Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[greylorn]

Your not knowing does not preclude it. Now, that’s something egregious.

We are not, never were, and never will be Matter. We are not some composite of matter and spirit. We are spirit.

If you have a problem with reincarnation, we can go ahead and talk about it. Notice though, do I go around saying Christians cease from “thinking” when I disagree with one of their doctrines? That, say, Jesus can both be fully man and fully God, or that God could make something “out of nothing” or that God is “pure act” or some other such nonsense?

With all due respect, I think you should lean some manners mister.

All my life I have wondered about why I am the way I am and why I choose the things I do. It’s only recently that I have managed to at least try to live my life ‘rationally.’ Your blindly asserting that everyone thinks the same as you do is mere presumption and bigotry, no more.

I don’t think so. Well, maybe in some qualified senses. You are making a complex topic far too simple. Believe me, I have thought long and hard on these matters and I’m not even kidding.

That’s because we’re trapped in matter.

Huh? Suicide is wrong regardless what one might freely will. One has to take into account the circumstances relative to ethical actions, in my opinion.

JD,
I find that while Kismet’s mysticism drives me nuts, he/she relates to your mysticism rather effectively, and one-ups you on nearly every point.

Please argue with him some more. I’d like to see what comes out of it.

 

[greylorn]

…what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a deterministic effect anymore, but a probabilistic effect. That the bond between cause and effect is unbroken is proven by the fact that the statistical distribution of the effects can be represented by exact mathematical formulas.
…

Good job of muddling the issues. Probabilistic does not imply non-deterministic. It merely means that we cannot precisely identify the cause or determine the moment in time at which it acts.

 

[tonyrey]

You can read words, but seem incapable of understanding their meaning. I’ve been down that tiresome road with you before, and am ready to be done with it. Do you ever critically evaluate what you read, or do you always (as in my experience) just react mindlessly according to your beliefs?

An entity which can violate the 2nd Law is not subject to the 2nd Law.

“Physicalist” is an apparently made-up word. Good for you, showing imagination. Nonetheless, when trying to insult or label someone it is best to stick with well defined words which they are likely to understand. A good place to start is to use words with which you have a more experience-related relationship, such as “pinhead,” “nincompoop,” or the once popular but less modern, “ignoramus.”

As always your post is entertaining but unenterprising. Only those who believe a person is **entirely subservient **to the laws of physics react mindlessly. How can they do otherwise???

Alas! Physicalism is not a fantasy of mine but a fact of life that leads people into realms of fantasy about the power of physics to account for their intellectual impotence, thereby subverting all their conclusions!

 

[nonanon]

The only way that an entity can be truly self-determinant is if it is inherently capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
nonanon;8542390:

Why do you think it’s necessary to violate it? The second law only applies to certain systems, and doesn’t exclude entropy decreases generally.

…
A quickie answer— from your perspective, there is no necessity to violate it. From mine, the notion of entropy-violation is part of an extensive alternative explanation for the origin of a universe which, as I mentioned earlier, starts off at entropy one (and 0 degrees Kelvin).

The second law doesn’t preclude any organism from lowering entropy either within itself or in its environment. It only establishes the minimum amount of energy needed to do it.

If the universe started at 0 Kelvin, it would be thermodynamically impossible for it to have reached its present state.

The only officially real physicist I know of who has explored the metaphysical implications of these laws is James Maxwell, with his “daemon,” which I read as a “soul concept,” well concealed to keep him out of trouble with religious zealots.

You’re reading way too much into Maxwell’s illustration of thermodynamic concepts. If his goal was to conceal things from “religious zealots”, why would he choose a “daemon”?

 

[nonanon]

…
The only way that an entity can be truly self-determinant is if it is inherently capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
…

There is no conflict between the second law and self-determination.

One effect of the principle of thermodynamic independence is that a created entity cannot be thermodynamically deterministic. Thus either the soul was not created, or the soul does not have free will.

How did you reach the conclusion that the laws of thermodynamics apply to souls?

 

[JDaniel]

Your not knowing does not preclude it. Now, that’s something egregious.

Kismetji:

And if we all knew it?

We are not, never were, and never will be Matter. We are not some composite of matter and spirit. We are spirit.

Earlier this morning, I tried to walk through a wall. I couldn’t do it. So then, I tried the door. That worked.

If you have a problem with reincarnation, we can go ahead and talk about it. Notice though, do I go around saying Christians cease from “thinking” when I disagree with one of their doctrines? That, say, Jesus can both be fully man and fully God, or that God could make something “out of nothing” or that God is “pure act” or some other such nonsense?

I would beg to differ. You do not want me to go back through your posts to prove that you are not correct in this presumption. Although, perhaps you don’t see your disparaging comments as disparaging. I’ll give you that, because I don’t see any of mine as disparaging.

With all due respect, I think you should lean some manners mister.

So, rather than attack the argument, you attack the person? That is a fallacy that is called, ad hominem. You’ll notice that I have attacked an argument or a belief that I deem irrational. Even though you are only 22 years old, I have not attacked YOU, per se, I’m pretty sure.

All my life I have wondered about why I am the way I am and why I choose the things I do. It’s only recently that I have managed to at least try to live my life ‘rationally.’ Your blindly asserting that everyone thinks the same as you do is mere presumption and bigotry, no more.

Then that should apply in triplicate to me: as I am nearly three times your age!

I don’t think so. Well, maybe in some qualified senses. You are making a complex topic far too simple. Believe me, I have thought long and hard on these matters and I’m not even kidding.

Another ad hominem? That I haven’t, perhaps? Or that somehow your brief 22 years confers inarguable wisdom?

That’s because we’re trapped in matter.

Like a prison? Doesn’t that seem dualistic?

Suicide is wrong regardless what one might freely will. One has to take into account the circumstances relative to ethical actions, in my opinion.

Tell me why?

God bless,
jd

 

[karebear92]

That’s because we’re trapped in matter.

Have you been reading the Gnostic Gospels?

 

[Kismetji]

Have you been reading the Gnostic Gospels?

Nope. I get my knowledge from authoritative sources. Namely, the Upanishads.

 

[karebear92]

Nope. I get my knowledge from authoritative sources. Namely, the Upanishads.

I was just curious because they share the belief that our souls are trapped in matter.

 

[Kismetji]

Kismetji:

And if we all knew it?

At some level we all do. It is innate in us that we are eternal beings. Yes! Not just pre-existent but eternal beings. Doesn’t that blow your socks off? However, there are also very veridical accounts of past-life experiences which anyone may look up. You might go ahead and scorn or dismiss them as hearsay, but to me that just tells me you aren’t willing to actually look at the evidence.

Earlier this morning, I tried to walk through a wall. I couldn’t do it. So then, I tried the door. That worked.

Reality relative to us is indeed conditioned to a remarkable extent. This doesnt mean it always was or always will be.

I would beg to differ. You do not want me to go back through your posts to prove that you are not correct in this presumption. Although, perhaps you don’t see your disparaging comments as disparaging. I’ll give you that, because I don’t see any of mine as disparaging.

If there is something I said which is explicitly rude, and you will show it to me, I will immeditately apologize IF I feel I really did do you wrong. As it stands, I feel we are both on the same footing.

Perhaps this is something invariable when it comes to dealing with radically different worldviews. I can only hope that eventually we will become like the Chestertons who, though they argued, never managed to quarrel because such ruined a good argument.

So, rather than attack the argument, you attack the person? That is a fallacy that is called, ad hominem. You’ll notice that I have attacked an argument or a belief that I deem irrational. Even though you are only 22 years old, I have not attacked YOU, per se, I’m pretty sure. .

What argument? I upbraided you, first of all, because in that instance you were not “arguing” at all. An ad hominem is when you conflate argumentation with personal attacks and* I did no such thing.*

Then that should apply in triplicate to me: as I am nearly three times your age!

And yet I doubt you have brooded over the meaning of free will as deeply and long as I have. I have not up till now discovered someone who has.

Another ad hominem? That I haven’t, perhaps? Or that somehow your brief 22 years confers inarguable wisdom?

If thats an ad hominem than I might as well accuse you of the same thing. To point out merely that someone is making things out to be too simple is not an ad hominem. It’s merely a point one should take into account. You seem averse to criticism.

Like a prison? Doesn’t that seem dualistic?

There are some dualisms which should rightfully stay in place. Like the dualism between good and evil, say. (Which I immediately know you are going to say is not a dualism, but in my worldview it is). Or, in any case, like the dualism between reason and imagination. Both these dualisms in my view can be qualified and made less absolute. But they are still dualisms. It is not a dirty word like others would like to say.

Tell me why?

God bless,
jd

Because it is contrary to the ordered structure of the cosmos, which points to one’s facing life instead of evading it.

 

[greylorn]

There is no conflict between the second law and self-determination.

That is only true if the determinator is a counterforce to the 2nd Law.

How did you reach the conclusion that the laws of thermodynamics apply to souls?

First I learned Catholic theology, and tried to understand how souls, as spirit beings, might possibly work in a material universe.

Then I studied Rene Descartes, a genius way ahead of his time, and the only truly great (IMO) Catholic philosopher. He is also the man who truly discovered “space,” yet who goes unmentioned by the nitwits on documentary channels about space. The Church itself has essentially disowned him, showing its dreadful ignorance of what aspects in its struggle with science are genuinely relevant.

Next I studied physics, and in a thermodynamics lecture about Maxwell’s daemon realized that if the soul is to interact with real stuff in the physical universe (such as my brain-body system), the soul must be, by definition, physical.

That was the easy part. After some time, thought, explanatory attempts, and work, it became apparent that the only way to make theology work in the context of physics (without waving one’s arms around and invoking supernatural phenomena about which one has no clue) was to treat the soul (after ascribing a few other necessary properties to it) as a counterforce to the 2nd law, i.e, a Maxwellian daemon in its own right (meaning, by its own inherent nature).

In retrospect, it was easy, and only required forty years. Had I not been holding down a day job, the necessary conceptual shifts would have taken no more than a year or two.

 

[greylorn]

The second law doesn’t preclude any organism from lowering entropy either within itself or in its environment. It only establishes the minimum amount of energy needed to do it.

Right. If I’d been writing about organisms rather than “souls,” your comment would be applicable.

If the universe started at 0 Kelvin, it would be thermodynamically impossible for it to have reached its present state.

Again, you are correct— according to* your *beliefs about the cause of the universe and its initial conditions. I presume that your beliefs on that matter are a regurgitation of conventional cosmological theory, since you’ve not suggested otherwise. You may be aware that many conventional physicists/cosmologists find lots of holes in the current theory-sets.

My book explains how we got from 0 Kelvin to what, about 2.5-3 Kelvin, average. You are one of few who are smart enough to understand the ideas, so naturally I hope that you will read them. We might have some interesting exchanges, and I anticipate learning a lot from you. I’ll announce printing date on CAF if still allowed to post here.

You’re reading way too much into Maxwell’s illustration of thermodynamic concepts. If his goal was to conceal things from “religious zealots”, why would he choose a “daemon”?

Often the best hiding place is the last place someone would look because it is obviously not a hiding place. Maxwell himself never described his entropy-reversing entity as a daemon— that name was given by others, probably religionists who had an inkling as to what he was about.

Once upon a time my home was burglarized by a gang of scumbags, who took my used computer, used TV, a cheap old microwave, and some junk, overlooking $10K in cash, in a nondescript container that they kicked over when taking the computer.

Maxwell lived in a world dominated by religious fundamentalists, as I live in a world of thieves. He was 20 times smarter than me, and I am certain that he chose to protect himself while making interesting ideas available to the few who might understand their implications.

I came up with my interpretation of Maxwell’s ideas about 50 years ago but have never put them into print. The internet shows a few others who have come to similar conclusions. I’m sorry that I cannot offer URLs, but it was years ago since I read that material.

 

[greylorn]

Kismetji:

And if we all knew it?

Earlier this morning, I tried to walk through a wall. I couldn’t do it. So then, I tried the door. That worked.

I would beg to differ. You do not want me to go back through your posts to prove that you are not correct in this presumption. Although, perhaps you don’t see your disparaging comments as disparaging. I’ll give you that, because I don’t see any of mine as disparaging.

So, rather than attack the argument, you attack the person? That is a fallacy that is called, ad hominem. You’ll notice that I have attacked an argument or a belief that I deem irrational. Even though you are only 22 years old, I have not attacked YOU, per se, I’m pretty sure.

Then that should apply in triplicate to me: as I am nearly three times your age!

Another ad hominem? That I haven’t, perhaps? Or that somehow your brief 22 years confers inarguable wisdom?

Like a prison? Doesn’t that seem dualistic?

Tell me why?

God bless,
jd

JD 3, Kismetji 7

 

[greylorn]

Nope. I get my knowledge from authoritative sources. Namely, the Upanishads.

Great source. These are written before Buddha, yes? And by an advanced people who believe in multiple gods and regard cows as sacred, yes?

Ever consider the possibility that the world has advanced in the last 3000 years, and you might want to consider more current sources of knowledge?

I hate to suggest an idea which might be offensive to your beliefs, but inasmuch as I’ve suggested the same to members of the CAF without getting more than a hundred members upset, why not scrap your antiquated beliefs and join the 21st century? Look for God in the only true bible— the physical universe He created.

 

[karebear92]

I hate to suggest an idea which might be offensive to your beliefs, but inasmuch as I’ve suggested the same to members of the CAF without getting more than a hundred members upset, why not scrap your antiquated beliefs and join the 21st century? Look for God in the only true bible— the physical universe He created.

There is a bit of a problem with this statement. Are you admitting that your “religion” (the quotation marks are not to be offensive; they are just because I am not sure if you consider your beliefs a religion) will be antiquated in a decade, century, or millennium? And if you are, are you admitting that you belief is, in effect, destined to become wrong in the future?And if that is the case, then why should we (or anyone) believe in it now?

 

[Kismetji]

Great source. These are written before Buddha, yes? And by an advanced people who believe in multiple gods and regard cows as sacred, yes?

Ever consider the possibility that the world has advanced in the last 3000 years, and you might want to consider more current sources of knowledge?

I hate to suggest an idea which might be offensive to your beliefs, but inasmuch as I’ve suggested the same to members of the CAF without getting more than a hundred members upset, why not scrap your antiquated beliefs and join the 21st century? Look for God in the only true bible— the physical universe He created.

Truth does not age. If anything, it gains a greater degree of fineness with age. Like a wine.

The physical universe is something I actually want to study more - when I find the time. In the meantime I want to be firmly situated in the Truth the sages heard and wrote down. In code, as it were. I am not particular about what is factual, objectively speaking. More the transcendental import of the words and concepts is what matters.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Next I studied physics, and in a thermodynamics lecture about Maxwell’s daemon realized that if the soul is to interact with real stuff in the physical universe (such as my brain-body system), the soul must be, by definition, physical.

.

I must say that you have a very broad definition of physical which does not correspond to the context of its full meaning. Interaction alone is not what defines the word “physical”, and neither is it evident that the only kind of cause is one that is subject to a process or one that exists in time and space.

In other-words you fail to grasp how there might be other kinds of causes which do not have a quantifiable dimension; this is to say that while they certainly interact with physical space-time, they are not themselves a quantity in the measurable sense of the word, like energy. For example while abstract thoughts certainly have a relationship with physical events, you will never meaningfully find the quantity of a thought, thus you will never find a blue elephant in somebodies brain as a thought; or the color orange as a thought. You cannot measure meaning or feeling or the human will; and if it were not for the fact that we had direct experiences of those things, there is no quantifiable reason to think that the universe would produce such things; they are not spatial. If one looks in the brain, you will only find the contingent physical correlations to those thoughts or things, not the thoughts or things themselves. Thus by definition, we are not talking about something which is physical in the meaningful sense of energy, matter, space, or forces, or anything which can be quantified by the scientific method.

1. To have no quantity or dimension, to be intrinsically unmeasurable by nature, is all that one means by non-physical.
2. The universe operates blindly. Atoms are not conscious; they do not have thoughts, and neither does it make meaningful sense that free will and thinking could result from an intrinsically blind process.
3. If human free-will truly exists, which it self-evidently does, then that is a violation of universal naturalism and thus physical law. If only physical things exist, then things will only act according to natural law, and thus they are contingent upon the blind act of all preceding events and all that they comprise. Therefore there cannot logically be such a thing as a self-conscious self-determining will.

Conclusion: Human-beings, while they evidently have a physical aspect, they are not entirely subject to blind physical forces, and therefore it is entirely reasonable and evident that there is an aspect to human beings that is not physical. We have a transcendent quality to our nature.

As for the problem about how a non-physical object could interact with physics without having a measurable force or a process, this can only be a problem to somebody who views all interaction as a physical process subject to physical law. Why does all change and motion have to be subject to the laws physics? I do not see any logical argument that precludes the existence of a self determining will.

 

[nonanon]

…
The only way that an entity can be truly self-determinant is if it is inherently capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
…

Right. If I’d been writing about organisms rather than “souls,” your comment would be applicable.

Perhaps clearer language is needed. Originally, it was an “entity” being self-determinant, now you say “soul”. Since self-determination of any form implies a living thing (for now at least), and since “entity” doesn’t imply the necessity of a soul to me, I thought “organism” was a more precise term. “Self determination” needs clarification, too–can a “non-souled” entity or organism be self determinant in any way?

Regardless of language, the conflict that you see between the second law and self-determination centers on the soul being subject to the laws of thermodynamics. The Catholic idea of soul doesn’t have that restriction.

And it seems to me that making the soul somehow part of the physical universe opens up many new problems and questions. Evaluating any system against the second law requires understanding its internal energy, and its exchanges of mass and energy with its surroundings. So what are the physical characteristics of the soul?

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
I find that while Kismet’s mysticism drives me nuts, he/she relates to your mysticism rather effectively, and one-ups you on nearly every point.

Please argue with him some more. I’d like to see what comes out of it.

Greylorn:

Well, I appreciate your confidence in me, but, there are other people here that I’d much rather discuss things with or debate. I’m too old for Kismet - although more than likely a little younger than you. By the way: your book? I’m still waiting.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

JD 3, Kismetji 7

Good. I’m glad I’m losing and, hopefully, will continue to do so. I realize you’d like to see me become more like you, but I’m Catholic. Hospitable is my middle name!

Besides, I kinda like the kid.

jd