should be able to predict which way the coin will land. Of course, we don't so the best we can do is describe the result using probabilities.

The same thing is true at the sub-atomic level. We can't observe and therefore we can't predict how sub-atomic particles will behave under certain conditions. Quantum mechanics simply papers over this knowledge deficiency with probabilities. It is a mistake to assume that "quantum forces" actually exist just as it is to say that random forces are at work when we toss a coin.

 

[Roboramma]

The same thing is true at the sub-atomic level. We can't observe and therefore we can't predict how sub-atomic particles will behave under certain conditions. Quantum mechanics simply papers over this knowledge deficiency with probabilities. It is a mistake to assume that "quantum forces" actually exist just as it is to say that random forces are at work when we toss a coin.

Quantum Mechanics, as we currently understand it, doesn't include any deterministic* cause for those probabilities, the laws themselves are probabilistic. It's true that we may eventually discover some new theory that includes hidden variables, but that's certainly not a given at the moment and there are some good reasons to think that hidden variables won't work.

*There is still some sense in which QM is deterministic, but it's not in the sense that it isn't probabilistic.

 

[Pixel42]

My understanding is that the uncertainty at the heart of quantum mechanics is of a different order to the uncertainty that governs a coin toss, it's not just that we "can't observe the factors" that cause a uranium atom to spit out a neutron when the ones either side of it do not, the position of the neutron is actually only ever describable by a probability wave - that's the 'wave' part of 'wave-particle duality'. At any one instant there is a probability that a neutron in a uranium nucleus will be far enough from the others that the strong force between them is insufficient to retain it, and a much larger probability that it will not. We can calculate how many neutrons will find themselves "outside" the uranium nucleus in a lump of uranium in a second, and consequently how many atoms will emit one in that second, but there is no way to predict which will do so. Nothing happens to a uranium atom which emits a neutron which doesn't happen to the ones that don't, so it's not the same as a coin toss in which we could theoretically predict which would land heads and tails if we knew everything that was happening to them.

When I did my Maths degree we derived Schrodinger's wave equation from first principles, and I can still remember the emotions that swept through me when I recognised its form - it was a probability wave! In that instant I came closer to understanding the nature of reality than I ever did before or ever have since, it was almost like a religious experience. I never fully recaptured it, and 40 years later my Maths is far too rusty to derive equations, but I retain enough to know that anyone who thinks they can compare the behaviour of neutrons to the behaviour of tossed coins is missing something fundamental.

 

[Roboramma]

As I understand it everything Pixel42 just said is correct. I think it's possible to speculate that there may be something that happens to a uranium atom which emits a neutron which doesn't happen to the ones that don't, at a level beyond what we understand at present, but there are very strong limitations to the form that such a "hidden variables" theory could take, and it's contrary to the way QM is currently understood. For instance I think any such theory would have to be non-local.

 

[psionl0]

When I did my Maths degree we derived Schrodinger's wave equation from first principles, and I can still remember the emotions that swept through me when I recognised its form - it was a probability wave! In that instant I came closer to understanding the nature of reality than I ever did before or ever have since, it was almost like a religious experience. I never fully recaptured it, and 40 years later my Maths is far too rusty to derive equations, but I retain enough to know that anyone who thinks they can compare the behaviour of neutrons to the behaviour of tossed coins is missing something fundamental.

I am one of those people who is "missing something fundamental" (mainly because you didn't say what that "fundamental" thing is).

You just described another process (the emission of a neutron) where we don't know all of the factors involved that would determine which neutron was emitted and when. The only difference that I can see is that with a tossed coin, we can identify the factors even if we can't measure them. Otherwise, it is just another case where we have insufficient information so we need to use probabilities instead.

 

[Roboramma]

That seems to be ruled out by Bell's Theorem, though, as I said, if you're willing consider a non-local theory then hidden variables (that is what you are talking about) may work.

Of course, relativity basically says that non-locality is impossible, but maybe relativity is wrong too.

 

[Pixel42]

As I explained in the paragraph you omitted it isn't that we don't know all the factors, it's that even if we did know all the factors we still couldn't predict which atoms would emit a neutron. The fundamental thing you are missing is that the neutron's position is always described by a probability wave, unlike a coin which is always in a particular position even if we don't know exactly which one.

ETA: Yes, as Roboramma says, psion10 seems to be assuming that the hidden variables theory is correct, even though it's pure (and mostly contraindicated) speculation.

 

[dann]

No, the belief in free will is a form of magical thinking. It assumes a causation that is not there.

No, it doesn't. There's nothing magical about drawing a conclusion. It assumes no magical causation (Psychology Today).

Magical thinking is if you strip away the particulars, a case of a claim of causation, which is not there.

Magical thinking (Wikipedia) is a wrong conclusion (but not the only one).

Now for the general test, compare these:
It doesn't make sense if there is no God.
It doesn't make sense if there is no free will.

We know that there is no positive evidence for a god(s). It is always in the end that people believe in a god(s).
We know that there is no positive evidence for free will. It is always in the end that people believe in free will.

A lot of weird assumptions don't make a test.

 

[GDon]

(deleted)

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
Magical thinking (Wikipedia) is a wrong conclusion (but not the only one).
...

Magical thinking is a term used in anthropology and psychology, denoting the fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events, ...
The action - there is a universe. The event - we observe, some humans say it is from God.
The universe caused the event. The event doesn't cause there to be a God.

The action - there is a universe with biology and thus brains. That is a causal chain. The event - we observe, some humans say they have free will.
The universe caused the event. The event doesn't cause there to be free will.

This post is caused by the universe and its event is that I say you are not reading this. That is no different that god(s), free will and what not.
That I say something, doesn't necessarily make it so. But that you say, that you have free will make it so. Right, I get it. You are a believer and you don't know it.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Phillip K Dick
God(s), souls, the mind/consciousness itself, I have a mind/I have consciousness, the "I" itself, free will and all that go away, when you stop believing in them. You don't have to believe in all that.

 

[dann]

Free will, unlike gods, doesn't go away because you don't believe in it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Free will, unlike gods, doesn't go away because you don't believe in it.

Yes, it does. It is a cultural and social construct just like gods.

Edit: As least e.g. some if not all Muslims don't believe in it. The belief in free will is a cultural and social construct.

When you then check it, you find out that you can explain human behavior without free will and it doesn't contradict causation.
Physics -> chemistry -> biochemistry/biology -> humans -> ?free will? Free will breaks the causation, because it comes out of nowhere; i.e. Ex Nihilo.

 

[Roboramma]

To be honest I think the whole concept of free will is basically incoherent when looked at in depth.

Some people realised that and came up with the idea of compatibilist free will, which is just the statement* that people make choices and the mechanism by which we do so, while consistent with the laws of physics, is complex enough that we can't analyse all it's steps.

*generally it's not made in those terms.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

To be honest I think the whole concept of free will is basically incoherent when looked at in depth.

Some people realised that and came up with the idea of compatibilist free will, which is just the statement* that people make choices and the mechanism by which we do so, while consistent with the laws of physics, is complex enough that we can't analyse all it's steps.

*generally it's not made in those terms.

Some people realised that and came up with the idea of compatibilist free will, which is just the statement* that people make choices and the mechanism by which we do so, while consistent with the laws of physics, is complex enough that we can't analyse all it's steps, so we can hide free will there.

It is the free will in the gab. Just like gods.

 

[Roboramma]

Some people realised that and came up with the idea of compatibilist free will, which is just the statement* that people make choices and the mechanism by which we do so, while consistent with the laws of physics, is complex enough that we can't analyse all it's steps, so we can hide free will there.

It is the free will in the gab. Just like gods.

Yeah, basically.

I think that when they do that at least some of them are sort of consistent, for instance Sean Carroll says he believes in free will, but he thinks it's consistent with determinism and basically just a way of talking about how humans behave, but that everything happening in the brain is just atoms in motion, and it's only at a higher level of analysis that the concept is useful.

I find that way of talking about things sort of silly, but I don't think it's wrong, exactly. What I think he fails to realise is that what he means by free will isn't what most people think they are talking about when they use that term.

Personally, I think we would do great to just get rid of the concept entirely. Brains can make choices just like computers can. People can call that "free will" if they want, but I'd rather just call it making choices. It's an entirely mechanistic process.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yeah, basically.

I think that when they do that at least some of them are sort of consistent, for instance Sean Carroll says he believes in free will, but he thinks it's consistent with determinism and basically just a way of talking about how humans behave, but that everything happening in the brain is just atoms in motion, and it's only at a higher level of analysis that the concept is useful.

I find that way of talking about things sort of silly, but I don't think it's wrong, exactly. What I think he fails to realise is that what he means by free will isn't what most people think they are talking about when they use that term.

Personally, I think we would do great to just get rid of the concept entirely. Brains can make choices just like computers can. People can call that "free will" if they want, but I'd rather just call it making choices. It's an entirely mechanistic process.

The problem with free will is that it can be misused. You have free will, so everything that happens to you, is your fault and your problem. Just be different, you have free will.
I know - I have 3 psychiatric disorders and I can cope through training, but I can't stop having them, just because I have free will.
Choices have to be taught/learned in some cases, but that has nothing to with free will.

 

[dann]

The problem with free will is that it can be misused. You have free will, so everything that happens to you, is your fault and your problem. Just be different, you have free will.
I know - I have 3 psychiatric disorders and I can cope through training, but I can't stop having them, just because I have free will.
Choices have to be taught/learned in some cases, but that has nothing to with free will.

I think you mean that the problem with the idea of free will is that the idea can be abused.
To claim that everything that happens to you is your own fault since you have free will is absurd: Free will does not imply omnipotence. There are many things you can't do even though you have free will. I can't play the piano, for instance. I could learn, sure, but I don't want to spend the time it takes to learn. I could decide to learn, however ... but I won't.