Blog powered by Typepad

« My Saturday morning ritual | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 7.1.19 »

Sunday, 06 January 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David, the 'back waters of America' are exactly where America is to be found and hence all the political and social infighting over here.

Whiters, one of the perceptive points he made was that the post-war construction of super highways resulted in a host of small towns and cities which had grown on the old inter-state highways, were left in limbo with no growth and gradual decline which is where, of course, he sets many of his yarns.

David, that is part of it.

Oh, there is this really big problem I'm struggling with David.... "that the Paras are a particularly fine selection of refined gentlemen!" 'Refined'?

Oh dear me, yes, Whiters, as fine a selection of frightfully decent chaps who would treat ladies and enemies with equal politeness as you could find outside of Eton School! Er, well, sort of . . .

Hawkins doesn't believe nothing existed before the big bang, only that it has no observational value and can't add to our knowledge of the universe. That might or might not be true:

https://www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity-applied-to-big-bang-finds-not-the-start-of-everything

There are also credible theories that our universe is only one of many in a "super universe".

Oh yes he does, Bob, because he insists that even time did not exist. But let's not argue about it, neither of us knows didley-squat about this abstruse subject.

Hawking doesn't argue that time didn't exist at all, only that it didn't exist in our universe. He didn't like the concept of the "multiverse", as it's more often called, but admitted it might exist, just in a more limited way than others imagine:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-death-hawking-multiverse-theory-size.html

I hypothesize my didley-squat is bigger than yours.

A zero sum if I ever saw one typed Bob.

If the human mind can conceive of it, it exists in reality.

Somewhere, sometime. This big-bang or the next, or one in parallel.

"I think of it, therefore it is."

SoD

Maybe these humans will take it no more, create their own 'big bang'.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13500/france-in-free-fall

Good link Whitewell. The EU are responsible for the murder of their citizens as they knowingly allowed terrorists into the EU. The future for the Europeans is wait and see when the next atrocity happens but do not mention it or speak out!

Oh, and a multiverse, or even just one other universe in addition to our own, is a bit of a blow for God-denying physicists, materialists and mechanists (in roughly increasing order of God-denying, authoritarian, douche-bags).

Why?

Because the main criticism of Godel's proof of God is based on non-acceptance of "Modal Logic".

Modal Logic is just all the other logics - predicate, first order, etc. - that physicists, materialists and mechanists are ok with (I mean they have to be, don't they, how else are they going to express all their axioms, deductions and theories!), plus two extra little symbols added to the logic lingo: necessity and possibilty:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/what-is-modal-logic-for

So in the wiki article for Godel's proof, scroll down to the symbolic notation ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_ontological_proof

You'll see the square symbol which is "necessity", and the diamond symbol which is "possibilty", both used in several places.

In the Outline section of the article, it explain how necessity" and "possibility" is in other words "multiple worlds" ...

"The proof uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths. In the most common semantics for modal logic, many "possible worlds" are considered. A truth is necessary if it is true in all possible worlds. By contrast, a truth is contingent if it just happens to be the case in a world. For instance, "more than half of this planet is covered by water" is a contingent truth, that relies upon which planet "this planet" is. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in another world, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth."

So "multiple worlds" is an axiom of Modal Logic, which you are free to deny or accept, thereby denying or accepting the validity of Modal Logic itself. But if you do accept it, then Godel's proof is sound as a pound and you should accept it too.

If Hawking grudging accepted even some trimmed concept of "multiple worlds" then he died a God accepter, albeit not a believer i.e. he came to God through reason not faith.

As an aside, I wonder what happens to peeps who came to God through reason not faith in religious doctrine? Doesn't seem to mention that in any of them.

St. Anselm's ontologically argument - of which Godel's is a rigorous restatement - outlines the importance of "conceived in the mind" and "material reality" ...

"St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. But as said, nothing greater can be conceived of than God. Therefore, God must exist in reality."

So God-denying, materialist, mechanist, douche-bags who realize they need the multiverse, trimmed down or not, to extend their dominion further into the "real" world will have some heavy baggage to take on board: God exists, QED!

That's a hoisting by one's own petard of epic proportions. Even Godel's incompleteness theorems which force you to accept there is truth and form that cannot be proven or formulated in logic, OR, to accept that the definition of numbers have a contradiction - not great if you're a physicist! - which makes any physicist squirm like a bastard, comes second to the "Accept the God-proof - or else there's no multiverse to extend your science into".

It is just so beautiful.

SoD

P.S. italics in the quotes are bits added by me to clarify, ignore if they don't help.

Looks like the italics didn't make it, hey ho.

SoD

JK, from such an accomplished master of the purposeful mangling of syntax and logic, that is high praise.

SoD, right.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)