Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Gin Saké, The Anonymous, Primavera, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Niche Political Commentor, Superfreak, volsrock, Yurt, Lord Yurt, OG Yurt, Yakuda and jakemax


Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 75

Thread: Steven Hawking vs. Ludwig Wittgenstein

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default Steven Hawking vs. Ludwig Wittgenstein

    Steven Hawking - the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of physics, rendering the need for any deity or religion utterly meaningless.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein - science does not try to know the ultimate underlying entities which cause observable phenomena, but merely creates mathematical models for predicting observable phenomena. Religion is irrational, but not ultimately meaningless.



    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...ys-no-god.html

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    SE USA
    Posts
    921
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 24 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Steven Hawking - the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of physics, rendering the need for any deity or religion utterly meaningless.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein - science does not try to know the ultimate underlying entities which cause observable phenomena, but merely creates mathematical models for predicting observable phenomena. Religion is irrational, but not ultimately meaningless.



    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...ys-no-god.html
    Both ignore the molecular self evident flow of expanding details never remaining the same results combined twice so far. Space is distance between objects perpetually balancing out as cycling through the moment here as universally present. Time is comparable event horizons sharing space here, since evolution is the ongoing total sum of evolved so far.

    Instincts navigate the kinetic living, intellect creates rules to mutually exist as ancestrally timed apart now. substance saturates the universe at a subatomic level but limited nuclei rations out what does form into shape and shape into form taking place anywhere in this universal moment what does exist is existing exactly as present.

    Self evident physical displacement. Speculating it its or any other way only develops methods of deception historically to date. World of realities thinking parallel universes and alternate realities only as defined by never accepting biology is the singularity cold fusion of ancestral progression to the food chain native to this atmosphere.

    No two snowflakes are alike anymore than any two human reproductions between inception and extinction among the 7.8 billion alive here. There is no academic side or artistic interpretation that allows discussing the possibility now is the original eternity regardless universal point of displaced past, current, from now on.

    Everyone always avoids the physical absolute kinetics of the situation every lifetime is facing "adapt or become extinct here.".
    Every brain born has a lifetime conflict with ancestral displacement and intellectual social position within the population present. Why, life is a compounding connection between inception, conception, death, extinction life doesn't exceed what exists now.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    48,897
    Thanks
    15,821
    Thanked 10,297 Times in 8,456 Posts
    Groans
    585
    Groaned 1,573 Times in 1,516 Posts

    Default

    How can it be "spontaneously created" out of nothing if space-time didn't exist prior to it?
    Dachshund Lives Matter

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Into the Night (07-20-2021)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    How can it be "spontaneously created" out of nothing if space-time didn't exist prior to it?
    I believe Hawking is thinking along the lines of of quantum fluctuations - those quantum states where virtual particles can appear spontaneously.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    AProudLefty (07-20-2021), guno (07-20-2021)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    48,897
    Thanks
    15,821
    Thanked 10,297 Times in 8,456 Posts
    Groans
    585
    Groaned 1,573 Times in 1,516 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I believe Hawking is thinking along the lines of of quantum fluctuations - those quantum states where virtual particles can appear spontaneously.
    Yeah. Those are uncaused. We have no idea what's behind that or where they're coming from.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Cypress (07-20-2021)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Yeah. Those are uncaused. We have no idea what's behind that or where they're coming from.
    In that sense, it kind of adds weight to Wittgenstein. Science can make measurements and mathematical predictions. But it cannot offer us access to knowlege about the ultimate nature of reality. We have a pretty good idea of how quantum mechanics works. But we really do not understand why it works.

    Or maybe we are just asking the wrong questions.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    AProudLefty (07-20-2021), ThatOwlWoman (07-22-2021)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    48,897
    Thanks
    15,821
    Thanked 10,297 Times in 8,456 Posts
    Groans
    585
    Groaned 1,573 Times in 1,516 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    In that sense, it kind of adds weight to Wittgenstein. Science can make measurements and mathematical predictions. But it cannot offer us access to knowlege about the ultimate nature of reality. We have a pretty good idea of how quantum mechanics works. But we really do not understand why it works.

    Or maybe we are just asking the wrong questions.
    In my opinion, I think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies in this case.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Cypress (07-20-2021)

  13. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    In my opinion, I think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies in this case.
    I know of Godel but that theorem does not ring a bell for me, I will have to look it up.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    AProudLefty (07-20-2021)

  15. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    48,897
    Thanks
    15,821
    Thanked 10,297 Times in 8,456 Posts
    Groans
    585
    Groaned 1,573 Times in 1,516 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I know of Godel but that theorem does not ring a bell for me, I will have to look it up.
    Start with wiki then start with those two.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18983

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...1/1/012067/pdf

    I read a little of those articles so I hope it reflects what I meant.

    Stephen Hawking believes that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem makes the search for a 'Theory of Everything' impossible. He reasons that because there exist mathematical results that cannot be proven, there exist physical results that cannot be proven as well. Exactly how valid is his reasoning? How can he apply a mathematical theorem to an empirical science?

    https://math.stackexchange.com/quest...limitations-of
    Dachshund Lives Matter

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Cypress (07-20-2021)

  17. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    32,596
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 6,249 Times in 5,512 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 389 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Steven Hawking - the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of physics, rendering the need for any deity or religion utterly meaningless.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein - science does not try to know the ultimate underlying entities which cause observable phenomena, but merely creates mathematical models for predicting observable phenomena. Religion is irrational, but not ultimately meaningless.



    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...ys-no-god.html
    The laws of physics does not allow the creation of mass or energy out of nothing.
    I already know you deny the 1st law of thermodynamics.

    Science isn't math. Math isn't models. Science is incapable of prediction. Only a closed functional system carries the power of prediction, such as mathematics or logic.

    All religions are based on some initial circular argument. This is not irrational nor a fallacy. The circular argument is also known as the argument of faith.

    Only when someone tries to prove a circular argument either True or False, does the circular argument fallacy occur. This is what a fundamentalist does.

    Every theory of science explains underlying reasons for an observable phenomena. A theory of science explains, but it cannot predict. A theory must be transcribed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics, to gain that ability to predict. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. If a theory is falsified, the 'law' goes with it.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  18. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    32,596
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 6,249 Times in 5,512 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 389 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    How can it be "spontaneously created" out of nothing if space-time didn't exist prior to it?
    An excellent point.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    AProudLefty (07-20-2021)

  20. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    32,596
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 6,249 Times in 5,512 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 389 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Start with wiki then start with those two.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18983

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...1/1/012067/pdf

    I read a little of those articles so I hope it reflects what I meant.

    Stephen Hawking believes that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem makes the search for a 'Theory of Everything' impossible. He reasons that because there exist mathematical results that cannot be proven, there exist physical results that cannot be proven as well. Exactly how valid is his reasoning? How can he apply a mathematical theorem to an empirical science?

    https://math.stackexchange.com/quest...limitations-of
    Godel's approach is a mathematical one, and he stated it in mathematical terms, but he is trying to describe something in logic, using mathematics. This is a bit of a mistake.

    Given that the Universe is infinite, it has infinite things going on in it. No boundaries to the Universe have ever been observed.

    Starting from this premise, it follows that the Universe can be considered a set of infinite elements, each representing a phenomena. Essentially, then, it is boundless.

    The part of the Universe that we see has boundaries. It is a subset of the first set, and one with boundaries. What occurs beyond the part we can observe? Who knows?

    Science is a set of falsifiable theories. They are even a smaller subset, since the phenomena a theory explains only number in those directly addressed by Man's attention, and put in a form that can be tested to see if the theory is false.

    Thus, science is always a subset of The Universe. It never can be anything else. It can never be the Universe itself either. This is the thing Godel was trying to explain.
    Last edited by Into the Night; 07-20-2021 at 02:35 PM.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    AProudLefty (07-20-2021)

  22. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The laws of physics does not allow the creation of mass or energy out of nothing.
    I already know you deny the 1st law of thermodynamics.

    Science isn't math. Math isn't models. Science is incapable of prediction. Only a closed functional system carries the power of prediction, such as mathematics or logic.

    All religions are based on some initial circular argument. This is not irrational nor a fallacy. The circular argument is also known as the argument of faith.

    Only when someone tries to prove a circular argument either True or False, does the circular argument fallacy occur. This is what a fundamentalist does.

    Every theory of science explains underlying reasons for an observable phenomena. A theory of science explains, but it cannot predict. A theory must be transcribed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics, to gain that ability to predict. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. If a theory is falsified, the 'law' goes with it.
    Quantum fluctuations, aka virtual particles do not violate the first law of thermodynamics. If I am not mistaken, Hawking thought the origin of the universe was along the lines of quantum fluctuations.

    I am not going to indulge your word salad and word parsing about science and mathematics. You are on record claiming that quantum mechanics is not a subdiscipline of physics.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    AProudLefty (07-20-2021)

  24. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    48,897
    Thanks
    15,821
    Thanked 10,297 Times in 8,456 Posts
    Groans
    585
    Groaned 1,573 Times in 1,516 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Godel's approach is a mathematical one, and he stated it in mathematical terms, but he is trying to describe something in logic, using mathematics. This is a bit of a mistake.

    Given that the Universe is infinite, it has infinite things going on in it. No boundaries to the Universe have ever been observed.

    Starting from this premise, it follows that the Universe can be considered a set of infinite elements, each representing a phenomena. Essentially, then, it is boundless.

    The part of the Universe that we see has boundaries. It is a subset of the first set, and one with boundaries. What occurs beyond the part we can observe? Who knows?

    Science is a set of falsifiable theories. They are even a smaller subset, since the phenomena a theory explains only number in those directly addressed by Man's attention, and put in a form that can be tested to see if the theory is false.

    Thus, science is always a subset of The Universe. It never can be anything else. It can never be the Universe itself either. This is the thing Godel was trying to explain.
    You said it better than me.

    There will always be a system outside of another system.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Into the Night (07-20-2021)

  26. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    SE USA
    Posts
    921
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 24 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    How can it be "spontaneously created" out of nothing if space-time didn't exist prior to it?
    space is distance between or size of objects timed apart simultaneously here so when you add kinetics of biological additions the specific random act of conception creates a random specific lifetime never duplicated again due to generations between combined reproductive cells so far.

    You ever put the concepts of magnetism to work for lightwaves and electrical currents? DC currents of electricity have a spiking character istic and AC currents wave, light has 7 primary color bands when reflected through a clear prism like rain and rainbows.

    7 bands of colored lightwaves to clear daylight and 6 types of electrical currents to each AC and DC.

    Now without motion there is no induced energy, there is no electromagnetic forces due to spinning, orgiting, revolving, spiraling objects perpetually balancing as the universe beyond this atmosphere. Stop playing the intellectual diversion game of pissing contests of vanities between ideologies seeking central authority over defining who's who by equity over equally created as biologically here.

    Simple power of suggestion became corrupted persuasion of power by "we say so" then comes "Do as we say, not as we do.". Plausible deniability, diplomatic immunity, planned obsolescence of economic theories through taxation working on the symbolic side of replacement the value of substance always incompletely defined by statistical averaged facts, artistic interpretation, moral, legal, ethical codes of silencing anyone navigating space as instinctively present one of a kind mutually adapting because biology eternally separates reproductions lived so far.
    Every brain born has a lifetime conflict with ancestral displacement and intellectual social position within the population present. Why, life is a compounding connection between inception, conception, death, extinction life doesn't exceed what exists now.

Similar Threads

  1. Steve Hawking dead
    By Cancel 2018.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-14-2018, 05:38 AM
  2. Stephen Hawking is dead at 76
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 11:28 PM
  3. Stephen Hawking is dead at 76
    By Nordberg in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 10:04 PM
  4. Is Obama war hawking with Russia?
    By Cancel 2018.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-13-2017, 05:01 AM
  5. Shout Out from Dr. Stephen Hawking
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-11-2010, 07:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •