Has Hawking anything important to say....?

[brtangel3]

I'm kind of surprised that Hawking's latest pronouncement concerning the origin of the universe from "nothing" hasn't got more press. I remember that Sagan also said essentially the same thing about 30 years ago and we all (most of us) could only swallow hard and go oooooooh. Sagan was asked if He had an explanation for where the universe had come from and he didn't blink an eye and replied..(ad libbing here) "Thats' easy. All of reality is simply the result of space+time+chance".

So what are we to do with this brilliant people who make statements like these?? I think thier statements do matter beause so many put their faith in whatever these guys come up with. So...How about y'all? Anyone have a reply for these two very intrelligent men?:

[fm93]

Well, the thing is, Hawking is not a philosopher. I haven't obtained a copy of his book yet, but from what I've seen of quotes from it, he seems to basically be arguing that the universe is like a virtual particle in quantum mechanics, which briefly pop in and out of existence. However, the virtual particles do not come from "nothing"--they come from a quantum vacuum that is filled with fluctuating energy. So when Hawking means nothing, he is not referring to the philosophical definition of nothing (non-being, or a complete lack of existence), but rather a vacuum. His lack of philosophical understanding has caused him to mislead his readers.

Also, this thread doesn't belong in the Admissions Office. Ask a moderator to move it to the Cosmogony or Natural Science section.

[Kelp]

Moving and subscribing

[Kelp]

Well, the thing is, Hawking is not a philosopher. I haven't obtained a copy of his book yet, but from what I've seen of quotes from it, he seems to basically be arguing that the universe is like a virtual particle in quantum mechanics, which briefly pop in and out of existence. However, the virtual particles do not come from "nothing"--they come from a quantum vacuum that is filled with fluctuating energy. So when Hawking means nothing, he is not referring to the philosophical definition of nothing (non-being, or a complete lack of existence), but rather a vacuum. His lack of philosophical understanding has caused him to mislead his readers.

Also, this thread doesn't belong in the Admissions Office. Ask a moderator to move it to the Cosmogony or Natural Science section.

Right. As I said in another thread, the most charitable interpretation I think, is that his argument collapses into an old fashioned "the universe is eternal" claim.* Not problematic for theism strictly speaking since God could be "eternally creating", but I have to admit I think Hawing may be on to something with his fundamental claim that God is not needed to explain existence.


*As a bit of an aside, I'm not sure about the tenability of that. For example, I tend to think the "no traversing of an actual infinite" portion of the Cosmological Argument relies on a pre-Einstein notion of time as this absolute "thing" that "flows" around us. This doesn't seem to be the actual nature of time, what with relativity and such, it's more of a thing that we move through, and the amount that has passed since the beginning of the universe varies wildly depending on where one is and how fast one is going. I could be wrong though, of course.

[brtangel3]

It is hard to fathom that a person of Hawking's stature could not understand that attempting to speak of "nothing" as causing something is a pure contradiction whether speaking philosophically or strickly from a physical sense.

Bottom line...we ought to be able to agree that in order to "CAUSE" anything or any event...that Causer must first "be"....and that is why "no"..."thing" (whatever that "is") has ni "isness", Physically or philosophically.

As a side note....Does anyone here really think that Quantum Mechanics has shown that anything can pop into and out of being, uncaused??

[franktalk]

The learned of man can say the damnedest things. Those who have accepted this world and made a life of explaining the observations of man can make a logical case for a natural world. After all that is what they studied their whole life. Go figure.

How sad to think that a man who was given a great opportunity to self examine missed the real value of the thinking man. A man who nature stepped on became the spokesman for nature. I am sure that thought never entered that great mind. Few people who have great intellect seek outside of their own mind. They place a fence up and refuse to wander. Such a shame.

[franktalk]

As a side note....Does anyone here really think that Quantum Mechanics has shown that anything can pop into and out of being, uncaused??

No.

[Kelp]

Does anyone here really think that Quantum Mechanics has shown that anything can pop into and out of being, uncaused??

I don't believe it has.

[brtangel3]

Ok thanks to all who answered....Since I am new here I was mostly testing the waters to see if what Hawking was infected with had spilled over. If you spend any time at all on other message boards of any kind you know that many who consider themselves educated are more than willing to embrace contradiction...even to the point of accepting bohr's dictum "A great truth is a truth of which its opposite is also true". We'd do well to keep our children far far away from "truths" like that....

[silas]

Well said brtangel3. Hawking may have an extraordinary intellect, but he's just as fallible as the rest of us.

[shunyadragon]

Ok thanks to all who answered....Since I am new here I was mostly testing the waters to see if what Hawking was infected with had spilled over. If you spend any time at all on other message boards of any kind you know that many who consider themselves educated are more than willing to embrace contradiction...even to the point of accepting bohr's dictum "A great truth is a truth of which its opposite is also true". We'd do well to keep our children far far away from "truths" like that....

This has been bounced around in a number of threads, and the problem is we have not determined what Hawking meant by 'nothing.' I have not read his latest book, and reserve judgment until I do.

On the other hand Theists often make an issue of 'things (universes or whatever) do not come from nothing,' as if this justifies there must be a 'Source' some call God(s)/ For the most part, notwithstanding Hawking, no one believes anything comes from absolutely nothing (except esoterically maybe some Taoists) including 'Metaphysical Naturalists,' like atheists. Our universe as well as all possible universe come from something, essentially pre-existent matter and energy of some sort.

[brtangel3]

This has been bounced around in a number of threads, and the problem is we have not determined what Hawking meant by 'nothing.' I have not read his latest book, and reserve judgment until I do.

On the other hand Theists often make an issue of 'things (universes or whatever) do not come from nothing,' as if this justifies there must be a 'Source' some call God(s)/ For the most part, notwithstanding Hawking, no one believes anything comes from absolutely nothing (except esoterically maybe some Taoists) including 'Metaphysical Naturalists,' like atheists. Our universe as well as all possible universe come from something, essentially pre-existent matter and energy of some sort.


Not sure if I am following you. For sure ...if ex nihilo nihil fit is true then...someTHING most certainly has CAUSED all that is. (no other options are on the table) Now...if you prefer to call that Causer of all that is...anything else other than God...that is your perogative.

I think you may well be mistaken if you think spontaneous generation is dead as a theory of origins. Thats really ALL evolutionists have at this point.....a few of them are actually brave enough to extoll that nonesense....as hawking just did.

You can't have the cigar by simply suggesting it all came from a preexistent something (some amorphous matter). That doesn't even get us in the door....because this amorphous whatever certainly has the power to create a universe. Chaos never brings order and thats basicalltyall we ever see in the reality we inhabit. Order is the only reason we can even have any kind of science.

[shunyadragon]

Not sure if I am following you. For sure ...if ex nihilo nihil fit is true then...some THING most certainly has CAUSED all that is. (no other options are on the table) Now...if you prefer to call that Causer of all that is...anything else other than God...that is your perogative.

I am not talking about personal perogatives. I am referring to how scientist, whether 'metaphysical naturalists' or not consider the origins of existence. Virtually no one considers the possibility that everything physically came from 'absolutely nothing.' It is not a real option at all, and little more than a red herring.

There are other options on the table regardless of what you believe. The 'Source' of everything could very well be natural, and the 'Cause' may not be a 'Causer.' We have no objective evidence for a supernatural 'Causer,' only natural cause and effect, and at present our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics shows no evidence of a cause and effect at that fundamental level.

I think you may well be mistaken if you think spontaneous generation is dead as a theory of origins. That's really ALL evolutionists have at this point.....a few of them are actually brave enough to extoll that nonesense....as hawking just did.

First, we are not discussing evolution, nor does Hawking address this issue.

Second, concerning the origins of life before evolution. The contemporary research into abiogenesis does not consider 'spontaneous generation' of life an option.

In the contemporary knowledge of cosmology, the origins of our universe, and all possible universes, is not viewed simplistically as 'spontaneous generation.'

You can't have the cigar by simply suggesting it all came from a preexistent something (some amorphous matter). That doesn't even get us in the door....because this amorphous whatever certainly has the power to create a universe. Chaos never brings order and thats basicallty all we ever see in the reality we inhabit. Order is the only reason we can even have any kind of science.

First, we have never observed any thing approaching a 'chaos' where there is complete disorder without cause and effect. This is simply an assertion without a basis of comparison on your part. The concept of 'Chaos' in math and science is the non-linear relationship between cause and effect events that follows a fractal pattern at the macro level of our universe..

Second. all we observe is an orderly universe, with a fundamental foundation in Quantum Mechanics.

The problem is the 'Cause' of the order we observe in the universe, not the reason science can observe this order. We have absolutely no objective evidence of a Divine Source for this order.

[shadowmaster]

I don't believe it has.

I agree

SM

[David Hayward]

I'm kind of surprised that Hawking's latest pronouncement concerning the origin of the universe from "nothing" hasn't got more press. I remember that Sagan also said essentially the same thing about 30 years ago and we all (most of us) could only swallow hard and go oooooooh. Sagan was asked if He had an explanation for where the universe had come from and he didn't blink an eye and replied..(ad libbing here) "Thats' easy. All of reality is simply the result of space+time+chance".

So what are we to do with this brilliant people who make statements like these?? I think thier statements do matter beause so many put their faith in whatever these guys come up with. So...How about y'all? Anyone have a reply for these two very intrelligent men?:

From The Guardian newspaper: "In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal [of explaining how the universe appeared from nothing]: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises."

I would refer you to Lee Smolin's 2006 book, "The Trouble With Physics", in which he criticises string theory as being a probable dead end: if I understand him correctly, he says that depending on how the hidden dimensions are postulated to be wrapped, there are five main types of ten-dimensional string theory, and each is not one theory but a vast number of possible theories; and that there is no experimental way to trim this vast number of possible theories to a single THE unified theory; M-theory is but the name given to the hypothesis - hypothesis only, so far - that the five main branches of ten-dimensional string theory are reducible to special cases of a single eleven-dimensional string theory; that is, M-theory is not actually a theory, and if it ever does become a theory it is quite likely to suffer from the problems of the five sub-theories, namely of being not one but a huge family of possible theories with no experimental way of reducing that vast number to one theory.

So it looks like M-theory is not the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find, but a mere speculation that one might eventually be found if string theory is persisted with.

So it looks like Hawkings is merely speculating on the adequacy of current string theory to explain the origin of the universe. And promoting his book with sensational claims.

David