Darwin's Illusion

[metis]

What are you going on about? Universes springing from nothing has never been a theory, or even a hypothesis or conjecture as far as I know.

Hawking said that it is at least possible and would reflect our better understanding of quantum mechanics.

 

[ratiocinator]

Hawking said that it is at least possible and would reflect our better understanding of quantum mechanics.

Reference? Hawking's most famous idea was the 'no boundary conditions' model, which certainly isn't a "springing from nothing".

There are two things to bear in mind. There are proposals like Krausse's (mentioned before) in which the 'nothing' involved isn't strictly nothing, just as close to it as physics allows, and then there are people who say there was "nothing before the big bang", which doesn't mean "springing from nothing" either, they just mean that "before the big bang" doesn't refer to a time, so is incoherent.

 

[metis]

Reference?

Maybe look it up yourself as I was just leaving for today. If you can't find it, let me know for tomorrow.

 

[ratiocinator]

Maybe look it up yourself as I was just leaving for today. If you can't find it, let me know for tomorrow.

I've read a lot of Hawking's material and I've yet to see anything that might be described as a universe "springing from nothing" except in the ways I described. Just done a search too. Nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

If yoy

Anyone who thinks lava is sediment has to be a moron incapable of reading. I do not believe you genuinely think that.

But just in case you actually do, lava is an extrusive igneous rock, as can easily be verified with a 2 minute internet search: Volcanic Landforms: Extrusive Igneous - Geology (U.S. National Park Service)

(”igneous”, by definition means not sedimentary: The Rock Cycle)

There really is no excuse for you to take part in a discussion like this without making any effort make rudimentary checks for yourself. To go on as you are, feigning selective ignorance and stupidity on such an epic scale, amounts to trolling, in my view.

OK, so the rocks settle from the liquidy lava to the ground on the Earth.

 

[metis]

I've read a lot of Hawking's material and I've yet to see anything that might be described as a universe "springing from nothing" except in the ways I described. Just done a search too. Nothing.

I gotta minute, so here:
In 2010, Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow published a book titled The Grand Design, where Hawking states, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist...-- Hawking’s Final Word on the Beginning.


Here's another source: Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing, but how exactly?

...and another: A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

 

[SalixIncendium]

Pay attention but really let's see...all your friends here who claim to believe in evolution acknowledge that death is what is the absolute final outcome of life. Even those who profess an association with a religion that professes belief in God. **mod edit** Doesn't much matter about lava.

This isn't even close to accurate.

I know evolution happened is happening. While my body and mind will expire, I don't die. My true nature is eternal.

I also know many theists, even those that identify as Christians, that acknowledge evolution.

 

[wellwisher]

And God said "let there be evolution by natural section" and there was evolution by natural selection.

Then God said, let there be manmade selection and the ego; Adam, and civilization appeared. Will and choice allowed deviation from natural selection in favor of manmade selection. The tree of life; natural selection, was lost.

At the time of Darwin, there may have been no place in England, that had not been altered by the impact of man. Darwin had to a go to a very remote place, far away from civilization, to see pure natural selection.

Man made selection, for breeding new strains of plants and animals was well known even back then. But to see nature able to do this, naturally, Darwin saw was a slower version of change since what nature often chose was not what man and economics chose.

Spontaneous formation of life; theory, was more like going to the market place day to day and noticing all the new species; plants, food and animals, from all over the world, that suddenly appear. There was a confusion between manmade and natural. Darwin was able to separate the two, even though both use the very same science.

 

[exchemist]

This isn't even close to accurate.

I know evolution happened is happening. While my body and mind will expire, I don't die. My true nature is eternal.

I also know many theists, even those that identify as Christians, that acknowledge evolution.

Most mainstream Christians acknowledge evolution and science in general. Do not judge Christianity by noisy but unrepresentative fringe sects.

 

[ratiocinator]

I gotta minute, so here:
In 2010, Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow published a book titled The Grand Design, where Hawking states, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist...-- Hawking’s Final Word on the Beginning.

No overly impressed that you quote a religious site that is clearly trying to promote a Genesis type creations but whatever. Without trying to delve into the paper I note two thinks it does say.

It quotes Hawking earlier work as saying that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Clearly this isn't literally nothing because it assumes a physical law.

Referring to more recent work, it says "According to Hertog, “now we’re saying that there is a boundary in our past.” Hertog also states, “when we trace the evolution of our universe backwards in time, at some point we arrive at the threshold of eternal inflation, where our familiar notion of time ceases to have any meaning."" This, then, would be a start of time (time being finite in the past), so we still don't have a universe "springing out of nothing".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Most mainstream Christians acknowledge evolution and science in general. Do not judge Christianity by noisy but unrepresentative fringe sects.

I'll have to introduce you to my ex wife's husband, who is a pastor. He and I have had many debates about evolution, mainly because he attempted to convince my daughter that evolution is a hoax.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll have to introduce you to my ex wife's husband, who is a pastor. He and I have had many debates about evolution, mainly because he attempted to convince my daughter that evolution is a hoax.

There isn't a shared respect for what I consider to be God's work. It seems to be viewed by some Christians and some from other religions as if it can be ignored or used without regard. We are finding out the hard way this is a bad idea.

 

[exchemist]

I'll have to introduce you to my ex wife's husband, who is a pastor. He and I have had many debates about evolution, mainly because he attempted to convince my daughter that evolution is a hoax.

“Pastor” already sets off alarm bells. What denomination? Anything recognisable, or just Bible Belt fundie Hot Prot?

 

[SalixIncendium]

“Pastor” already sets off alarm bells. What denomination? Anything recognisable, or just Bible Belt fundie Hot Prot?

Nondenominational.

 

[exchemist]

Nondenominational.

My point exactly. Not part of the mainstream and no doubt largely reliant on self-taught, homespun theology. A recipe for reinventing the wheel, badly.

 

[Audie]

My point exactly. Not part of the mainstream and no doubt largely reliant on self-taught, homespun theology. A recipe for reinventing the wheel, badly.

Even worse than mainstream?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point exactly. Not part of the mainstream and no doubt largely reliant on self-taught, homespun theology. A recipe for reinventing the wheel, badly.

I've come to the conclusion over the years that once an organization reaches a certain mass, it becomes about sustaining the organization and less about the ideals upon which it was founded.

But, lest I forget, sometimes these things have terrible beginnings too.

 

[cladking]

Socrates-is-mortal syllogism

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal.​

This is a load of self serving claptrap and a prime example of circular reasoning. By any measure it is wrong.

Conveniently such things are written about the already deceased. There are countless ways to see this and to see the role of language in our silly, circular, and erroneous beliefs. "Socrates is or was alive. All living things die(d). Socrates is (or soon will be ) dead" has the same meaning and is less specific. We know things die only through observation. That things die becomes part of the definition as surely as the meaning of "Socrates" involves him being dead. If there were an immortal man who arose tomorrow it would not affect the accuracy or logic of this statement but it would affect the "truth".

All men are not the same. If Socrates had not not existed, and then did, and then did not like all other life forms have (or probably will) then he might or might not have been a "man". What would we call him if he were still around? A stone?

I would agree that the statement "Socrates was mortal" has some validity but he was not mortal because he was a man but because he died. Essentially the statement merely says "mortal" means to die which is the definition of "mortal" and the root of the circular reasoning.

This is language and it's why people keep playing word games with me instead of addressing points. Language fills us with omniscience and a means to solve every question: We simply engage in a circular argument that sounds good but is devoid of true meaning.

This nonsense wasn't possible in Ancient Language because it there were no abstractions, definitions, or "statements".

It would have read "Socrates was alive. Socrates died. Socrates is no longer alive. The logic was in the grammar rather than formatting. Of course such a concept would almost invariably be shortened to "Socrates died". One of the names of the word "died" was "that which is no longer alive".

These might sound like insignificant points but if you thought in Ancient Language you couldn't start with concepts like species gradually change through survival of the fittest and then reason back to it. There were no beliefs so when they saw species suddenly change at bottlenecks they developed theory through that alone. From there they sought to explain the fossil record.

That Socrates was mortal seems to make perfect sense to us because of the linear way in which we think. In this case "we're born, we live, we die". Abstractions and induction seem to work fine for manipulating our perception of reality but the problem is we can't see where this fails. Our minds continue to see exactly what we already believe until a new hypothesis and supporting experiment shows the current paradigm can not be correct and the new one is.

What if Socrates had lived as long as Methuselah? He'd be just as dead but what would that do the "logic" you suggested? Maybe twice as long as Methuselah? What if he were still alive but at death's door? Or maybe he still looked 25?


An excellent rule of thumb is that when we think someone else is engaged in circular reasoning we are exactly right and when we think we are not then we are exactly wrong. Works like a charm. If you figure out your own circular reasoning then you'll figure out your premises and frequently these premises are based not in scientific models, beliefs, or superstitions but rather in language itself. They are sometimes metaphysical as well but now people will want me to define "metaphysical" for the one millionth time (basis of science).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even worse than mainstream?

Speaking of things that are well off the main stream.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe that Darwin is among the deceased, but I've seen a lot claimed about him, whether relevant to modern science or so out there it hardly makes sense.