Stephen Hawking's Disbelief in the Afterlife

Page 7 of 11 [ 169 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

18 May 2011, 11:07 am

gcomeau wrote:

DeaconBlues wrote:

There is not a single iota of evidence for the existence of branes. In point of fact, M-brane theory rather precludes the possibility of proof, as proving it would require the ability to directly perceive at least five spacial dimensions simultaneously. Yet no one seems to be desperately screaming about "deluded" or "stupid" people who are too "cowardly" to accept that gravity might just be a field effect of mass on space/time.

Why is the hypothesis of a supernatural being so much more frightening to you than the hypothesis of eleven-dimensional space?

In reality... M theory is a mathematical model, and it is simply being *investigated* and developed to see IF it will produce any unique testable predictions that could either confirm or falsify it.

If it doesn't, it will eventually be discarded.

In the meantime, while it is being investigated nobody will be passing any laws trying to tell me how to live my life based on the claimed instructions of 11 dimensional space. Or informing me I am evil because I do not meet the high moral standards of 11 dimensional space. Or... well, you get the idea.

So no... kind of not the same thing as religious supernatural claims at all. which is sort of ridiculously painfully obvious so it's just sad you had to ask what the difference was.

No, what's sad is that you feel you have to feel you have to not merely ignore saps who claim to "know" that which is by definition unknowable, but actually try to tear down others' belief structures.

The topic at hand had to do what that which cannot be proved. (Incidentally, there are many things in mathematics which can only be proved within their own set of postulates; you can, if you wish, choose a set of mathematical postulates in which 2+2=5.76359. These postulates will not reflect objective reality, of course - and if you think that matters, you don't know any pure mathematicians.) However, if you wish reference to people who believed that they could mathematically prove "correct" behavior, and would censure (and, in some cases, strike out violently at) those who disagreed with them, I refer you to the Platonists. (Google it - gotta run, kids' buses are here...)

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 May 2011, 11:48 am

DeaconBlues wrote:

That is why there are a small number of physicists who are despairing of String Theory and M-Theory. Right now the reigning champion is the Standard Model of Fields and Particles for which there are megatons of evidence. The un-happiness with string theory and M-theory grows with the years.

ruveyn

gcomeau
Butterfly

Joined: 16 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 15

18 May 2011, 11:59 am

DeaconBlues wrote:

Some of us call it "debate".

And if you prefer not to have your positions debated an internet discussion forum is a curious place to spend your time... so spare me the outrage that your claims are being questioned or ridiculed. I don't go seeking out people in their homes and businesses and forcing a debate of their worldviews on them. (I cannot say the same for the religious...)

Quote:

The topic at hand had to do what that which cannot be proved.

Not really. Outside of math and alcohol "proof" really doesn't apply. The objection to the supernatural is not that it cannot be proven, it's that it cannot be meaningfully investigated. You cannot even compile anything resembling legitimate evidence for or against it. It is a pointless unfalsifiable hypothesis and warrants rejection as such. The only thing you can do with it is make unfounded baseless assertions about it that are of no utility.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

18 May 2011, 1:01 pm

Which is why - though many in the church ignore this and few outside the church seem to understand it - it is pointless for a human to use human materials to persuade anyone of God.

Why, when I cannot persuade anyone of my linguistic views, or my honesty, or my mere existence?

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

18 May 2011, 2:18 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

dionysian wrote:

We are conscious. I think we can all agree on that.

What's consciousness?

It's what Jesus and Descartes meant when they said I AM.

Vexcalibur wrote:

Quote:

Now, if we don't have souls and we are conscious, consciousness is clearly not dependent on the presence of a soul. Thus, your claim that there can be no continuity of consciousness after death without a soul is inconsistent.

By which mechanism is this "consciousness" transfered from a mechanical body to a ethereal thing? It seems to me that you just renamed soul into consciousness. There is no evidence of either.

By what mechanism does consciousness solely from a material body? We don't know. Our best guesses fall way short of the mark.

We can prove that emotions, thoughts, intentions, and sensory perceptions arise from the travels of electrical currents through the topography of the brain. We can even make a person feel emotions, even complicated ones. I saw a documentary where a researcher was able to stimulate a specific part of the human brain to produce a distinct spiritual or religious experience.

Yet we are no more able today to understand how it is that there is something that it is like to experience euphoria, fear, hotness or coldness. Even if we can reproduce those experiences in a clinical setting. We just haven't gotten there.

It's self-evident that there is something that it is like to be human. Yet, there is no evidence for a soul. So whether or not there is something that it is like to be a dead human, would not necessarily be contingent on whether there is something called a soul.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

18 May 2011, 3:59 pm

Quote:

It's what Jesus and Descartes meant when they said I AM.

What is it? Do monkeys have it? Would monkeys go to heaven if they do?

cdfox7 wrote:

So Hawaking's compared the human mind to Von Neumann architecture. Ok its a nice metaphor, tho are we as humans are we going having issues with Von Neuman bottlenecks?

Quote:

Done he know that that architecture has issues with NP-complete and NP-hard?

Can humans solve NP-complete and NP-hard tasks in polynomial time accurately? Heuristics can easily make computers solve those problems as approximations much faster than humans (I'd like to see a human approximating a result for SAT with 100 variables). And humans also approximate.

Quote:

Next I'll be hearing that he a solved the P versus NP problem!

Absolute straw man.

Quote:

Hawaking should stick to theoretical physics and stay away from theoretical computer science and theology

His CS was appropriate. Computers are physical things with no magical stuff inside and they don't go to heaven. I'd guess no computer scientist will actually disagree with that.

Anyone is entitled to make opinions about the supernatural. To think that theologians with their made up study topic and books are more entitled to it than Hawking is just lame.

Quote:

Discredit him?

Who wants to discredit him?

HE is irrelevant

_________________
.

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

18 May 2011, 4:15 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Quote:

It's what Jesus and Descartes meant when they said I AM.

What is it? Do monkeys have it? Would monkeys go to heaven if they do?

[/quote]
I'm pretty sure monkeys have it. As far as I can tell, there is something it is like to be a monkey.

I don't think heaven exists, so I wouldn't claim monkeys go there, no.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 May 2011, 4:26 pm

animal conscoiusness is a very debated problem, not a lot of concensus, but i find that many experiments surprise me in favor of some from of higher cognitive function.
linkage
though this might just show pigeons dont have the brain to make assumptions and instead uses cold analysis to process information, or something (this sentence was pulled from teh dark side of the ood)

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

18 May 2011, 5:35 pm

There is no way that Steven Hawkings is an authority on the subject.

The question is who IS an authority on the subject of the afterlife?

The only people in a position to know anythig about it are those who have already passed on.

None of this "great majority" are talking.

Since he is still breathing Hawking's opinion is worth niether more nor less than that of anyone else who is still alive.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 5:44 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Since he is still breathing Hawking's opinion is worth niether more nor less than that of anyone else who is still alive.

Which means, if nobody is an authority, that his voice is equally invalid. Having a great knowledge of physics is cool, but it really means about as much as having a great knowledge in chemistry as far as it pertains to what is not here.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 May 2011, 6:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Since he is still breathing Hawking's opinion is worth niether more nor less than that of anyone else who is still alive.

Hawking has had much greater experience and success in searching out the basis of observation and understanding what is acceptable and what is not. I will take his expertise over yours any time. This is a personal choice and I consider it valid.

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

18 May 2011, 6:36 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

It is a mis-quote that he said that human brain and computers are equal. Of course they are different. Whereas there are things the brain can do that current computers cannot, the opposite is also true.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"

Is this not true? If the components of the brain fail, the brain stops working. Same as a computer. He never claimed that the human brain is the same as a Von Neumann architecture.

..Can humans solve NP-complete and NP-hard tasks in polynomial time accurately? Heuristics can easily make computers solve those problems as approximations much faster than humans (I'd like to see a human approximating a result for SAT with 100 variables). And humans also approximate.

...Absolute straw man.

...His CS was appropriate. Computers are physical things with no magical stuff inside and they don't go to heaven. I'd guess no computer scientist will actually disagree with that.

Anyone is entitled to make opinions about the supernatural. To think that theologians with their made up study topic and books are more entitled to it than Hawking is just lame.

I am a computer scientist, I have a computer scientist degree. I am very well aware of the differences between the human brain and computers, I am also trained counsellor, I also have understand on the human mind.

What the issue is here is that you have taken my comments out of context

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 6:43 pm

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Since he is still breathing Hawking's opinion is worth niether more nor less than that of anyone else who is still alive.

Sure you do, everyone considers their personal choices valid whether they are or not.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 May 2011, 6:58 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sure you do, everyone considers their personal choices valid whether they are or not.

When it comes to judging if evidence supports a view or not, Hawking has it over any theologian.

Physical science is the best methodology ever developed for finding out what is true about the world. Hawking is well versed and well trained in that.

As you probably know there is not an iota of empirical evidence supporting the notion of a life beyond the physical life we know. Not a bit of evidence. Nothing, Nada, Bupkis.

ruveyn

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

18 May 2011, 7:20 pm

By definition.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 7:23 pm

Philologos wrote:

By definition.

Of the word empirical.

Page 7 of 11 [ 169 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Stephen Hawking's Disbelief in the Afterlife Post Reply New Topic

Stephen Hawking's Disbelief in the Afterlife