Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[idav]

The argument is from recent Bell Experiments, its about counterfactual definiteness and locality.

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs."

Quantum physics just shows us that the rabbit hole is deeper than we thought. I understand the implications of the quantum world and am familiar with the non locality. However the quantum world is still physics and subject to naturalistic explanations.

The wave function is to determine the state of a particle and it's state is affected by variables thrown in during experiments.
Consciousness does not effect the wave function, its wishful thinking.

 

[Copernicus]

This is again a serious misunderstanding, I didn't quoted Einstein as a scientist, I quoted him as a philosopher. I don't need any justification from Science nor from scientists...

Don't be disingenuous. Here was the context in which you made that quote:

Science can learn from religion and religion can learn from science.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
- Albert Einstein.

You were clearly quoting him because of his status as a scientist, not a philosopher. And that demonstrated my point that people of religious faith use scientists to try to gain more credibility for their belief systems. Einstein has been used more than any other scientist for that purpose precisely because of his fame as a scientist and his use of metaphorical language that could be easily taken out of context to make him look like a supporter of religious faith.

Esotericism as a discipline stands on its own. All along I am arguing that even the assumptions of science and its foundations can be questioned and showing that science is not all there is by applying the top-down approach of the eastern standards and therefore your assumption that I am desperately trying to use scientists to justify my beliefs is blatantly false. I don't need to do that because Esotericism is going to correct the scientific consensus and also put an end to the correct conclusion of the interpretation on quantum physics.

The term "esotericism" is ambiguous. People who study esoteric beliefs do not necessarily hold those beliefs or endorse them. However, the term also refers to people who just hold those beliefs, not scholars pursuing a discipline. You are confusing the two meanings.

Esotericism is an independent discipline and it is based on a completely different methodology and both religion and science are based on a completely different epistemology and it needs no justification from science. If its anything it is scientists who need to learn from esotericists.

Taken as a scholarly discipline, esotericism is subject to the same rules of logic and reason as any other discipline. It studies a body of beliefs. It does not endorse or promote them. Taken as a designation of a somewhat amorphous body of beliefs in the esoteric, it justifies nothing. It is just a term that designates the mindset of disparate communities of people who claim esoteric knowledge.

 

[otokage007]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html

"The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things."

- Richard Conn Henry1. Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics

Once you realize the fact that only mind exists out there in the external physical world then this Mind is surely something different than the brain and there is much scholarly evidence to suggest that our ancients knew that Mind is something separate and different than the brain, they also knew that the Intellect exists in platonic realms and the ones who stimulate our intellect and our thoughts are none other than anthropomorphic Gods and they are psychological beings and they do exist in their own realm and they are far more real than this empirical reality.


"We are spirits controlled by God"

- Elaine Pagels, Pneumatic esoteric Christianity, Valentinian tradition.

Realized Eschatology - Valentinian tradition

"While the metaphors may not be literally true, nonetheless Valentinians insisted that they described something that is very real. They insisted that what the myth described was in fact MORE real than ordinary reality! As it says in the Treatise on Resurrection, "Do not suppose that the resurrection is an illusion. It is not an illusion; rather it is something real. Instead, one ought to maintain that the world is an illusion, rather than resurrection" (Treatise on Resurrection 48: 12-17).

They believed that the experience expressed through the myth was real and that through visionary experiences (gnosis) and ritual one could experience the events it described. Thus the "myth" is not merely a teaching story. It is a metaphorical description of the experience of redemption."

Savithru deva is lord and master of Agnishoma mandala (pleroma of gods) and He is in the macrocosm as well in the microcosm. Human beings who are not aware of this imagine that it is they and their own mind and intellect that get things to be done through their ten sense organs. How can subordinates (the mind, intellect and sense organs) be independent? Imagining that he is independent, the individual attributes his achievement to his own mind and intellect. This amounts to the state of being enamoured and conceit. But those few who are capable of deep reflection realize that there should be one who inspires or activates the mind and intellect further reflection and contemplation leads such individuals to realize that the Inspirer or Activator is Savithrudeva. It is He and He alone who instil power into the intellect. It is the intellect, which is the centre and source of all activity, physical and mental, etc.

-Devudu

Its in the Vedic religion, its in Buddhism and its in Christianity. On the whole both the esoteric religions and science are converging at a common point.

One thing is to state reality is always subjective. But another completely different thing is to state that, therefore, mind is external to brain, and therefore, God exists. It is as valid as: I like red color therefore pigs fly. Utter nonsense

 

[Pleroma]

One thing is to state reality is always subjective. But another completely different thing is to state that, therefore, mind is external to brain, and therefore, God exists. It is as valid as: I like red color therefore pigs fly. Utter nonsense

Based on intuitive reasoning and what all the esoteric religions of the world are saying once mind is something different than the brain its highly likely that it is the product of a divine God and this hypothesis is not nonsense until scientists come up with a machine capable of strong AI. It can be falsified by science and testified by methodologies in Esotericism.

 

[idav]

Based on intuitive reasoning and what all the esoteric religions of the world are saying once mind is something different than the brain its highly likely that it is the product of a divine God and this hypothesis is not nonsense until scientists come up with a machine capable of strong AI. It can be falsified by science and testified by methodologies in Esotericism.

With some training the mind can go to a level that it uses the brain to a larger degree all at once during a meditative state. No telling what the brain is capable of in this state.
Mindfulness Meditation Linked With Positive Brain Changes, Study Suggests

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Based on intuitive reasoning and what all the esoteric religions of the world are saying

The dreamy babbling of amateurs and mystic does not verify actual truth. Science is your method for that, and science disagrees with you.

 

[Pleroma]

Quantum physics just shows us that the rabbit hole is deeper than we thought. I understand the implications of the quantum world and am familiar with the non locality. However the quantum world is still physics and subject to naturalistic explanations.

The wave function is to determine the state of a particle and it's state is affected by variables thrown in during experiments.
Consciousness does not effect the wave function, its wishful thinking.

Consciousness is not a well defined term and I didn't used it. I used the term Mind and differentiated it from the common association of mind to a brain.

And Nope, the recent findings in Quantum Physics have gone beyond science and it solely relies on the realm of philosophy and philosophers are going to question the assumptions and foundations of science. There is no empirical reality independent of the mind.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Since Mind is a result of quantum reality, the reality does not depend on Mind, but the reverse is true. Reality would be there, Mind or not.

 

[Pleroma]

Don't be disingenuous. Here was the context in which you made that quote:


You were clearly quoting him because of his status as a scientist, not a philosopher. And that demonstrated my point that people of religious faith use scientists to try to gain more credibility for their belief systems. Einstein has been used more than any other scientist for that purpose precisely because of his fame as a scientist and his use of metaphorical language that could be easily taken out of context to make him look like a supporter of religious faith.

A lot of things have changed since Einstein died and it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything Einstein said some of his beliefs have turned out to be false.

“Quantum theory is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. Quantum theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.”

- Albert Einstein

Which turned out to be false as Stephen Hawking corrected him by saying,

"God not only plays dice but he throws them where we cannot see"

And recently Elitzur said, Aharonov's view, he says, "is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice."

So even Einstein's beliefs have turned out to be false and there is no point in quoting him to justify my beliefs.

The correct context in which Einstein himself made that statement was this.


"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes."

- Albert Einstein

I agree with Einstein that there is or cannot be any conflict between religion and science as the recent findings have shown that they both are converging at a common point and its victory to both science and religion.

But I disagree with Einstein where he says mankind created Gods in his own image in the early stages of mankind's youthful spiritual revolution. The truth of the history of the origin of religion is this:

“Gods are real.
And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of
existence, all aspects of human life.”

-James Hillman


The reason why science cannot have a complete model of the cosmos is because of this, they have ignored an important part of the puzzle, a God hypothesis which fills all our gaps in our knowledge.

The term "esotericism" is ambiguous. People who study esoteric beliefs do not necessarily hold those beliefs or endorse them. However, the term also refers to people who just hold those beliefs, not scholars pursuing a discipline. You are confusing the two meanings.

I know, therefore I have defined Esotericism in the Esotericism DIR long before, perhaps you didn't noticed it.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/esotericism-dir/138984-defining-esotericism.html

Taken as a scholarly discipline, esotericism is subject to the same rules of logic and reason as any other discipline. It studies a body of beliefs. It does not endorse or promote them. Taken as a designation of a somewhat amorphous body of beliefs in the esoteric, it justifies nothing. It is just a term that designates the mindset of disparate communities of people who claim esoteric knowledge.

Nope, Esotericism has its own methodologies and as a discipline it stands on its own.

 

[Pleroma]

The dreamy babbling of amateurs and mystic does not verify actual truth. Science is your method for that, and science disagrees with you.

Nope, science actually agrees with me.

[youtube]IKYyzNwWgRY[/youtube]
Quantum to Cosmos Part 4 - YouTube

As Anton Zielinger clearly says we create reality rather than passively observing it. There is no empirical reality independent of the human mind and the human mind is the product of a divine God.

The next breakthrough is going to come from Esotericism and its going to redefine and reshape both orthodox religions as well as Science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

“Gods are real.
And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of
existence, all aspects of human life.”

-James Hillman


The reason why science cannot have a complete model of the cosmos is because of this, they have ignored an important part of the puzzle, a God hypothesis which fills all our gaps in our knowledge.

Prove it.

 

[otokage007]

As Anton Zielinger clearly says we create reality rather than passively observing it. There is no empirical reality independent of the human mind and the human mind is the product of a divine God.

The next breakthrough is going to come from Esotericism and its going to redefine and reshape both orthodox religions as well as Science.

Dude you can't say that because reality is subjective then the mind exists outside the brain. What kind of crazy reasoning is that?

 

[Pleroma]

Dude you can't say that because reality is subjective then the mind exists outside the brain. What kind of crazy reasoning is that?

Even neurons fall under empirical reality and even they are made of particles, quarks and protons and they cannot be thought of as self existent and therefore even the brain and in fact the whole of empirical reality do not exist independent of the human mind. Its the only alternative logical explanation other than resorting into solipsism.

Bernard d'Espagnat: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind | Science | guardian.co.uk

Someone in the guardian asked this question and it was a very good question.

Gramlin
23 March 2009 12:20PM

If what we call 'reality' is just a state of mind, what is mind?

This is where Esotericism comes in and explains what Mind is and what Intellect is. This is the reason for the need of a god hypothesis. Science will never be able to know what Mind is.

 

[Storm]

Dude you can't say that because reality is subjective then the mind exists outside the brain. What kind of crazy reasoning is that?

Of course you can. You can say whatever damn fool thing you like. It's the downside of language.

 

[Jainarayan]

Than the question remains why does a panentheistic God need to create a universe?

I think Asimov posted a great answer to this in the Last Question. The answer was to exist. However, this still leads to the question of initial existence and the necessity of a universe, specifically with a conscience species, for such an existence merely for existing. Unless one accepts Adams and many others possibilities that existence is merely the recognition of itself through an infinite multiple possibilities.

Which brings us back to the point of ............. boredom?

Adi Shankaracharya says that to create is the recreation, or nature of God just as it is man's nature to breathe. Though Shankaracharya does not say it, it can be extrapolated that it's God's (Ishvara) nature to create as it is man's nature to explore and question.

Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is recreation or play of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe. Creating the world for any incentive slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. Creating the world for gaining something is against His perfection. Creating the world out of compassion is illogical, since the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning, when only Ishvara existed.
Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another philosophy:

The Samkhya system is based on Sat-kārya-vāda or the theory of causation. According to Satkāryavāda, the effect is pre-existent in the cause. There is only an apparent or illusory change in the makeup of the cause and not a material one, when it becomes effect. Since, effects cannot come from nothing, the original cause or ground of everything is seen as Prakriti.[54]
Samkhya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If what we call 'reality' is just a state of mind, what is mind?

This is where Esotericism comes in and explains what Mind is and what Intellect is. This is the reason for the need of a god hypothesis. Science will never be able to know what Mind is.

Not knowing the answer to a given question yet is not sufficient justification for making up a magical superbeing (or any form of supernatural entity) as an exaplanation. The supposition that reality isn't real may be an interesting thought experiment for high school philosophy classes, but following through with that suggestion and using it to justify baseless beliefs in magic and supernatural causation is, in my opinion, completely pointless. If you're going to suggest that reality only exists as a matter of perception, then so too does any concept your propose to explain reality. Any conclusion or hypothesis you concoct becomes an endless feedback loop of self-defeating illogic. If we can't even grasp basic facts like "things exist" then how could you possibly suggest "we need God to exist to explain things". That makes no sense.

 

[Jainarayan]

If this god you are talking about exists, he must do so in some place? At least he must be ''something'', ''somewhere'', ''sometime''. I dont see how he can be something without these elements.

Why must he exist somewhere or be something except existence itself? Where does existence exist? Where does non-existence exist? Most religions believe that God is immanent and transcendent.

 

[Pleroma]

Not knowing the answer to a given question yet is not sufficient justification for making up a magical superbeing (or any form of supernatural entity) as an exaplanation. The supposition that reality isn't real may be an interesting thought experiment for high school philosophy classes, but following through with that suggestion and using it to justify baseless beliefs in magic and supernatural causation is, in my opinion, completely pointless. If you're going to suggest that reality only exists as a matter of perception, then so too does any concept your propose to explain reality. Any conclusion or hypothesis you concoct becomes an endless feedback loop of self-defeating illogic. If we can't even grasp basic facts like "things exist" then how could you possibly suggest "we need God to exist to explain things". That makes no sense.

The fact is that God gives an answer to it and explains what mind is and what intellect is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why must he exist somewhere or be something except existence itself? Where does existence exist? Where does non-existence exist? Most religions believe that God is immanent and transcendent.

In that case, the question becomes "how can we differentiate the qualities of 'God' from the qualities of 'existence'?" In other words, if you're going to define "God" as "existence", what does that actually tell us about either? I could, if I wish, say that God resides in a glass of water, but does that tell us anything about either God or a glass of water? Is our understanding of either concept increased at all by the suggestion? No, it is not.

If you're going to suggest something exists (in this case, a God) then you have to clearly define what qualities this particular something has and how you can demonstrate those qualities to be evident. To say "God is everything" is meaningless, since "everything" already has a definition. I doubt that there are many people out there who don't believe in God who also doubt the existence of "everything", so if God can be defined as "everything" then the concept loses all it's validity as there is absolutely no quantifiable difference between a world with or without God. Either way, everything still exists whether we call it "God" or no.

Note that I'm coming into this discussion rather late, so I could be entirely missing the big picture you've been trying to argue for who-knows-how-many pages, so if you feel I missed the point somewhat feel free to ignore this post.

The fact is that God gives an answer to it and explains what mind is and what intellect is.

Again: just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean you can just make stuff up to explain it, and your logic is internally inconsistant. If you're going to suggest that nothing exists outside of the mind, then you cannot assert a God exists. Your logic is self-defeating.

 

[Jainarayan]

In that case, the question becomes "how can we differentiate the qualities of 'God' from the qualities of 'existence'?"

You can't, because there is no difference. At least according to Advaita Vedanta, a school of Hindu ontological philosophy.

I could, if I wish, say that God resides in a glass of water, but does that tell us anything about either God or a glass of water? Is our understanding of either concept increased at all by the suggestion? No, it is not.

If you're going to suggest something exists (in this case, a God) then you have to clearly define what qualities this particular something has and how you can demonstrate those qualities to be evident. To say "God is everything" is meaningless, since "everything" already has a definition. I doubt that there are many people out there who don't believe in God who also doubt the existence of "everything", so if God can be defined as "everything" then the concept loses all it's validity as there is absolutely no quantifiable difference between a world with or without God. Either way, everything still exists whether we call it "God" or no.

I come from the position of Advaita Vedanta, which has no problem reconciling this.

Note that I'm coming into this discussion rather late, so I could be entirely missing the big picture you've been trying to argue for who-knows-how-many pages, so if you feel I missed the point somewhat feel free to ignore this post.

Actually I bowed out when it became a mud-slinging **** storm with ad hominems galore. But your questions are valid.