How old do you believe the Earth is?

[Kulindahr]

Hawking's remark isn't just dissimilar, it precludes your interpretation.

Um... I didn't offer an interpretation.
And there's nothing about his statement that precludes the other comment -- indeed nothing about his statement that address the issue of God at all, except in the often-found-delightful parallel with Christian theology, i.e. that there "wasn't even nothing" before our universe.

And we're back to disagreeing over basic terms. You take the universe to be a particular thing which exists in a greater context. What do you call that larger, all-consuming context if not the universe? I'm in need of a noun here, in order to make this conversation productive.

I've been using Susskind's terminology, which I like. Let's see if I can get it straight without going back to the book and digging.

"Universe" means an entity like ours, which began with the Big Bang: its own set of physical constants, its own boundary therefore, its own contents which, as with us, can't move from one such realm to the next.

The collection of all universes which do exist, he refers to as the "megaverse", in which universes are like pockets -- was it Hawking who used the illustration of bubbles of air in a great ocean of water?

The collection of universes which we see as possible -- I think I've got this right -- under current theory, he calls the "Landscape". It obviously includes our universe, but does not include any conceivable universe, since apparently string theory says that not all combinations of constants are possible (I don't grasp that, but then I stopped math at vector calculus and such). The concept of supersymmetry is tied up with the Landscape, but I'd have to go back to that chapter to do much more than grope at the connection (something about supersymmetry serving to tell us where the Landscape is empty????).

He mentions that quite a number of physicists use "multiverse" instead of megaverse, and that a few even use "omniverse".

 

[bankside]

What assumption?
And what contradictions? If I make any assumptions beforehand about how God did something, that gets in the way of finding out how He did -- that's not a contradiction, it's just common sense.

That was either willfully incoherent - the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANNANA" - or pitiable. My contention is that you can't assume as a given that god was available to do something . I don't know how I can put it more plainly. To insist that god exists is to refuse to ask whether he exists or not. You are evidently comfortable with that refusal, but it is unscientific. Nothing about your proposition is common sense; it calls for proof.

What's a "proper christian big bang"?

I can tell you: it's a fantasy you're inventing because of some prejudice. The only "proper Christian Big Bang" is the Big Bang that really occurred.
That's the same as a "proper Christian" anything -- a proper Christian history would be one that tells history as it was; a proper Christian biology would be one that describes biology as it really is; a proper Christian chemistry would be one that explains how chemicals really do interact.

If christianity is indeed committed to telling history like it is as you contend, then a proper christian big bang is one that would concede that divinity might be irrelevant or non-existant. Proper christian biology would concede that life may never have been sparked, fostered, made more likely by dint of divine intervention. Proper christian chemistry would concede that it is just possible to accept chemicals on their own terms without needing them to have been first imagined by a figure of divinity.

No prejudice required.

 

[Kulindahr]

That was either willfully incoherent - the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANNANA" - or pitiable. My contention is that you can't assume as a given that god was available to do something . I don't know how I can put it more plainly. To insist that god exists is to refuse to ask whether he exists or not. You are evidently comfortable with that refusal, but it is unscientific. Nothing about your proposition is common sense; it calls for proof.

Being translated, this means, "My worldview is acceptable and you have to make yours meet its standards".
Sorry, but that's a position of faith, not of science.
Not even Hawking or Susskind are so arrogant.

If christianity is indeed committed to telling history like it is as you contend, then a proper christian big bang is one that would concede that divinity might be irrelevant or non-existant. Proper christian biology would concede that life may never have been sparked, fostered, made more likely by dint of divine intervention. Proper christian chemistry would concede that it is just possible to accept chemicals on their own terms without needing them to have been first imagined by a figure of divinity.

No prejudice required.

That's fallacious. There is no possible theory of the Big Bang that says that God is irrelevant, because none of those theories ask "Who?", they only ask "How?" The same is true of the rest.

You're trying to insist that science describes all there is. No good scientist will make such a claim.

 

[bankside]

Being translated, this means, "My worldview is acceptable and you have to make yours meet its standards".
Sorry, but that's a position of faith, not of science.
Not even Hawking or Susskind are so arrogant.

Not that either reality or the study of reality concerns themselves with "world views," but if you want to argue in favour of each person being entitled to his own "world view", then bandying around the charge of arrogance seems a little out of place.

That's fallacious. There is no possible theory of the Big Bang that says that God is irrelevant, because none of those theories ask "Who?", they only ask "How?" The same is true of the rest.

Who told you that asking "who?" was a question outside the purview of science?

You're trying to insist that science describes all there is. No good scientist will make such a claim.

"All that is" is susceptible to scientific description. Science is a whore; she will put out for any data.

Of course many things are still undescribed, but it is still early on a Friday night, so to speak. Science has downed half a bottle of tequila, the high heels are on, and the cars are cruising slowly down the street.

I've been using Susskind's terminology, which I like. Let's see if I can get it straight without going back to the book and digging.

"Universe" means an entity like ours, which began with the Big Bang: its own set of physical constants, its own boundary therefore, its own contents which, as with us, can't move from one such realm to the next.

The collection of all universes which do exist, he refers to as the "megaverse", in which universes are like pockets -- was it Hawking who used the illustration of bubbles of air in a great ocean of water?

The collection of universes which we see as possible -- I think I've got this right -- under current theory, he calls the "Landscape". It obviously includes our universe, but does not include any conceivable universe, since apparently string theory says that not all combinations of constants are possible (I don't grasp that, but then I stopped math at vector calculus and such). The concept of supersymmetry is tied up with the Landscape, but I'd have to go back to that chapter to do much more than grope at the connection (something about supersymmetry serving to tell us where the Landscape is empty????).

He mentions that quite a number of physicists use "multiverse" instead of megaverse, and that a few even use "omniverse".

Megaverse, multiverse, omniverse, landscape. None of those words encompass your concept of god, do they? I'm still wondering what your word is for the whole shebang & just wanted to clarify.

 

[Kulindahr]

"All that is" is susceptible to scientific description.

That's a purely a priori assumption -- or circular reasoning.

 

[bankside]

Yes!

I daresay it is both of those things!

It is evident of itself, on the sofa as I type, as it is how the word "science" is defined.

And, it is a case of circular reasoning that works in favour of the proposition. The only way to falsify the proposition is to demonstrate the existence of something which is infinitely hidden, beyond meaning or consequence or interaction, yet the act of demonstration would actually support the proposition.

So, let us concede there is a universe of things unknowable to science, as long as they remain mute, impotent, excluded, and functionally non-existent. Some concession!

What is the difference between no god, and a god who is obliged to pretend he does not exist, lest he give away the game?

I've heard funnier jokes, but the one you are proposing is pretty good:
Knock knock?
Who's there?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes!

I daresay it is both of those things!

It is evident of itself, on the sofa as I type, as it is how the word "science" is defined.

And, it is a case of circular reasoning that works in favour of the proposition. The only way to falsify the proposition is to demonstrate the existence of something which is infinitely hidden, beyond meaning or consequence or interaction, yet the act of demonstration would actually support the proposition.

So, let us concede there is a universe of things unknowable to science, as long as they remain mute, impotent, excluded, and functionally non-existent. Some concession!

You just compound the circularity, by saying you'll concede the existence of things outside the reach of your measurements, so long as demonstrating their existence is done by using the reach of your measurements. That's essentially, again, saying that you agree things exist that you agree exist.

And the latter is false: science cannot, for example, address the question of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, let alone the Resurrection of Jesus Himself. Science assumes such things cannot occur because science is assuming a closed system with no one on the outside able to interfere. That is totally an assumption.

It's a lot like being a guy on the freeway, telling his passenger that there are no railroads, because if there were railroads, we'd see trains right here on the freeway: you're operating with the assumption that anything which exists, will be found on the freeway.

 

[bankside]

I am truly humbled by the task of asking a simple question. I say that with no irony.

What is this "outside" you speak of? You keep referring to it obliquely, and I keep trying to get at where that fits into your concept of things. If it is external to the universe, what is the name you give to the set which contains "the universe" and "the outside?" If you would just furnish me with a noun that makes sense to you, I suspect I will have an easier time of explaining my view to you.

You just compound the circularity, by saying you'll concede the existence of things outside the reach of your measurements, so long as demonstrating their existence is done by using the reach of your measurements.

Propose an alternate measurement. I meant the term broadly, but if you intend to understand it as "the suite of data sensors available with current engineering technology" then propose something else. See if science resists using new sources of data.

 

[Kulindahr]

What is this "outside" you speak of? You keep referring to it obliquely, and I keep trying to get at where that fits into your concept of things. If it is external to the universe, what is the name you give to the set which contains "the universe" and "the outside?" If you would just furnish me with a noun that makes sense to you, I suspect I will have an easier time of explaining my view to you.

There is no set that contains the universe and the outside -- that's why it's "outside".

Propose an alternate measurement. I meant the term broadly, but if you intend to understand it as "the suite of data sensors available with current engineering technology" then propose something else. See if science resists using new sources of data.

Again the circularity: "new sources of data" means "extended reach of science". You can't even conceive that there might be something science can't measure.

As I noted before, Hawking, Einstein, and other greats have no been so arrogant.

 

[bankside]

There is no set that contains the universe and the outside -- that's why it's "outside".

As long as you continue to assert that there is no communication between the inside and the outside, I contend the outside doesn't matter. In your view, when god closes a door, he evidently also leaves the window shut.

And not naming the set of both things that you contend exist is your prerogative but it doesn't for a second stop anyone from considering how they relate as one system.

Again the circularity: "new sources of data" means "extended reach of science". You can't even conceive that there might be something science can't measure.

As I noted before, Hawking, Einstein, and other greats have no been so arrogant.

No, I let it slide before but if you insist on the charge of arrogance, I'll answer it. First in defence of scientists at whom you take an oblique swipe, and for myself. I don't have any stake in expanding some sort of "imperium of science." Firstly if it were an imperium, it wouldn't be science. And there is no arrogance in saying that if there is something external to the universe, either it relates to the universe somehow and the relationship is thus measurable, or it never ever relates at all and is moot. Arrogance comes from ego. There is no ego in that postulation. You impute mediæval machiavellian motives to my statements or maybe some sort of freudian crap, when I'm simply saying what I think is likely to be the case.

Your problem is you can't conceive of something that science can't measure, but for some reason that bothers you.

 

[Kulindahr]

And there is no arrogance in saying that if there is something external to the universe, either it relates to the universe somehow and the relationship is thus measurable, or it never ever relates at all and is moot. Arrogance comes from ego. There is no ego in that postulation. You impute mediæval machiavellian motives to my statements or maybe some sort of freudian crap, when I'm simply saying what I think is likely to be the case.

That's called "stating an axiom".
I'm not imputing any motives -- I'm observing that you can't conceive of anything that science can't measure.

Your problem is you can't conceive of something that science can't measure, but for some reason that bothers you.

I can conceive of numerous things science can't measure. But to you, if science can't measure it, it doesn't exist -- you've made that quite plain. But such a claim is arrogant; it ascribes to human capabilities an omniscient potential for which no grounds are given -- and that's bad science.

 

[bankside]

That's called "stating an axiom".
I'm not imputing any motives -- I'm observing that you can't conceive of anything that science can't measure.



I can conceive of numerous things science can't measure. But to you, if science can't measure it, it doesn't exist -- you've made that quite plain. But such a claim is arrogant; it ascribes to human capabilities an omniscient potential for which no grounds are given -- and that's bad science.

This is like debating a sociologist. Science is not a "human capability" or a "social construct" or something. I'm not so much immediately concerned about what exists, or what your imagination or mine can conceive of. My point is, and always has been, if you can experience it, science can measure it.

 

[CandyBoi420]

Hundreds and hundreds of years old.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is like debating a sociologist. Science is not a "human capability" or a "social construct" or something. I'm not so much immediately concerned about what exists, or what your imagination or mine can conceive of. My point is, and always has been, if you can experience it, science can measure it.

No, this is like debating a philosopher who insists on clarity of thought.

Your statement that "if you can experience it, science can measure it", is either a statement of faith, or an imposition of your arrogance concerning what is human upon the universe. Many, many scientists would disagree with you; that makes it your personal definition, with nothing to do with either what science actually is or what the universe/multiverse/'realm of existence' is.

Logically, there is a realm which science can indeed measure. What you're saying is that there is no other realm. In philosophy, that's called an a priori assumption. Further, you're stating that there is a realm of things which humans can experience, and then you equate this with the former realm -- in set theory, you declare that these are proper subsets one of the other. That, again, is an a priori assumption.

Now, a priori assumptions are one thing when made in matters of mathematics; they're a way of playing "what if". In science, they are often called conjectures, propositions assumed to be true in order to proceed, but which may later be found to be untrue.

But neither of those is what you're doing here. You're making a priori assumptions about the nature of existence, and those are statements of faith. You're not setting them forth as hypotheses, as a scientist would, things open to testing; you're asserting them as the nature of things. That takes you out of science and into ontology, which when speculative, and not arrived at in terms of rigorous reasoning, are generally termed metaphysics.

Now if you want to engage in metaphysics, that's one thing. But to assert that your particular metaphysics is in a relationship to reality in a way that is, to use mathematical terms, both one-on-one and onto, is quite a grandiose claim. It is in fact a greater claim than any theologian would make.


But to return to your sets: logically, there is no reason to claim that the set of things which science can measure (call it set ScM) is contains as a proper subset and is a proper subset of the set of things humans can experience (call it HcE). That is merely one of several logical possibilities. Ignore from the outset the option that ScM and HcE are entirely independent; as science is a human activity (so far, anyway), ScM is no greater than a proper subset of HcE. That latter also rules out that ScM merely intersects with HcE; so long as the only practitioners of science that we know are human, ScM is of necessity a subset of HcE (this includes, obviously, the matter of experience-by-extension; certainly no humans will venture to experience directly the collision of particles at CERN, or the temperatures of a blast furnace).

Thus ScM is a subset of HcE.

But it remains to asses the standing of HcE, with respect to the set of AtE, all that exists. Again, we can rule out one option easily: HcE cannot be greater than AtE (excluding the realm of imagination). So again we find that one is no greater than a proper subset of the other.

Now we have a hierarchy: ScM is a subset of HcE, which in turn is a subset of AtE. You propose that these are all in fact the same thing, i.e. ScM=HcE=AtE. But that ignores these: ScM<HcE<AtE ; ScM=HcE<AtE ; ScM<HcE=AtE.

And all that is without entertaining the question of the super- or paranatural.

 

[Dolmance]

It's not a matter of belief; it's a matter of considering critically where the current evidence points, and the current evidence points to: sort of really old. Not in comparisson to the rest of the universe, or even other bodies within our galaxy, but still really, really, really, really old by human standards. Certainly older than the biblical literalists and young earthers like to believe. I mean, 6,000 years? there are man made structures in my home countrey older than that (Stone Henge, for example).

 

[ChickenGuy]

I have never seen such an incomprehensible exchange of views in my life....

....as that on this thread, between Kulindahr and bankside

I've been completely outclassed in the intellectual department, and I've long given up even trying to remotely understand what the two of you are on about.

As the OP of this thread, may I ask a favour of you both?

Can you both explain to me in layman's terms, and as briefly as possible,

a) your views
b) your opponent's views
c) the difference between them

IN TERMS SO I CAN UNDERSTAND!

Thankyou!

 

[bankside]

LOL ChickenGuy - If Kulindahr and I were more proficient in these matters, I suspect we might have resolved many of our differences months and months ago, or at the very least even if we didn't agree, we would have been able to at least have explained our differences to each other briefly & succinctly.

The fact that it has taken us so long to get this far makes me think we're both operating somewhere near the the edge of our capacity for reason, comprehension & explanation.

Anyway, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability, but I'm going to be away from a computer for a couple of days & I'm grateful in advance for your patience.

 

[PetCuddlePuppy]

being that the earth is still spinning from what appears to be from a cataclysmic event and the galaxy is still expanding, it can't be very old at all relatively to the universe. i guess we'll never know

 

[Lefty]

chickie, do't go getting your peckeer in an uproar over those two EGGheads. they don't know what the flock they are sqwalking about, just reveling in the ruffling of a few tail feathers.

no, here in simple engrish and eye mein simple is the answer to your qwest-yun.

The earth, she is old enogh to know better and about to throwus all out of the henhouse. She is turning on the heat globally and preparing the land for a serious bathing from the polar ice-less caps on down.

don't listen to any other COCKa mamie idaes from these birdbrains, i have been up since the CRACK of time not just dawn ruminating the question.....ok, guess i've milked this all i cud

in parting, let me say viva la chance i want in some down unders pants

yr rite, i shd bee and yam

 

[Kulindahr]

My personal idea (i could be very wrong, and if I am proved wrong I'll openly admit it) is that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe (this one ) is 13+ Billion Years old, there are possibly several universes, M-theory (apart from multi universes is a crock) and that God exists separate from time, (seeing as time is only a human creation) the "big bang" is NOT universes colliding (you have no idea how much I hate that theory...) but more or less a human reasoning to try to explain something we can't comprehend. And before anyone asks how I can believe in God and aspects of science, I argue that science (the nitty gritty of Philosophy) actually proves God exists. The mathematical circumstances to have to exsist in perfect harmony for our planet to form are just too unlikely without the assistance of "something" (I call this "something" God.) Long story short, earth= 4.5 billion, universe= 13Billion+, God exists separate from time so no need to ask why comes before God, there is only God

What, you don't like the 'brane' metaphysics?

Time apparently comes in quanta like everything but love, so it's not a human invention in the strict sense of the word.

BTW, on the business of "the mathematical circumstances... for our planet to form [being] too unlikely without... assistance", I think you're talking about what is called "fine tuning". On that subject, Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape" is a good read. I personally think he fails to make his case that the fine-tuning is "an illusion", but it really helps get the whole realm covered.
He's sort of the 'inventor' of string theory, BTW.

My older brother, mathematician and computer-genius, says that God is a universe Himself, n-dimensional with but one point (but not a singularity), which is in all respects both 'one to one' and 'onto' with all of Creation in all its dimensions, which gives a mathematical foundation for omnipresence and omniscience (omnipotence is arguable). Given that definition, the response to the question "Does God exist?" is "the question is wrong", because existence implies being constrained by time -- but God is equally present at every spacetime quantum yet outside time (it's comparable in a way to asking, where on the highway do I find the geometry, because the geometry both covers and underlies the entire highway).
This can be summed up as: We exist. God IS.