The new philosophy of cosmology.
Time (space-time) had not yet been created, so there was only God in eternity past, which forms a circle with (a timeless) eternity future.
is it easier to create the universe or god ?
both defy our (well my) understanding. since there is no proof of god I will go on as if he is man made until further notice.
I would seem to be extremely EASY to create god. That’s why people keep doing it.
Mind the gaps.
Time space had not started yet. Ah yes, but there was YHWH, who defines Himself with a time verb, I AM. Who was and is to come. He controls the speed of time that He experiences but no where says that He was outside of time. Time is the progression of events and the big bang was merely an event in time.
“Maudlin: Hawking is a brilliant man, but he’s not an expert in what’s going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I mean there’s no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I’m sure it’s very difficult for him to do. But I think he’s just . . . uninformed.”
Is this Atlantic article a spoof? This professor of “Philosophy” is saying Hawking doesn’t know what he is talking about? But what is Maudlin talking about? He is merely mouthing the speculations of real, honest cosmologists, only without the math. This has nothing to do with Philosophy. This is just ‘Cosmology for Dummies’ kind of stuff. Another college scam.
“Gee, Mom, I wanted to major in The Empowerment of Moroccans, but it was all filled up. So now I’m going to be a Bachelor Philosopher of Cosmological Studies instead.”
From Tom o’ Bedlam’s Song:
“With a thought I took for Maudlin
And a cruse of cockle pottage,
With a thing thus tall, skie blesse you all,
I befell into this dotage.”
Well, as a once upon a time Philosophy major, I think you’ve got a poor grasp of what real philosophers do, but then I’m afraid a lot of professional philosophers do too. but why do you think it unlikely that Hawkings is not up to date on some areas of physics? Or even just wrong?
1. Expose fuse.
2. Light fuse.
3. Retire to safe distance.
Explains a lot, actually.
Every time you hear someone say “I found the First Cause”, some one will say, “Where did it come from?”.
Pick one, call it God, and move on.
…who talks about god that way? .. people who have no courage of conviction.
can’t have it both ways.
What if there’s no First Cause?
I’d be more impressed if the philosophers had made actual contributions to physics. It would give me some confidence that they had the mathematical chops and physical imagination to say something useful.
At a certain level the only difference between a philosopher and a physicist is that one is better at sums.
…well, and the other often cannot see the forest for the trees.
Chuck one of Philosophy’s little problems is that once something gets well enough established, it stops being philosophy.
What’s the difference between a philosopher and an engineer?
About $50,000 a year.
Philosophy used to be useful, now it’s all word salad.
Tenured Philosophy profs at big-name universities can easily make into six-figures.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?
– vacuum. Out of nothing came multi-verses.
Before I would try to answer the question of the Big Bang and what occurred before it, which is beyond all comprehension, I would first answer the question of why Earth and nowhere else.
But, then again, I’m not a philosopher, or a cosmologist or a philosomologist. I’m just some dumb guy with an econ degree.
The most important paragraph is the last one.
I like this guy.
Well, Chris, that has any number of problems –
- how do you know that what happened before the Big Bang is “beyond all comprehension”? Personally, I’m real shy about saying anything is beyond human comprehension. In any case,there’s a whole area of physics/cosmology right now called “brane theory” (yes, spelled that way, it’s an abbreviation of “membrane”) that doesn’t just attempt to comprehend what came before the Big Bang, but makes verifiable physical predictions from that comprehension.
- how do you know “nowhere else”?
“Personally, I’m real shy about saying anything is beyond human comprehension.”
I like to keep things simple. We haven’t solved everything on Earth, yet we are expected to make leaps into the unknown about what caused EVERYTHING to happen. Isn’t it more important to solve what is closest to us before we attempt to solve what is out there? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t attempt to solve the unknown; I’m just saying that I think we would have a much firmer ground of the unknown if we explore the known variables in extensive detail.
As for your quote above, I’m not real shy about saying that. In a perfect world I would say that there would be nothing beyond human comprehension. Alas, this is not a perfect world, and things that shouldn’t impact us still do.
As for how I know “nowhere else”; I don’t. But then I don’t make claims of there being humanoid life on planets that we’ll never visit in our lifetimes.
Dark energy…imagine parts of our ‘universe’ being ‘squeezed’ from without. Grand Unify that Mr. ‘Theory of Everything’ Hawking.
had you ever read Hawking you would know. There was no beforethe big bang because there were no time then.
BTW: the big bang theory was elaborated by a catholic priest.
The Rev. Georges Lemaitre. BTW, his bust is in the main entrance to the Vatican Observatory. Their main interest is also in experimental cosmology…existence of God not assumed.
WARNING: Don’t try to talk about cosmology without a complete understanding of General Relativity (Gravitation and its effects). And remember – this involves a comprehensive understanding of very advanced mathematics (Tensor Analysis and Differential Geometry).
Until what’s-his-name convinces me that he does know above maths and operates with them, I remain unimpressed. I’ve heard more coherent discussions in dorm bull sessions many years ago.
I also recall Richard Feynman mocking philosophers and philosophy. Maybe Dick was right after all.
The human mind is optimally capable of understanding the everyday world around us, primarily human-human interactions. Intuition and the simple logic of everyday experience is fine for understanding the kind of physics we encounter every day. When it comes to understanding the universe in a larger sense we simply cannot rely on our intuition. The scale of it, the conditions of it, and the constituents of it are simply outside of our direct experience and thus beyond what our minds are capable of grasping. Thus, math is the primary tool for describing it. Applying the intuition and logic of our everyday experience to the universe outside our experience is of very limited use, and invariably leads to mistakes.
Philosophy is an invaluable tool for understanding ourselves and the world immediately around us, but not for gaining insight into the nature of the universe in a larger sense.
In the beginning there was the word, and the word was with G-d, and the word is G-d.
If you do not believe that I will not cut your head off, but defend your right to believe whatever you wish. Please support my right to believe in a G-d that created mankind, and who loved his creation so much he died to save it.
I know, that is hate speech in the New Age world system.
Good Ole Charlie – I don’t think that you need to be able to design an engine in order to drive the car.
As for mankind’s purpose, seems to me you have to start with what we know for certain:
1. Intelligent life exists on Earth (and may be exceedingly rare).
2. Life competes (or better, cooperates) in order to grow and fill the available environment.
3. The universe is really, really, really big.
So my philosophy is that that we get off this rock and grow.
I recall a bumper sticker my wife made me remove…”Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here…”.
But a scientist always wants to know “How?” and perhaps “Why?”. And you can’t really speculate on Why until you know How.
So perhaps your automotive example is incomplete?
I would concede … perhaps not very clear. For one thing, if the only “valid” philosophers are those that understand M-branes, we’re looking at a pretty small group. And my experience with those folks who are super intelligent is that they tend to be rather … focused … on the weeds, to the point that they tend to get run over by the lawnmower. Feynman’s are few and can play the bongos without a degree in acoustics.
I don’t know and neither do you.
Comments are closed.
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000034