Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 299 posts

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#241

Post by 92543927 »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #125
jawns wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting philosophical line of thought that distinguishes between things that are necessary and things that are contingent. A necessary thing must exist; it can't not exist. A contingent thing may exist, or it may not. In the classical definition of God, he has no beginning or end. He was not created by some other force. He exists necessarily. He just _is_. In fact, many theists describe God using terms…

Why is God a necessary thing?

Following Goedel: God is necessary, because God is defined as the most capable and most good. For the most good, capable of existence, to not exist, is bad. So either God is bad, not capable, or a necessary existent thing.

But binary Truth is so Platonic. I believe there are universes in our multiverse of possible universes where there is an entity that is better than the best entity possible in our universe (no, I do not think that God can bend the laws of Physics and make an immovable object). Also, God is a gradient, since He manifests in people and nature. God as a force of external Good, may be nearly non-existent in times of human war. Nature is more abundant in some places than others.

Finally, more Jungian psychological: It does not matter whether God exists or not exists, what matters is that we keep talking about God. And humans keep modeling the Universe including a God entity. Therefor God is a necessary outcome of human cognitive modeling. We do not have direct access to the physical universe, only to our mental world models, the ontology question becomes irrelevant, what remains is the models. And there, a category error seems plausible: The most capable of Gods, would be capable of evil too, superseding the only-good God. Just like its human modelers are. Just like the old Testament God was good for the chosen people, but evil to the innocent firstborn children of opposing tribes.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#242

Post by checkyoursudo »

bobthechef wrote: post #212
galaxyLogic wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is God a necessary thing?

First, God is not a thing, so let's rephrase that as God is logically and metaphysically necessary. Consider a person poking a stone around with a staff. The stone moves only insofar as the staff moves it and the staff moves only insofar as the person moves the staff. Thus, the stone moves only insofar as the person moves it. Analogously, the existence of things, here and now and at any moment, must have a cause that…

Only things exist.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#243

Post by graycat »

djsumdog wrote: post #10

This seems different than the concept of infinite time, where prior to the big band there was something the collapsed into a ball of energy and maybe someday our universe will collapse back again (which has lost merit since we've seen matter in the universe isn't slowing down in spreading apart, but accelerating .. meaning in a few trillion years, atoms may be so far apart that light can't reach anything .. the event…

And notice that just to discuss these questions, even to start, we make a LOT of assumptions about space, time, dimensions, etc. that as far as we know are particular to our experience. The assumption that these hold outside our universe -- that there is even space out there anything like the space we experience -- is laughable. It's nearly as absurd as assuming that ET has two arms, legs, eyes, and ears and then discussing height, weight, and hair color!

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#244

Post by thatoneuser »

djsumdog wrote: post #10

This seems different than the concept of infinite time, where prior to the big band there was something the collapsed into a ball of energy and maybe someday our universe will collapse back again (which has lost merit since we've seen matter in the universe isn't slowing down in spreading apart, but accelerating .. meaning in a few trillion years, atoms may be so far apart that light can't reach anything .. the event…

I'm under the impression that with the heat death, such a large vacuum would create the massive quantum states which would lend to a new big bang. Would that not also be infinite time?

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#245

Post by [deleted] »

EMM_386 wrote: post #118

Pure nothingness has no potential for creation. The laws of physics don't invent themselves, so it would seem that true "nothing" never existed. I'm not talking about the quantum soup of the vacuum of space, because that is something. If we take Hawking's idea that the universe smoothed out to a zero point where there was no time and nothing else, how does that point because laws of physics, gravity, etc? What proper…

[deleted]

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#246

Post by mythrwy »

bobthechef wrote: post #210
lliamander wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A valid question, and not one that in my opinion (even though I am a theist) that has an argument that is both clear and compelling (look up various Ontological arguments to see the gamut). I think it is enough to say the following things: 1. The universe clearly exists, but it is also clear that it doesn't have to exist (i.e. the universe is contingent) 2. Therefore, there must be some thing that exists, and exists…

> We can call this thing God, but by that we don't commit ourselves to any particular religion. At most that gets us the God of deism. Not so. The deist God is more of a Cartesian/Paleyian watchmaker, not the God of the philosophers classically understood. The God of the philosophers is very much in line with the Judeo-Christian God (not everything can be inferred through unaided reason, but much of it can). And God…

Response to bobthechef:

If nothing can account for its own existence, how then do we come to the concept of God?

If every existence must have a preceding cause, and the thread were followed long enough, ultimately there could be no prime cause unless cause were cyclical, a loop so to speak.

In the case it's not cyclical but linear at some point "cause" ceases to exist and existence is an intrinsic property of the object, ("the thing without cause"). Why then should we suppose that point is some abstract level above the manifest universe? In other words, if we accept "God" (i.e objects can be without cause) then we have accepted that there need not necessarily be a proceeding cause to existence and the universe is as good a starting place as any.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#247

Post by sgentle »

Possibly one of the most intriguing ideas I've ever heard is that there is no difference between "true" in the sense of "1+1=2" and "true" in the sense of "polar bears exist". The universe isn't described by the mathematics we have constructed to explain it, it is that mathematics.

In that sense, the question of what happened before our universe is similar to the question of what happened before 1+1=2... sort of a strange thing to ask. Our universe exists because it is a coherent tautology.

Of course, like all metaphysical posturing it's almost certainly impossible to ever know. But I find the elegance of the idea appealing.

Edit: I believe I was thinking of Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, but also a little of David Lewis's modal realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#248

Post by smitty1e »

sgentle wrote: post #247

Possibly one of the most intriguing ideas I've ever heard is that there is no difference between "true" in the sense of "1+1=2" and "true" in the sense of "polar bears exist". The universe isn't described by the mathematics we have constructed to explain it, it is that mathematics. In that sense, the question of what happened before our universe is similar to the question of what happened before 1+1=2... sort of a st…

> like all metaphysical posturing it's almost certainly impossible to ever know

The concept that we can round off infinity and fit it within some tidy scientific experiment shall have seemed quaint by the time we meet the Almighty.

Nevertheless, reverse-engineering reality is our task under the sun, so: best be about it.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#249

Post by mythrwy »

lliamander wrote: post #231
mythrwy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't point 2 (something exists of necessity) negate point 1 (clear it doesn't have to exist)? On point 3 I fail to see logical need for external cause. Existence could simply be an intrensic property of the universe. Besides it just shuffles the "cause" issue up a level. If God can exist "just because he does and always has and is without external cause" so can a universe.

> Doesn't point 2 (something exists of necessity) negate point 1 (clear it doesn't have to exist)? they are talking about different things. The universe is contingent, but something other than the universe (that is not contingent) is required to explain the existence of the universe. > On point 3 I fail to see logical need for external cause. Existence could simply be an intrensic property of the universe. Could the…

I'm not sure that conventional human mathematics lacking the ability to explain something indicates another abstract level of complexity above what we call "the universe".

Also I don't know that infinite regress is necessarily a problem. Cycles most immediately come to mind, aka "loop quantum gravity".

But really I think think both the concept of God and the universe are a perceptual and a definition problem.

Because of our state of being, we can't speak nor understand much outside of the parameters we know. Which leads us to define ideas in ways that probably aren't very accurate and leads to misunderstanding and miscommunication.

That being said, I see no reason to abstract things more than needed.

I won't say I'm necessarily "atheist" because that presupposes I'd understand and could define what it is I don't believe in. By this same reasoning I most certainly am not a theist either.

"Prime cause" just appears a very fallacious argument to me, I guess that's the point. No offense intended.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#250

Post by brankoB »

Koshkin wrote: post #179
EMM_386 wrote: post #118

Pure nothingness has no potential for creation. The laws of physics don't invent themselves, so it would seem that true "nothing" never existed. I'm not talking about the quantum soup of the vacuum of space, because that is something. If we take Hawking's idea that the universe smoothed out to a zero point where there was no time and nothing else, how does that point because laws of physics, gravity, etc? What proper…

> Pure nothingness has no potential for creation In mathematics, at least, this is not true. For example, a set consisting of the empty set is not empty.

"Pure nothingness" would be the empty set, not a set with something in it.
Post reply on HN