Hawking is on a Roll - Black Holes to Power the Earth! (And a Nobel~!)

[Jeff Matthews]

Isn't it interesting how we can sit here and agree to things like, "[T]he universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it?"

 

If that's the case, then we have to wonder if enough consensus makes God real?

 

Not meant to discuss religion.  Just a point about faith of any kind in general.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jeff Matthews

[Jim Naseum]

Isn't it interesting how we can sit here and agree to things like, "[T]he universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it?"

 

If that's the case, then we have to wonder if enough consensus makes God real?

 

Not meant to discuss religion.  Just a point about faith of any kind in general.

 

If by "real" you mean "a motivating theme in human behavior" the answer is obviously YES. If by real, you mean, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe", I'd say the answer is obviously NO. 

 

And this is a source of great confusion of terms I think. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

The central premise regarding the adoption of any particular cosmology has to be, "how should I live?" In other words, it's only an interesting topic if the right question is asked. 

 

There are no doubt people uninterested in cosmology, because they are sleepwalking until death catches them. Others pursue the question to the ends of the earth, and for their entire life. I mean, consider the writers of any of the ancient cosmological texts. These guys spent lifetimes on the most minute details of these questions. 

[Jeff Matthews]

 

Isn't it interesting how we can sit here and agree to things like, "[T]he universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it?"

 

If that's the case, then we have to wonder if enough consensus makes God real?

 

Not meant to discuss religion.  Just a point about faith of any kind in general.

 

If by "real" you mean "a motivating theme in human behavior" the answer is obviously YES. If by real, you mean, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe", I'd say the answer is obviously NO. 

 

And this is a source of great confusion of terms I think. 

 

 

The source of confusion is in the idea that these concepts of "God" and "universe" are different.  If the universe exists because the mind observes it, then, ipso facto, observation if the key to its existence.   "Locatable" is not a requirement for existence.  Where is the universe located?

 

Your use of the phrase, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe" is not clear.  

[Jeff Matthews]

There are no doubt people uninterested in cosmology, because they are sleepwalking until death catches them. Others pursue the question to the ends of the earth, and for their entire life. I mean, consider the writers of any of the ancient cosmological texts. These guys spent lifetimes on the most minute details of these questions. 

 

Very true.  However, there is no indication that those who pursue the question to the ends of the earth are doing anything other than beating their meat.  There is nothing to indicate these people are more moral, nicer, better, smarter, more valuable, etc.  "Sleepwalking" is a word used to negatively portray those who might see the process as "beating one's meat for no useful reason."

[oldtimer]

I doubt Hawking is able to beat his own, but at the same time this is the guy who is warning us how AI will destroy all humans who now speaks of creating black holes for power close to the earth.  I wonder if the hole is to be built by our AI robots?

[Jeff Matthews]

I doubt Hawking is able to beat his own, but at the same time this is the guy who is warning us how AI will destroy all humans who now speaks of creating black holes for power close to the earth.  I wonder if the hole is to be built by our AI robots?

 

Exactly!  The man might be very intelligent, but these soothsayer-like predictions are fun to ponder over but not of a whole lot of use.

[Jim Naseum]

Isn't it interesting how we can sit here and agree to things like, "[T]he universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it?"

If that's the case, then we have to wonder if enough consensus makes God real?

Not meant to discuss religion. Just a point about faith of any kind in general.

If by "real" you mean "a motivating theme in human behavior" the answer is obviously YES. If by real, you mean, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe", I'd say the answer is obviously NO.

And this is a source of great confusion of terms I think.

The source of confusion is in the idea that these concepts of "God" and "universe" are different. If the universe exists because the mind observes it, then, ipso facto, observation if the key to its existence. "Locatable" is not a requirement for existence. Where is the universe located?

Your use of the phrase, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe" is not clear.

Locatable was inarticulate. It's not needed. I'm just referring to an entity distinct from the universe itself. Keep in mind that in pantheism, god is everywhere, god is nature and so on. That's different than a distinct creator which can stand apart from its creation. In cool with the former, but not the latter.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Ski Bum]

The central premise regarding the adoption of any particular cosmology has to be, "how should I live?"

 

Curiosity about the cosmos is one thing, morality is another, and they have nothing to do with each other unless you believe in the zodiac.

 

It's bad luck to be superstitious.

[Mallette]

But, I find no reason to adopt the creator argument that goes along with it.

 

Doesn't always go along with it.  But as with any scientific enquiry, it isn't a matter of what we believe as much as what the facts are.  And facts that cannot be ruled out must be considered.

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

There are no doubt people uninterested in cosmology, because they are sleepwalking until death catches them. Others pursue the question to the ends of the earth, and for their entire life. I mean, consider the writers of any of the ancient cosmological texts. These guys spent lifetimes on the most minute details of these questions.

Very true. However, there is no indication that those who pursue the question to the ends of the earth are doing anything other than beating their meat. There is nothing to indicate these people are more moral, nicer, better, smarter, more valuable, etc. "Sleepwalking" is a word used to negatively portray those who might see the process as "beating one's meat for no useful reason."

We'll just have to disagree there. Your claim would be similar to saying, "there is no indication that people with masters degrees are any smarter than people who dropped out of high school. They were just wasting time."

You also, by that claim, disavow the value of the beliefs of billions of religious people. And you negate any value to be found in spiritual inquiry. I just can't see how you would arrive at that notion.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

But, I find no reason to adopt the creator argument that goes along with it.

Doesn't always go along with it. But as with any scientific enquiry, it isn't a matter of what we believe as much as what the facts are. And facts that cannot be ruled out must be considered.

Dave

As far as I know, the facts (for example a particular constant), are not disputed by either camp. It's the logical interpretation of those facts that creates a difference of theory. The majority of AP arguments I see amount to this: "there are so many coincidences needed for life that it has to point to a designer." The other camp simply acknowledges the coincidences as coincidence.

Once more, it's hard to see what value there is to adding one more layer of untestable hypothesis. As anyone can see, it's just the same as saying, "there was a creator, created by a super creator, which was created by a major creator...... And so on."

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

 

I doubt Hawking is able to beat his own, but at the same time this is the guy who is warning us how AI will destroy all humans who now speaks of creating black holes for power close to the earth.  I wonder if the hole is to be built by our AI robots?

 

Exactly!  The man might be very intelligent, but these soothsayer-like predictions are fun to ponder over but not of a whole lot of use.

 

 

Then science is of no use? 

 

So far, you have discounted the use of introspective philosophy and science. 

[Don Richard]

There are no doubt people uninterested in cosmology, because they are sleepwalking until death catches them

 

Are you a follower of Gurdjieff?

[Don Richard]

I just saw where two LIGO arrays have probably definitely detected gravity waves from, "A merger of two black holes".

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-waves-discovered-from-colliding-black-holes1/

 

Seems to prove Einstein's theory of general relativity. Somebody's going to get a Nobel prize for this.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Don Richard

[Mallette]

The majority of AP arguments I see amount to this: "there are so many coincidences needed for life that it has to point to a designer." The other camp simply acknowledges the coincidences as coincidence.

 

That is a corollary at best, and the other camps view is fine as long as the number and type of consequences does not exceed probability.  Then it becomes bias to not investigate a cause for those coincidences. 

 

And I agree about adding layers to an untested (I see nothing in science to suggest it's untestable...just not at the moment) hypothesis.  That in itself is both a violation of science unless it's part of a test on that at hand as well as suggests a bias or wishful thinking if it is not part of such a test.

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Then it becomes bias to not investigate a cause for those coincidences. 

 

I can't think of any scientist or philosopher, or general cosmologist who would NOT "investigate" the cause, if there were a means to do so. But the whole reason that the various cosmological constants exist as coincidence is because no one can find a cause yet or even propose a means to investigate a cause..

 

Naturally, when multiple interpretations of phenomena are available, every choice of every interpretation represents a "bias". My argument was that most of the people who argue the APs, have a bias towards hypothesizing a creator. Nothing wrong with that, but it wouldn't be my bias. In general, bias is the reflection of both total life experience, and accumulated interpretations.

[BigStewMan]

Hawking is on a roll -- really?  is that some sick wheelchair joke?    

[Jim Naseum]

 

I think the estimate in "years" is referencing the distance light travels over time.

 

Appears to us to travel over time is fundamental to your statement.  That's the "relative" part.  One not unreasonable interpretation of the Final Anthropic Principle says that when we discover some galaxy or whatever at a new, unbefore discovered distance, that "whatever" came into existence because we, the observers, expect it to be there from our science.  So, it took 13 billion years for the light to get here but in fact in came into existence only at the moment we had to find it to support that view.   

 

Dave

 

 

Well Mallete, in contrast to the ever-ambitious thread crappers, you seem to have actual knowledge of the subject matter. Can I presume that in the acquisition of that knowledge, you didn't consider that you were simply, how do they keep saying it - "beating the meat?" you found some purpose and some application for the study or not?   You don't appear to be apathetic and incurious. 

[Ski Bum]

I just saw where two LIGO arrays have probably detected gravity waves from, "A merger of two black holes".

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-waves-discovered-from-colliding-black-holes1/

 

Seems to prove Einstein's theory of general relativity. Somebody's going to get a Nobel prize for this.

 

This is the coolest shit ever.  Some other good pieces from one of my favorite cosmology authors HERE and HERE