This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Jester]

"Stephen Hawking believes this..."

Got a citation on that? He threw in one sentence at the end of A Brief History of Time, mostly to sell more copies of the book to an overwhelmingly Christian audience.

You point me to the place where he claims that God (any god) had a guiding role in evolution, and I'll owe you so much beer you'll never go thirsty again.

-Jester

[Doc]

"Stephen Hawking believes this..."

Got a citation on that? He threw in one sentence at the end of A Brief History of Time, mostly to sell more copies of the book to an overwhelmingly Christian audience.

You point me to the place where he claims that God (any god) had a guiding role in evolution, and I'll owe you so much beer you'll never go thirsty again.

-Jester
[right][snapback]98205[/snapback][/right]

From a book and a couple of other places, including a tv show on either the learning channel or the discovery channel.

And no thanks on the beer.

He didn't say "God" exactly, but he believed the universe to be to well constructed and entirely to complex to have just have happened randomly. It sounds as though he shares some of the same views that Einstein did.

[Jester]

Okay... well, if that is the case (and you certainly haven't demonstrated that it is) you're reading much further into Dr. Hawking's beliefs than is reasonable.

This is the man who said that asking what came before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole: totally nonsensical. If God exists, he must be "outside" the universe, and not interfering, beyond creating the phenomenal world itself.

A belief in a certain "holiness" that emerges from the elegance of the universe is a long way from a belief that a deity had a hand in the evolution of life on this tiny little rock.

-Jester

[wakim]

If God exists, he must be "outside" the universe, and not interfering, beyond creating the phenomenal world itself.
[right][snapback]98208[/snapback][/right]

Why would this be? I would think that if one posits a being capable of creating the phenomenal world itself it would be contradictory to posit that the same being wouldn't also be capable of interfering with it.

[Jester]

Why would this be? I would think that if one posits a being capable of creating the phenomenal world itself it would be contradictory to posit that the same being wouldn't also be capable of interfering with it.
[right][snapback]98209[/snapback][/right]

That is the standard Deist position, agree or not. Positing *any* such being is completely arbitary, so in a sense, it doesn't much matter what that being does. But the basic idea behind Einstein's and Hawking's position is that God does not interfere, not that he cannot interfere. If he exists (Einstein says yes, Hawking says maybe-but-we-can't-check) then he does not show himself except by the elegance of the universe itself.

I'm pretty much with Hawking on this one. There may be a deity. I have no way of conclusively denying it. But, we have no evidence for one, and there are boundaries we cannot look past wherein we cannot say what happens. We will never know for sure, but we haven't come upon him yet.

-Jester

[eppie]

I suggest you spend a little time on the critiques of evolution's strengths and weaknesses, and its underlying assumptions, before you settle on

"It's good enough for me."

Intelligent Design, if it isn't merely a smoke screen for Creationism, has a whole lot further to go, and a lot of evidence to uncover to support it, if it wants to catch up with the century and a half of work that has gone into various branches of biology and zoology and botany that have based their research on the theory of evolution being valid.

The major problem of ID as I see it is trying to prove agency.  (Evolution is in a similar boat on initial conditions).  It might take a miracle  . . .  ;)

Occhi
[right][snapback]97883[/snapback][/right]

I have thought about these things often. (and I did not say that it was good enough for me, I said "it says enough".

Being a scientist myself I know who these things work, you try things, you have to prove them, other people try to see if you are right etc.etc.

Evolution, is unlike a lot of other theories attacked very often and is still standing. Even more so, it is attacked by the christian lobyists....an in other fields very powerful group, but here they are just on the losing side of things.

So a group of people decide to come up with another theory....that almost looks like science (ID) and try to use this to win more souls for religion.

Still ID does not go farther then finding a for now unexplained part of biolology and telling that that is so strange that it can not have been formed by evolution.

And that puts them directly on the same level as religious people again. Trying to have discussion without evidence....and also without evidence against it.

In Holland a very renowned scientist also believes in ID, and even edited a book on it.....well lets say people are not taking him more serious now. (he still is respected as a scientist though....scientists are very forgiving :D )

[wakim]

Positing *any* such being is completely arbitary... [right][snapback]98217[/snapback][/right]

If effects necessarily have causes, then it wouldn't it appear that positing a first cause is not arbitrary, but quite the opposite, necessary?

[Jester]

If effects necessarily have causes, then it wouldn't it appear that positing a first cause is not arbitrary, but quite the opposite, necessary?
[right][snapback]98230[/snapback][/right]

Well, if you're willing to shelve the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there's nothing preventing the universe from being an unbroken, infinite set of causes and effects. Since the 2nd law is statistical anyway, there is no imperviously logical reason this is not the case. A first cause is not necessary.

If you'd like to believe in a first cause, that's fine. However, there are two problems:

1) It contradicts the argument that all things are caused, because they can't be, if something wasn't.

2) You would have to demonstrate this entity, along with its uncaused nature, in order for it to be more than just a philosophical musing.

So, as I said before, any such deity is completely arbitrary. You'd be saying that "everything has a cause except this thing which must not have a cause." Aside from being uncaused, and having somehow caused something else, there is no other necessary property of this entity. It could be the universe itself.

-Jester

[wakim]

... [T]here's nothing preventing the universe from being an unbroken, infinite set of causes and effects.... [T]here is no imperviously logical reason this is not the case. A first cause is not necessary.[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

You are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that a chain of events, even given its length to be great, or infinite, can begin without a beginning? I would think it more in accord with reason to suggest that without a first cause any chain of events, no matter how long, cannot exist, since without a first cause no subsequent effect can occur. It would seem contradictory to suppose that if effect must always follow cause that the first effect is uncaused, as then effect doesn't follow cause.

[A first cause] contradicts the argument that all things are caused, because they can't be, if something wasn't.
[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

Forgive the brevity of this, but... effects are caused, causes aren't caused, if they were they'd be effects.

You'd be saying that "everything has a cause except this thing which must not have a cause."
[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

Correct; and, a fortiori, that it is necessary that this be so.

Aside from being uncaused, and having somehow caused something else, there is no other necessary property of this entity. It could be the universe itself.
[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

As far as other necessary properties of such an entity, there logically follow a few after existence, but let's not wander to far from the point at hand - if one denies that there is a tree in one's backyard it would be pointless to argue whether it is an oak or a maple. Lastly: No, if the universe has a cause it cannot be itself, for then it would be uncaused.

[Jester]

You are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that a chain of events, even given its length to be great, or infinite, can begin without a beginning.

No. To "begin without a beginning" is a contradictory mess. It is more like saying "there are infinitely many odd integers." There is no way of determining where they "start," since they don't. But you can always find the precedent or antecedent odd integer for any given odd integer.

To me, the argument that there must be a first cause is roughly equivalent to the argument that there must be a first odd integer. There is nothing, logically speaking, that forbids an infinite series. Perhaps it is not infinite. But you would have to demonstrate that it has a limit, you cannot simply assume it.

Lastly: No, if the universe has a cause it cannot be itself, for then it would be uncaused.

Yes. And I'm saying you have no proof, from argument or evidence, that the universe has a cause, except to say that *everything* has a cause, which negates the possibility of a "first cause."

-Jester

[wakim]

To me, the argument that there must be a first cause is roughly equivalent to the argument that there must be a first odd integer. There is nothing, logically speaking, that forbids an infinite series. Perhaps it is not infinite. But you would have to demonstrate that it has a limit, you cannot simply assume it.

Yes. And I'm saying you have no proof, from argument or evidence, that the universe has a cause, except to say that *everything* has a cause, which negates the possibility of a "first cause."
[right][snapback]98270[/snapback][/right]

May it not correctly be said that nothing created may be infinite, or eternal? Consider if it were possible for something created to be eternal: Suppose one thing is created at some given time and it endures forever. Later, another thing is created that too endures forever. Both endure forever, but since one was created before the other one has endured longer, but both have endured forever, so the contradiction becomes evident that forever is found to be longer than forever.

But let me try to answer your other objections; and I hope my striving for brevity hasn't in the past engendered error and caused misunderstanding. You are correct, to say that if everything has a cause would contradict the existence of an un-caused cause; but, to say that everything casued has a cause would, I think, not. The question then is What has a cause and what doesn't? Let us do as you suggest and not rely upon unfounded assumptions, but seek proof from argument and evidence.

Would you agree that the universe exists in time?

Would you agree that time may not exist without motion?

Would you agree that it is evidently and logically a property of the universe that it is possessed of motion ("E pur si move")?

Would you agree that all motion has a cause?

Would you agree that the universe could not have caused its own motion because before there was motion there was no time and therefore no universe?

[Doc]

The simple question that nobody seems to be asking...

What created God?

I believe that is where all this banter will eventually lead in all of this cause and effect stuff being thrown about.

The better question is, at least in my own mind...

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He could not eat it?

[Jester]

May it not correctly be said that nothing created may be infinite, or eternal?

Not necessarily. Why is this the case?

Suppose one thing is created at some given time and it endures forever. Later, another thing is created that too endures forever. Both endure forever, but since one was created before the other one has endured longer, but both have endured forever, so the contradiction becomes evident that forever is found to be longer than forever.

There is nothing, logically speaking, to prevent one infinite set from being "larger" than another, in the sense you describe. The set of all positive integers is twice the size of the set of all even integers. Russell proved that, IIRC. Yet, the more integers you assign to each set, the larger the (sum) difference between the two sets. Both sets, however, are infinite.

Would you agree that the universe exists in time?

What does "in time" mean? Time is one of the dimensions of the universe. Does the universe exist in a "time" separate from the time that exists within it? I have yet to hear of a way that question can even be answered, let alone what the answer is.

Would you agree that time may not exist without motion?

No. Would you agree that a spatial dimension can't exist without something moving? I wouldn't. Time is just a dimension. It is something required to locate an object. Motion is of no concequence.

Would you agree that it is evidently and logically a property of the universe that it is possessed of motion ("E pur si move")?

It is evidently a property of the universe that motion exists, yes, although that follows from observation, not logic. It is not a property of the universe that it, itself, moves. Things move within it. What is outside it is beyond our power of observation, and since motion is relative, we can't know if it moves or not.

Would you agree that all motion has a cause?

Yes, in some sense. Motion is just a subset of "everything," and everything, insofar as I can tell, has a cause. Whether that cause is observable or not is a different matter.

Would you agree that the universe could not have caused its own motion because before there was motion there was no time and therefore no universe?

We have not established, nor can we establish, that the universe, with respect to outside entities, is moving. That the constituent parts of the universe are moving could be a fundamental property of the universe itself, caused by the universe's existence. Therefore, no, I would not accept that.

As for the cause of the existence of the universe, it is, as far as we can tell, beyond our ability to observe, permanently. Hence, the agnosticism of Dr. Hawking: he-she-it-whatever might be out there, but, if so, is utterly severed from our reality, now and forever.

-Jester

[wakim]

There is nothing, logically speaking, to prevent one infinite set from being "larger" than another, in the sense you describe. The set of all positive integers is twice the size of the set of all even integers. Russell proved that, IIRC. Yet, the more integers you assign to each set, the larger the (sum) difference between the two sets. Both sets, however, are infinite.
[right][snapback]98282[/snapback][/right]

So what is infinite can be larger than what is infinite? You find no contradiction in stating that a thing may be larger than itself?

Time is one of the dimensions of the universe.... Time is just a dimension. It is something required to locate an object. Motion is of no concequence.
[right][snapback]98282[/snapback][/right]

I had thought that there was some generally accepted early 20th century theory in physics that stated, roughly speaking, that place and time were relative and that motion was absolute. Let us not digress, though.

Motion is just a subset of "everything," and everything, insofar as I can tell, has a cause.
[right][snapback]98282[/snapback][/right]

I don't understand how everything can be claimed to have a cause, with one hand, while with the other claim that things exist without a first cause; since without a first cause there can follow no other cause, and thus things must exist as uncaused. For if no first cause exists, how can a second cause exist, or a third, or a fourth, or any higher number, let alone an infinite number? It would appear as if one who would reject a first cause for something as unreasonable, would then turn around and claim that no cause is an answer in better accord with reason.

To return to the example of integers, if a set contains an infinite number of integers, mustn't in contain every quantity of integers smaller than the infinite? In other words, if a set of 100 items were examined, mustn't it also be found to contain 99 items, and 98 items, and so on? If a set of 100 items did not contain a first item, how could it contain a second? Thus, how if one claims a set of infinite items, can it not contain a first item?

In fine: If one assumes that everything has a cause, then it cannot be eternal, as before it was there was a cause that created it. The chain of cause cannot be infinite, or it would be eternal.

[Jester]

"The infinite" is not a noun with meaning. Comparing one infinte set to another is not comparing something to itself. Sets can be finite, or they can be infinite. The set of all integers X and the set of all integers 2(X) are both infinite, but one is twice the sum of the other. They are not equal.

The argument is that there is no *knowable first cause*. We cannot simply assume there was a first cause, because there does not, logically speaking, have to be one. We cannot find evidence for what the first cause was, because there are physical limits preventing us from knowing it. With those two barriers in place, the possible solutions are clear: We don't know, and we probably can't find out.

-Jester

[Assur]

The simple question that nobody seems to be asking...

What created God?



[right][snapback]98277[/snapback][/right]

Well, why do you think they say Mary, Mother of God?

[Thecla]

So what is infinite can be larger than what is infinite? You find no contradiction in stating that a thing may be larger than itself?
[right][snapback]98289[/snapback][/right]

Actually, the property that a thing is `larger' than itself is pretty much what characterizes the infinite. But one has to say what one means by `larger' or 'smaller' -- and equal -- before that statement makes any sense.

In his classic 19th century work, Cantor said that two sets have the same cardinality (are `equal in number') if they can be put in one-to-one correspondence with each other. This agrees with what we think of as `equal' for finite numbers: you have the same number of knives and forks if you can pair them up with none left over.

Any set which can be put in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (that can be `counted') has cardinality equal to `aleph-0', the least infinite cardinal number. (It's a not so trivial result -- the Schroder-Bernstein theorem -- that this one-to-one correspondence definition does order the cardinal numbers.)

The even numbers, the square numbers etc. can all be put in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, so they all have the same cardinality, even though the even numbers -- say -- are a proper subset of all numbers. (In that sense, one infinite set that is `larger' than another -- in the sense that it strictly contains it -- is the same infinity -- i.e. has the same cardinality -- as the `smaller' set.)

Cantor's truly remarkable discovery was that there are infinite sets that have larger cardinality that that of the natural numbers -- for example the set of all real numbers 0 <= x <= 1. His proof is a classic. Suppose you could put all such numbers (express them as decimals, using infinite 9's in cases of ambiguity such as 0.1 = 0.0999...). Then say you count them as

1 --> 0. a_1 a_2 a_3...
2 --> 0. b_1 b_2 b_3...
3 --> 0. c_1 c_2 c_3...
...

Pick a number 0. x_1 x_2 x_3... where x_1 = 7 if a_1 isn't equal to 7, and a_1 = 6 if a_1=7, x_2 = 7 if b_2 isn't equal to 7 and x_2 = 6 if b_2 = 7, and so on. This number differs from the nth number on the list in the nth decimal place, so it isn't anywhere on the list. So it's not possible put all real numbers in one-to-one correspondence with the integers, meaning that the real numbers have greater cardinality than the integers.

[Ashock]

Actually, the property that a thing is `larger' than itself is pretty much what characterizes the infinite. But one has to say what one means by `larger' or 'smaller' -- and equal -- before that statement makes any sense.

In his classic 19th century work, Cantor said that two sets have the same cardinality (are `equal in number') if they can be put in one-to-one correspondence with each other.&nbsp; This agrees with what we think of as `equal' for finite numbers: you have the same number of knives and forks if you can pair them up with none left over.

Any set which can be put in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (that can be `counted') has cardinality equal to `aleph-0', the least infinite cardinal number. (It's a not so trivial result -- the Schroder-Bernstein theorem -- that this one-to-one correspondence definition does order the cardinal numbers.)

The even numbers, the square numbers etc. can all be put in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, so they all have the same cardinality, even though the even numbers -- say -- are a proper subset of all numbers. (In that sense, one infinite set that is `larger' than another -- in the sense that it strictly contains it -- is the same infinity -- i.e. has the same cardinality -- as the `smaller' set.)

Cantor's truly remarkable discovery was that there are infinite sets that have larger cardinality that that of the natural numbers -- for example the set of all real numbers 0 <= x <= 1. His proof is a classic. Suppose you could put all such numbers (express them as decimals, using infinite 9's in cases of ambiguity such as 0.1 = 0.0999...). Then say you count them as

1 --> 0. a_1 a_2 a_3...
2 --> 0. b_1 b_2 b_3...
3 --> 0. c_1 c_2 c_3...
...

Pick a number 0. x_1 x_2 x_3... where x_1 = 7 if a_1 isn't equal to 7, and a_1 = 6 if a_1=7, x_2 = 7 if b_2 isn't equal to 7 and x_2 = 6 if b_2 = 7, and so on. This number differs from the nth number on the list in the nth decimal place, so it isn't anywhere on the list. So it's not possible put all real numbers in one-to-one correspondence with the integers, meaning that the real numbers have greater cardinality than the integers.
[right][snapback]98296[/snapback][/right]

WTF, you're writing serious posts..... Whatever happened to "no sense, no purpose, just Thecla"?

Personally, I'm scared.


-A

[Thecla]

Personally, I'm scared.
[right][snapback]98297[/snapback][/right]

As you should be. I just hope they bring out Hellgate: London --- and it turns out to be good --- some time next year, or at least before 2010, or things could get a lot worse yet.

[wakim]

Actually, the property that a thing is `larger' than itself is pretty much what characterizes the infinite. But one has to say what one means by `larger' or 'smaller' -- and equal -- before that statement makes any sense.
[right][snapback]98296[/snapback][/right]

Forgive my puckishness: but shouldn't we also know what is meant by "a," "thing," "is," "than," and "itself?"

In his classic 19th century work, Cantor said that two sets have the same cardinality (are `equal in number') if they can be put in one-to-one correspondence with each other.  This agrees with what we think of as `equal' for finite numbers: you have the same number of knives and forks if you can pair them up with none left over.
[right][snapback]98296[/snapback][/right]

Granted.

Any set which can be put in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (that can be `counted') has cardinality equal to `aleph-0', the least infinite cardinal number. (It's a not so trivial result -- the Schroder-Bernstein theorem -- that this one-to-one correspondence definition does order the cardinal numbers.)
[right][snapback]98296[/snapback][/right]

There is a least infinite cardinal number? Doesn't this claim present two problems:
1) If aleph-0 is itself finite, then infinity can now be defined as a finite number plus 1, and thus must be itself finite, and not infinite?
2) If aleph-0 is itself infinite, then infinity is not infinite in that it is larger than any number, as here is an infinite number that has a greater?

Regardless, I see from brief browsing that the idea of trans-finite numbers and aleph-null appears to rest upon the continuum hypothesis that is not just un-proved, but considered un-proveable: Answers.com.

Cantor's truly remarkable discovery was that there are infinite sets that have larger cardinality that that of the natural numbers -- for example the set of all real numbers 0 <= x <= 1. His proof is a classic. Suppose you could put all such numbers (express them as decimals, using infinite 9's in cases of ambiguity such as 0.1 = 0.0999...). Then say you count them as

1 --> 0. a_1 a_2 a_3...
2 --> 0. b_1 b_2 b_3...
3 --> 0. c_1 c_2 c_3...
...

Pick a number 0. x_1 x_2 x_3... where x_1 = 7 if a_1 isn't equal to 7, and a_1 = 6 if a_1=7, x_2 = 7 if b_2 isn't equal to 7 and x_2 = 6 if b_2 = 7, and so on. This number differs from the nth number on the list in the nth decimal place, so it isn't anywhere on the list. So it's not possible put all real numbers in one-to-one correspondence with the integers, meaning that the real numbers have greater cardinality than the integers.
[right][snapback]98296[/snapback][/right]

I grant that any continuous interval is infinitely divisible, so that any finite accounting of it must be incomplete (Hello, Zeno); that a decimal listing of the fractions of that interval may be extended infinitely is corollary. But why can't one make a one-to-one correspondence between these fractions and a set of natural numbers, where for every new fraction "discovered" one more is added to the list of natural numbers? For if the natural numbers are infinite, one can always add one more to the largest number counted to bring it into correspondence with every new fraction "discovered." In other words, for every fraction not on the list isn't there a corresponding larger natural number also not yet listed? And, since both categories are infinite, how can one exhaust the one before the other?

edited for spelling