Physicist Stephen Hawking denounced for believing...

Originally posted by liejunkie01
It is alright Mr. Hawking. Never mind the haters. You have made the whole world think about ourselves differently. I appreciate your contribution to humanity.

I am a supporter of a great mind. He is looking for logical answers for the meaning of life and the answers we all want.

edit on 12-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

Star for you man...

Couldn't have said it better...

This guy is amazing to 'say the least'...

Go against the grain till' the end...

reply to post by metaldave

This guy is amazing to 'say the least'...

Go against the grain till' the end...

I agree but I think he'd be the first to admit that he is simply giving opinions and theories based on his own beliefs..
To treat them as fact would be naive..

reply to post by Somehumanbeing


All the science in the world, all the physics, chemistry and mathematics in the world cannot predict what I am going to do precisely to the detail of the atom what I will do in the next 5 minutes. Only god has that power and yes we do have free will. If that was the case our own justice system is messed up then. How can you imprison someone if they are just following the laws of nature.

Just because God knows what we are going to do in the future does not mean he is preventing free will. If I put a piece of ice on the ground, I know it will melt. I am not causing it to melt. Knowledge of an event does not imply causation.

Just because God knows our choices in the future does not mean he is influencing them.

The universe is not deterministic.

On the quantum scale there is only randomness, particles are defied not by their exact locations and impulses, they are defined by probability functions, when attempting to measure it the outcome is not predictable. Any experiment on that scale has more than one possible outcome and you can't predict it, you can only predict the probability of one outcome over the other. There is no determinism. This is not crackpot science, this is accepted and proven mainstream physics.

The outcome of an experiment is determined (actively!) by the mere act of observing it. At this point there is plenty of room for philosophizing about consciousness (what exactly is an observer) and free will (influencing (wishing) on which side of the wave function collapse to be after the collapse, observing what we want to observe, manifesting reality!). The top notch quantum physicists of this world are openly philosophizing about these things because exactly at this point are the open question marks and exactly at this point the question of "what is an observer" must be answered.

Does Hawkins seriously deny the validity of almost a century of quantum mechanics? Does he suffer from senile dementia now? This would be sad, but obviously the only explanation for him suddenly coming up with this 16th century determinism nonsense.

How can one man have so much knowledge and so little wisdom?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Check my edit..

Yup, already did.

Just realizing our physical origin really shoots down day-to-day meaningless thinking, I find. Honestly, I only involve myself in society only to maintain my basic survival needs. My thoughts are always on the bigger picture. I offend people constantly because I don't try to pretend that the things that they see as important to them mean little to me (like working, TV, etc).

Of course, such a line of thinking leads to a lonely existence. The only people that I enjoy communicating with are usually wise students and instructors at my university, or a few select friends who have also seen similar darkness.

Maybe that's what scientists are all about. Because of their comprehension of the world around them, they just can't communicate on an enjoyable level, so they acredit it by saying that humans have no soul because science can't prove it.

And another observation that I have deeply realized:

Humans are afraid of darkness. We are attracted to light like moths to a flame. We can't survive without it, and so we fill the night with light just because it is comforting.

But what is the darkness? When a man looks into the abyss, he sees only a reflection of himself.

Is it ourselves that we fear?

I wonder, if we had no choice but to jump into the bright sun or dive into dark space, would instinct drive us towards the sun?

let's see how anyone creates.

you start with an idea, right?


i have a friend who creates art with material already in existence. successful too.

if you were da vinci you use whatever there was around at the time.

if you were to create the cosmos with trillions of galaxies and planets that are dynamic.

would you be smouching giant rocks together? or using some very small things that will eventually grow and try to figure out what is going on?


make things so frikin far away and mind blowing, that life will take millions of years to even be aware of what is out there.


start it up at the smallest level and watch what happens. that's creative.

eventually we might figure out that there is no unified field theory but just one "d'oh!" moment when we solve it.

or never, if it's all so mech or mathematical or quantum or whatever, we should be gods in about 100 years. if we can get off this planet, lol!!!

reply to post by Nikola014
I bet Hawking's quaking in his wheelchair.

Some internet non-entity using Hawking as a figurehead to beat science with is nothing new.

That's why he calls for people to denounce the core philosophy of "mindlessness" from which much of modern science springs and, instead, embrace a more advanced understanding of our universe that makes consciousness the focal point of our existence.

"If modern science believes that human beings are mere biological robots with no consciousness, then we must really question why we are listening to these scientists at all," explains Adams, who believes that humans are a combination of mind, body and spirit that exists far beyond the current understanding of the physical sciences.

Mindless New Age garbage. What does the first sentence actually set out to say? The second paragraph is more sweeping generalisations with no real meaning.

He reads like the type of dreamer who'd offer hugs and positive thinking to combat disease and wars...

Common cold = 1 hug
Measles = 3 hugs and positive thinking
War = hold hands and sing peace songs...whilst hugging lol!

He's another hypocritical idiot using the inventions of science (internet, laptop, mass-produced chair, room, windows, clothes etc) to complain about science.

reply to post by Somehumanbeing


My thoughts are just because a predisposition (physiological) bias exists does not nullify free will. I understand we are merely a collection of recycled matter, some of it living. But to justify every action and thought (which should be considered action) of a being to be predetermined I don't believe is the case.

Right now I am going to hold up one hand, I can choose left or right, you can't believe I don't have the potential to actually choose in this moment which one to raise. Granted there is no doubt some bias exists toward one over the other, but just living this in real time I have gone back and forth several times which one to pick. For this to be predetermined is just not true. Obviously, this can be extrapolated to more meaningful decisions.

I understand what you are saying, I just argue that no matter how much bias exists toward an action the choice is always ultimately our own, hence free will. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Humanity needs to learn to have an open mind. We used to think the world was flat. We used to believe that Earth was the center of the universe. If you would go back 1000 years and told those people about electricity, computers, cell phones, etc. they would call you insane.

We create our reality because we have the ability to do so. Nothing is too crazy to believe or research.... especially that with fact behind it.

reply to post by fooks


That hurts fooks..
I had to give you a star..

Wonders never cease...

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Discarding of free-will doesn't deny the reasons we have for laws. We have laws so that collections of cells such as can work together (and thus increase survival chances) against the ones that been bred into being a negative influence on the greater masses.

Regarding predicting, this is just simply not possible with todays computation powers. For example, how easy is it for you to multiply 12 by 5?. Now try multiplying 1405630543 by 204549353009. It takes much, much, much more time and focus, doesn't it, it's not difficult, but the simple act of predicting a highly complex action as a simple task done in 5 minutes is so much more strenuous on time and "computational" power than predicting the action of a few atoms undergoing a chemical bond.


That by the time the computation is done, the action would have long been performed.

dbbl post!

reply to post by soldita


I understand what you are saying aswell. But let me retort. I touched on this with the Pre-programming and post-programming.


Genetics "sets the stage" so to speak for your future categories actions (actions being a general term for everything, from thoughts to movement), while experience and environment promote certain actions in those cateogires.

Genes are in cells.

Experience (ie memory) are stored in the brain, in cellular formations of specific patterns. (which can lead to structural change sof the brain over time)

Environment influences both genes and experience through external administration of cells (ie, food)

What i'm trying to get at simply, is if our actions are ingrained in physical matter both before, during, and after an action, then free will is nullified. If for example, I see a person speaking like normal, while an EEG scan(perfectly) functioning shows no electrical activity at ALL in the brain. Then I would be really intrigued.


In other words, if I saw a person without a brain at all (serious) acting like a normal person with a brain. Then that could be free-will. But that is impossible.


A rock shows more "free will" than humans do.

reply to post by backinblack


hey thanks BIBy!

sorry to hurt you!

i will repay your kindness.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

most modern scientists do not believe human beings have free will, a soul, or even anything resembling consciousness.

The problem with religion is it has deceived many into believing they are divine beings constructed in the image of their creator. It's harder to accept what the harsh realities of science say about humans and human nature.

LOL religion didn't do anything... it's evil people twisting it into something it's not and ignorant people who believe this misrepresentation. unfortunately you have fallen into the same trap as millions of believers in this respect. very few people truly understand religion. remember the Bible was written by human hands. the answers are within yourself. unfortunately the evil ones have found a way so we are all struggling so much for the Almighty dollar to have any time to have a glance within. I'm fortunate enough to be unemployed. 3 years and goin strong! If you refuse to play by their rules then you can learn lots of neat stuff!

reply to post by SpaceMonkeys

Hello SM,
I agree with you 100%....we're more than just a biological and chemical robot of some description...and nobody in this day and age knows what the story is....but there has to be more....that will be for future investigators to answer....we might find out personaly when we pass on....I hope so...

Now to hawkings...some people treat him as though his a god....alot of people in the world have never heard of him.....me and alot of other people don't care about his opinions...just one theorist amongst thousands...

I have a very logical, rational mind. Top of my class, academic accolades etc. I'd LIKE to believe in God, but it's hard to believe in the god concepts of religion. Still, I have my own personal god concepts and beliefs, and I can recognize the UTILITY of religion.

Mr. Hawking has become a bitter old man in a wheelchair. Sorry. First off all, anyone with an ounce of sense, atheist or not, would have to look at the human race as innately flawed, and recognize that many people DO need religion, whether in the end it represents reality or not. And that beliefs that may work for them may not work for everyone. I sometimes feel very much alone when I listen to egghead atheists who advocate the abolition of religion, knowing some of them MAY be as intellectually intelligent as me (a few even moreso), yet they can't see what to me is perfectly obvious.

I think it illustrates the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is like the engine of the car, while wisdom like a destination or direction. Intelligence, applied correctly, can get you towards wisdom a lot faster. Or applied incorrectly, it can send you in entirely different directions, or even be used for all kinds of evil and destruction. After all, it took a lot of really smart people to design the Fukushima plants, the Chernobyl plant, all the nuclear weapons, biological weapons, homeland security surveillance devices. I'm sure many in the bilderberg group and others who are plotting the destruction of our way of life are very smart people. They have to be. yet all that intelligence, when applied for evil, leads to some of the world's worst and more appalling crimes.

Intelligence isn't the answer, Mr. Hawking. Wisdom is, truth is, humility is, and a lot of the world's religions have explored the ideas of wisdom and truth and humility very deeply. You would be wise to get off your wheeled high horse and study their messages.

According to you, my free will is an illusion and my very consciousness is an illusion. "I think therefore I am" -- I am here, conscious, aware, and choosing to say these words. Whether some robot race in Alpha Centauri would regard me as having free will is irrelevant -- the debate as to whether my free will and consciousness is "real" is moot, for any rational or practical purpose. Either people have true free will, or it is an illusion -- but in either case, it is to the person's benefit to believe in their own free will. Free will means responsibility for one's actions and choices. The last thing we need is to remove THAT. Why would an intelligent man like yourself be unable to see that?

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by Nikola014

 

well hawking should have a unique perspective on life.

ya think??

i think this guy is trying to spin something.

one of the most brilliant minds on the planet thinks he's a collection of impulses?

in a wheel chair with his condition and position?

personally i would be pretty on board with the higher power,

thankful i had what i have and not dumpster material.

or in a home.

granted he established himself before he got worse but

if anyone would think about a creator, it would be him.


eta; i'm way off, huh.

edit on 12-6-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)

Actually I think that Hawking is a bitter old man who wants to see his handicap as proof that there is no god. He's lashing out like a spoiled child that didn't get their way on the playground.

As a poster said, the universe is not deterministic but Hawking is bitterly trying to make it so.

Every single reaction, to every single motion, is a chemical reaction with in us, to break down these chemical components that make these other components up, and describe it, is almost impossible to describe.