Stephen Hawking on Discovery's curiosity

[Chalnoth]

I'm almost agreed to that. I think, in theory, there could be objective evidence, but we certainly haven't observed any.

No, there can't be. The problem is that the definition of a god isn't nailed down. Without a nailed-down definition, it is impossible for us to ever find any evidence against a god: any observation, no matter what it is, can be made to fit. Without any possibility of ever finding any evidence against a god, it is impossible to find evidence for one.

Now there's a topic for the philosophy forum! Are you using statistics to back up that claim? If so, I'd be curious about your data set. If not, how does one justify such a claim without using subjective evidence?

It's relatively straightforward. It basically boils down Occam's Razor: when comparing two theories which describe the observational evidence equally well, then the one with fewer parameters is more likely to be true.

So we can disprove a god by comparing a god hypothesis to a straw man theory: whatever it is that this god is purported to explain, we can say it simply happened on its own for no reason instead. In most cases, we don't think this straw man theory is remotely likely, so if the god hypothesis comes out worse than the straw man theory, then it is obscenely unlikely. A very simple example would be to answer the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

The straw man theory would be adding an assumption into the laws of physics that states that the universe starts with a specific set of parameters.

The god hypothesis would be to say that some god started the universe with a specific set of parameters.

Because this god is inherently inscrutable, such that its actions can never be understood, we can never infer from the properties of this god what the parameters should be. Therefore, the two hypotheses are absolutely identical, except that the second one adds another entity, a god, doing the defining of these parameters, instead of simply saying that the parameters are what they are. The one including a god has no testable differences compared to the one without, but it does have an additional entity: a god, one that is capable of creating a universe and deciding how it should be created. Such an entity is incredibly complex, and so this hypothesis is vastly less likely than the straw man of saying it simply happened.

 

[keepit]

the assertion that there was no time before the big bang seems inaccurate. If this universe is a quantum fluctuation out of a "much larger scenario" then it is clear that there was much time before the big bang.

 

[Chalnoth]

the assertion that there was no time before the big bang seems inaccurate. If this universe is a quantum fluctuation out of a "much larger scenario" then it is clear that there was much time before the big bang.

Well, it really depends upon the model. While I do prefer that particular model, it isn't necessarily the correct one.

Though I should mention that even in the case of a universe born as a quantum fluctuation within a parent universe, it isn't clear that the time coordinate of the child universe connects directly to the time coordinate of the parent universe.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Actually, it does, through the exclusion principle. Basically, this says that if the laws of physics describe everything in our universe (which they do), then there is no god that has any relevance to anything we might ever do because there is nothing for a god to do. This argument applies to anything supernatural.

It should be no wonder, given this argument, that people try to stuff their own idea of a god into our gaps in knowledge, such as the birth of our universe, but this is fundamentally illogical.

Well, you always can ask the question what caused these laws of physics to occur in the first place, and you get to an infinite loop of questions-answers, you can never disregard God's existence cause you can never stop questioning our knowledge, I mean you can never really answer the existence of God, for one simple reason, it's not even well defined.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, you always can ask the question what caused these laws of physics to occur in the first place, and you get to an infinite loop of questions-answers, you can never disregard God's existence cause you can never stop questioning our knowledge, I mean you can never really answer the existence of God, for one simple reason, it's not even well defined.

The idea that you need a god to produce a mathematical structure is patently absurd. It's like saying you need a god for algebra to work! And it falls for the other argument that I laid out just a couple of posts above.

 

[jackmell]

Well, you always can ask the question what caused these laws of physics to occur in the first place, and you get to an infinite loop of questions-answers, .

You're just asking for another turtle. Just call me the paradox-killer: I believe it's possible we cannot use our laws of cause-and-effect that we observe on this side of the Big Bang critical point to explain phenomena on the other side. The rules may change so that questions such as "well, what "caused" that to happen?" and "then what's that turtle standing on?" just do not apply. It is not correct in my opinion to assume we can extrapolate all the behavior we see in our world, to the pre-existence. Things there may be very, very different and there just may be no cause-and-effect there.

 

[cephron]

It's relatively straightforward. It basically boils down Occam's Razor: when comparing two theories which describe the observational evidence equally well, then the one with fewer parameters is more likely to be true.

Occam's Razor is another cool topic, yes. But you're still talking about observational evidence here, and I don't see how this answers my question.

You claimed:

And when all you have is subjective evidence, you are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

and I was asking how you were backing up that claim (specifically, how one would back it up without using subjective evidence, which would lead to contradiction).

On the other hand, it's very possible that I missed something in your assessment that actually does apply. If so, could you please point it out?

 

[Chalnoth]

Occam's Razor is another cool topic, yes. But you're still talking about observational evidence here, and I don't see how this answers my question.

You claimed:

and I was asking how you were backing up that claim (specifically, how one would back it up without using subjective evidence, which would lead to contradiction).

On the other hand, it's very possible that I missed something in your assessment that actually does apply. If so, could you please point it out?

Subjective evidence, being unverifiable, is the equivalent of having no evidence. Hence my argument regarding what you do when there is no evidence to guide the way: throw out the more complex theory, which a theory which includes a god always is.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Actually time does exist before the big bang. The big bang created two not one universe. One is going forward in time (us) and the other is going backward in time. The two universes occupy the same space just in different times. While our universe is composed of mass and energy, this other universe is made of antimass and antienergy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually time does exist before the big bang. The big bang created two not one universe. One is going forward in time (us) and the other is going backward in time. The two universes occupy the same space just in different times. While our universe is composed of mass and energy, this other universe is made of antimass and antienergy.

You cannot assert that with confidence. This model is extremely speculative at best. It's not obviously impossible, but it's only one of many possibilities.

 

[cephron]

Subjective evidence, being unverifiable, is the equivalent of having no evidence.

Yes, subjective evidence is empirically unverifiable by definition, and is therefore equivalent to no evidence for scientific pursuits. However, it does have value in the realm of personal choices. If someone has subjective evidence that suggests to them the existence of God or something about his nature, this can have implications for various life decisions.

Of course, it's still unverifiable, which is one of the reasons it's usually called "having faith" in God. Believers can't prove their beliefs to be true, especially not to others (to whom their own subjective evidence is essentially inaccessible). But, from their own perspective, it can be a rational belief, with more evidence backing it than the Occam's Razor null-hypothesis alternative.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, subjective evidence is empirically unverifiable by definition, and is therefore equivalent to no evidence for scientific pursuits.

Which is fine when you're making a personal decision, so it's no wonder that religions try to cast the idea of choosing a religion as a personal choice. The problem with this idea, however, is that religions make truth claims about the nature of reality. And the nature of reality is absolutely, positively not a personal choice: reality simply is, and we only stand to fool ourselves when we try to pretend the nature of reality is up to personal choice.

But, from their own perspective, it can be a rational belief, with more evidence backing it than the Occam's Razor null-hypothesis alternative.

No, it really can't. That is completely and utterly impossible, because our human minds are subject to a tremendous variety of flaws which lead to the wrong conclusions all the time. Because of the errors we make so routinely, it is fundamentally illogical to make a decision about the nature of reality as if it were merely a personal decision.

 

[mehulahir]

if we know all the things about t=0 second that why this explosen begibns every thing about t=0 seconds then can we know about tomorrow or what should we aware with to know for tomorrow

 

[cephron]

@Chalnoth:
Sorry, I didn't present that bit about choice very well. First of all, let me say that I agree with you strongly that "the nature of reality is absolutely, positively not a personal choice: reality simply is, and we only stand to fool ourselves when we try to pretend the nature of reality is up to personal choice." I was not trying to imply that the nature of reality is changed by or dependent upon personal choice. Personal choice comes into the picture in certain situations, summarized below:

-Some parts or "aspects" of the nature of reality (eg. is there a God, or is there no God?) are not made certain when working with empirical evidence alone. That is, all empirical evidence concerning this aspect, when taken into account, leads to a tie between two or more possible truths (one of which could be the OR's null-hypothesis).
-For some people, subjective evidence informs them further about this aspect. It does this with different degrees of certainty, but let's assume that it doesn't actually prove the truth of the aspect, only gives evidence (we can't be certain that it doesn't ever prove something, because, being subjective, such proof - if it existed - could never be conveyed to us).
-Sometimes, the aspect of reality in question is significant enough that what a person believes its truth to be is important to decide. Because they are only dealing with subjective evidence at this point (empirical evidence leading to a tie between possibilities, so all that's left to judge with is subjective evidence), any potential truth is unverifiable. We know that one answer is correct, but we do not know which. So, belief here is a personal choice, recognizing that it could be wrong. Obviously, people should try to choose the correct possibility...

...but, like you said, our minds our flawed and can lead us to wrong conclusions. So the "personal choice" of what one chooses to believe consists of assessing all the empirical and subjective evidence one has, trying to construct an accurate worldview, and continuously checking model against new input from experiences. To ignore all your subjective evidence is one way of making that choice, but nothing guarantees that will leave you with a correct understanding of reality. Nor does choosing to actively consider subjective evidence mean you can no longer do science; the subjective evidence simply applies to areas of concern outside of science.

But to assert that everyone's subjective evidence does nothing but mislead them seems odd, since 1) one does not know the actual truth of the aspect, and therefore 2) one does not know whether someone's subjective evidence is working in favor of or against the actual truth of the aspect.

 

[Chalnoth]

But to assert that everyone's subjective evidence does nothing but mislead them seems odd, since 1) one does not know the actual truth of the aspect, and therefore 2) one does not know whether someone's subjective evidence is working in favor of or against the actual truth of the aspect.

This is why it's best to just go for verifiable evidence instead. And if there exists only subjective evidence for some hypothesis regarding the nature of reality, the only rational thing to do is disbelieve it in proportion to the complexity of the proposal.

But what's more, in this case, it isn't even possible for there to be any evidence in favor of the proposal, because the thing being proposed, a god, can potentially explain any evidence whatsoever. So it's not just that the evidence is only subjective, but that evidence itself is a fundamental impossibility.