Steven Hawking strikes again

**Aussiegunner** · 11 Sep 10,, 22:21

Originally Posted by Julie

I disagree with that because it is atheists that have pressed the issue to have our prayer removed from our school, as well as many other things. Therefore it is them that feels threatened, not religious believers, for it is them who can not follow the rules of reason.

My opinion on that depends on whether the school is public or private. If it is the former then religion has no place in it, church and state should be separated. If it is private then it is none of anybodies business. I would hasten to add however that I don't believe in public education anyway, if everybody chose their kid's schools then we wouldn't have these arguments.

**Aussiegunner** · 11 Sep 10,, 22:25

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

oh, about the TV preachers and their send me money routine. If I'm wrong and they are getting away with it with no chance of paying for their sins in the afterlife, Isn't that pretty depressing?

I'd sooner action be taken to make them pay in this life, than just hoping that somebody will sort it out in the next.

**Julie** · 11 Sep 10,, 23:00

Originally Posted by Aussiegunner

My opinion on that depends on whether the school is public or private. If it is the former then religion has no place in it, church and state should be separated. If it is private then it is none of anybodies business. I would hasten to add however that I don't believe in public education anyway, if everybody chose their kid's schools then we wouldn't have these arguments.

Very true.

**2DREZQ** · 12 Sep 10,, 19:35

Originally Posted by Aussiegunner

I'd sooner action be taken to make them pay in this life, than just hoping that somebody will sort it out in the next.

Depends on what that action is..If they aren't breaking existing laws, what can you do? I'm against shooting people just because they deserve it. As to changing the law, we must be very careful approaching that solution, the cure may kill.

**2DREZQ** · 12 Sep 10,, 19:44

Originally Posted by Xiaohaha

There is nothing that intelligent design can explain that the anthropic principle could not. The universe is fine-tuned for our existence, yes. But I fail to see how that would logically point to the existence of some sort of "intelligent designer".

The odds of life arising spontaneously, even in so long a time as the currently accepted age of the universe precludes it having been an accident.
I would recommend to you an excellent book by Gerald Schroeder: "Genesis And The Big Bang" Well written and an excellent summation of what I believe and why.

Scientists are extremely open-minded people, and their universal rejection of intelligent design speaks much about its scientific validity.

I think that is called "appeal to authority" It doesn't prove a thing. Actually, having read a lot lately of the history of science and biographical sketches of the top 100 scientist in history, describing them as open-minded or unbiased is hitting pretty wide of the mark.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 12 Sep 10,, 20:29

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

The odds of life arising spontaneously, even in so long a time as the currently accepted age of the universe precludes it having been an accident.
I would recommend to you an excellent book by Gerald Schroeder: "Genesis And The

The odds of life arising spontaneously are effectively incalculable, given our current state of knowledge. It is largely a meaningless question, at this time.

However, even if the odds were insanely, obscenely astronomical, I would agree with Xiaohaha that the anthropic principle is sufficient to explain our existence, if his version of the anthropic principle includes the idea of a multiverse.

**Xiaohaha** · 12 Sep 10,, 23:22

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

The odds of life arising spontaneously, even in so long a time as the currently accepted age of the universe precludes it having been an accident.
I would recommend to you an excellent book by Gerald Schroeder: "Genesis And The Big Bang" Well written and an excellent summation of what I believe and why.

My first point, while it's true that our existence is 'unlikely', our existence is also not an accident but rather an inevitability. According to the anthropic principle, the conditions of the universe must allow observers (intelligent life) to exist. Even if the physical constants of the universe were all decided based on a dice-throw and the odds for humans to exist were infinitesimal small (as it is believed), humans would still find themselves living in an incredibly fine-tuned universe, because otherwise they would not exist to ask that question.

And now my 2nd point. People reject the big bang theory in favor of creationism because they believe that the universe could not have come from nothing. But actually, the universe not only came from nothing, it is nothing. Mass is equivalent to energy, and if we summed up all the mass and energy in the universe, we will find that it is exactly 0, zero, nothing. The 'positive' terms of energy such as the galaxies, nebulae and radiation are balanced by the 'negative' term of energy- the negative pressure of vacuum we get from the cosmological constant. This has been postulated since Einsten's time but confirmed relatively recently. Einstein's theory of general relativity tells us that mass curves the fabric of space-time. If we could measure the curvature of our universe, then we would know the amount of mass in the universe. We have, since the 1980's, measured the curvature of space and it has been found to be flat within all 13.8 billion light years of our observable universe. This implies that the total energy of the universe is zero, since mass/energy leads to curvature, and a flat universe has zero curvature. The curvature of the universe being zero is actually very much fine-tuned and one might be inclined to call it an "accident", but it is explained neatly by the anthropic principle.

As for what would've caused the universe to exist, we know that a vacuum has mass, and this is due to the time-energy uncertainty principle. Virtual particle pairs are constantly being created and then annihilated in a vacuum, all within Planck time. This has been observed with the Casimir effect, and at the horizon of black holes. The universe could have started as a vacuum, which expanded itself extremely quickly due to the repelling force of the cosmological constant (i.e. dark energy). This in turn causes more empty space to be created, and since empty space has a mass, the universe became more massive. In this model the big bang itself is not believed to be the "start" of universe, but merely an important event. This is what's known as the inflation theory, albeit a vastly exaggerated and simplified one.

To summarize:

1. The total "energy" of the universe is zero, because positive energy of galaxies and radiation are canceled out by the negative pressure of the cosmological constant. Our existence does not violate conservation of energy and there is no need for some Creator to "create" the universe, because the universe is nothing.

2. Vacuum or nothingness weighs something. Vacuum also repels itself, causing more vacuum to be created, causing a possible feedback effect leading to dramatic increases in the size and energy content of the universe. Thus, the universe could have started as absolutely nothing and reach our current state 14 billion years later. This is known as inflation.

3. The anthropic principle tells us that if we exist, then the universe must be fined-tuned for our existence. Otherwise we would not exist. Thus, intelligent life in the universe is unremarkable.

---------

I believe the above three points were what Stephen Hawking was actually trying to say in his new book, and that he had been a victim of journalistic interpretation and (bad) popularization of science.

**Xiaohaha** · 12 Sep 10,, 23:44

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

However, even if the odds were insanely, obscenely astronomical, I would agree with Xiaohaha that the anthropic principle is sufficient to explain our existence, if his version of the anthropic principle includes the idea of a multiverse.

I personally believe that there is a multiverse. But actually, the anthropic principle does not need the idea of a multiverse to explain our existence. The anthropic principle basically tells us that we can only be 'winners', because if we ever 'lost', we wouldn't exist, and thus we wouldn't question why we 'lost'.

Here is an analogy: Consider a gambling game, where the odds of winning is 1 in a googol, an extremely small probability, and this is made known to the player. However, this game also has a rule that if the player lost the game, the player's memory of playing the game that particular time would be wiped. If a player played this game and lost every time, he would not be able to remember the game due to his memory being wiped. Anyone who would ever remember a thing about playing this casino game would have notice that he won, despite the extremely small odds. He would then start to question why he has only won and not lost, despite the impossible odds, possibly attributing it to a miracle caused by a benevolent God. But in reality, it is because he could only remember the game if he won, thus it is an inevitability for anyone who can remember the game to only win and not lose, despite the statistical improbability/impossibility.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 13 Sep 10,, 00:40

Originally Posted by Xiaohaha

I personally believe that there is a multiverse. But actually, the anthropic principle does not need the idea of a multiverse to explain our existence. The anthropic principle basically tells us that we can only be 'winners', because if we ever 'lost', we wouldn't exist, and thus we wouldn't question why we 'lost'.

Here is an analogy: Consider a gambling game, where the odds of winning is 1 in a googol, an extremely small probability, and this is made known to the player. However, this game also has a rule that if the player lost the game, the player's memory of playing the game that particular time would be wiped. If a player played this game and lost every time, he would not be able to remember the game due to his memory being wiped. Anyone who would ever remember a thing about playing this casino game would have notice that he won, despite the extremely small odds. He would then start to question why he has only won and not lost, despite the impossible odds, possibly attributing it to a miracle caused by a benevolent God. But in reality, it is because he could only remember the game if he won, thus it is an inevitability for anyone who can remember the game to only win and not lose, despite the statistical improbability/impossibility.

Your analogy only works with a multiverse. It's simply an example of selection bias- the only games he remembers were the ones he won, but there were other games. Likewise, there has to be an infinite (or at least mind bogglingly huge) number of universes to allow the mind bogglingly unlikely to become likely. Otherwise, the anthropic principle is little better than a tautology. To say that the universe we observe is perfectly tuned to produce observers because we would otherwise not be here to observe it is not to explain how that perfect tuning came to be.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 13 Sep 10,, 01:18

Originally Posted by Xiaohaha

And now my 2nd point. People reject the big bang theory in favor of creationism because they believe that the universe could not have come from nothing. But actually, the universe not only came from nothing, it is nothing. Mass is equivalent to energy, and if we summed up all the mass and energy in the universe, we will find that it is exactly 0, zero, nothing. The 'positive' terms of energy such as the galaxies, nebulae and radiation are balanced by the 'negative' term of energy- the negative pressure of vacuum we get from the cosmological constant. This has been postulated since Einsten's time but confirmed relatively recently. Einstein's theory of general relativity tells us that mass curves the fabric of space-time. If we could measure the curvature of our universe, then we would know the amount of mass in the universe. We have, since the 1980's, measured the curvature of space and it has been found to be flat within all 13.8 billion light years of our observable universe. This implies that the total energy of the universe is zero, since mass/energy leads to curvature, and a flat universe has zero curvature. The curvature of the universe being zero is actually very much fine-tuned and one might be inclined to call it an "accident", but it is explained neatly by the anthropic principle.

As for what would've caused the universe to exist, we know that a vacuum has mass, and this is due to the time-energy uncertainty principle. Virtual particle pairs are constantly being created and then annihilated in a vacuum, all within Planck time. This has been observed with the Casimir effect, and at the horizon of black holes. The universe could have started as a vacuum, which expanded itself extremely quickly due to the repelling force of the cosmological constant (i.e. dark energy). This in turn causes more empty space to be created, and since empty space has a mass, the universe became more massive. In this model the big bang itself is not believed to be the "start" of universe, but merely an important event. This is what's known as the inflation theory, albeit a vastly exaggerated and simplified one.

To summarize:

1. The total "energy" of the universe is zero, because positive energy of galaxies and radiation are canceled out by the negative pressure of the cosmological constant. Our existence does not violate conservation of energy and there is no need for some Creator to "create" the universe, because the universe is nothing.

2. Vacuum or nothingness weighs something. Vacuum also repels itself, causing more vacuum to be created, causing a possible feedback effect leading to dramatic increases in the size and energy content of the universe. Thus, the universe could have started as absolutely nothing and reach our current state 14 billion years later. This is known as inflation.

The cosmological constant/vacuum energy/dark energy does not cancel out visible energy/matter. For the purposes of curvature of the universe, it adds to it. It does have negative pressure, but I've seen nothing that indicates that this in any way allows it to "cancel" normal matter/energy. Another problem is that the consensus, such as it is, is that dark energy composes about 70% of the total mass-energy of the universe. And most of the rest is dark matter, whatever the heck that is. 70% does not equal 30%, thus, no cancellation. And last, but not least, I'll have more confidence that the people in this field are actually beginning to understand what's going on when the observed and predicted values of vacuum energy do not differ by 120 orders of magnitude.

**Officer of Engineers** · 13 Sep 10,, 02:46

Originally Posted by Xiaohaha

To summarize:

1. The total "energy" of the universe is zero, because positive energy of galaxies and radiation are canceled out by the negative pressure of the cosmological constant. Our existence does not violate conservation of energy and there is no need for some Creator to "create" the universe, because the universe is nothing.

You do know that you've failed right here. Observerable evidence cannot and do not explain the expansion of the universe. Neither does imaginery ether. Neither does imaginary dark matter. Neither does imagineray dark energy. When your math fails, why do you not blame yourselves?

Originally Posted by Xiaohaha

2. Vacuum or nothingness weighs something. Vacuum also repels itself, causing more vacuum to be created, causing a possible feedback effect leading to dramatic increases in the size and energy content of the universe. Thus, the universe could have started as absolutely nothing and reach our current state 14 billion years later. This is known as inflation.

Excuse me? We're not talking about vacuum. We're talking about space. It seems you and CR has absolutely no concept what we're talking about. Zero dimensions is NOT nothingless, ... as much you want it to be.

Originally Posted by Xiaohaha

3. The anthropic principle tells us that if we exist, then the universe must be fined-tuned for our existence. Otherwise we would not exist. Thus, intelligent life in the universe is unremarkable.

Horse pucky. We're no more unique than SATURN.

Originally Posted by Xiaohaha

I believe the above three points were what Stephen Hawking was actually trying to say in his new book, and that he had .been a victim of journalistic interpretation and (bad) popularization of science.

You have NOT read Hawkins/

**2DREZQ** · 13 Sep 10,, 19:59

Actually, I accept the Big Bang event as the likely "biginning (pun) of the understandable universe. I also accept a probable age of this universe in the 14-15 billion year range. That estimate was first put forth by a Rabbinic teacher (I forget his name) several centuries ago. In fact, the Genesis description in the original hebrew does not preclude there being a "before" the big bang. It does hold that we are forever barred from knowing anything about it, which is the exact position held by contemporary physicists.
I don't think current young earthers and litteralist have a leg to stand on (they haven't been around long enough to have evolved legs, I suppose.). They are reading the best english translations, while ignoring millenia of study by Jewish scholars.

**Aussiegunner** · 14 Sep 10,, 00:13

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

Depends on what that action is..If they aren't breaking existing laws, what can you do? I'm against shooting people just because they deserve it. As to changing the law, we must be very careful approaching that solution, the cure may kill.

There are legal means of exacting justice. Putting a few dogged reporters on their trail to relentlessly pursue and expose them, so that it becomes a lot harder for them to pull off their evil tricks, is one. Also, these types of people usually do something illegal to avoid paying their obligations, so there are good odds that the IRS will get them one day or that somebody will take them for a packet for breach of contract.

**highsea** · 14 Sep 10,, 17:57

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

The odds of life arising spontaneously are effectively incalculable, given our current state of knowledge. It is largely a meaningless question, at this time.

Yet we can say with some confidence that the number is something larger than zero.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

However, even if the odds were insanely, obscenely astronomical, I would agree with Xiaohaha that the anthropic principle is sufficient to explain our existence, if his version of the anthropic principle includes the idea of a multiverse.

Why should a multiverse be required? There is no reason to suppose that their laws of physics would be the same as ours. You seem to want the multiverse to "improve the odds". But a different universe could easily have different constants, so you are back to square one, just in a different universe.

I am in agreement with Xiaohaha. Anthropic principle tells us that no matter what the laws of the universe are, they have to be compatible with our own existence. There is no requirement for supernatural interference.

It's not an explanation for existence- it's just an explanation why a god isn't required tp "improve the odds".

**ArmchairGeneral** · 14 Sep 10,, 22:47

Originally Posted by highsea

Yet we can say with some confidence that the number is something larger than zero.

Well, no, "we" can't. You may be able to, I am not.

Why should a multiverse be required? There is no reason to suppose that their laws of physics would be the same as ours. You seem to want the multiverse to "improve the odds". But a different universe could easily have different constants, so you are back to square one, just in a different universe.

I am in agreement with Xiaohaha. Anthropic principle tells us that no matter what the laws of the universe are, they have to be compatible with our own existence. There is no requirement for supernatural interference.

Already answered, or at least an attempt was made, in #114. But to expand, slightly- there is of course no reason to suppose that any given universe has similar laws to ours. We're not talking about any given universe, however. We're talking about all of 'em. And if you have enough, you'll get every iteration you want.

It's not an explanation for existence- it's just an explanation why a god isn't required tp "improve the odds".

Yes, the explanation effectively being that the question of the odds of our existence is meaningless, since we clearly exist.