A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

I mentioned this in passing because I was under the impression Hawking had abandoned his "no boundaries universe" - the Hartle Hawking state - to embrace colliding branes and a return to the big bang. The website I stumbled across is identifying the two ideas as two parts of the same cosmology. Of course, colliding branes is another way to get rid of the need for a creator which seems to be Hawking's main motivation. Until I found that website, I had never seen anything tying together the Hartle Hawking state with colliding branes. I'm not sure if the website is correct or not. Hawking rejects the universe having a beginning of time. Let me quote again from the book: With the big bang, the universe had a beginning. With Hartle Hawking, the universe does not have a beginning. There is an expansion, but no edge, no boundary, no beginning. Through this contrivance he is able to do away with the need for a creator. But again, this idea has never caught on.

I have read the book. This is why I know that you are talking crap. You have not read the book. This is why you do not know that you are talking crap.

The singularity at the beginning of the universe is the definition of the big bang. Without the singularity and beginning of the universe, you have an expanding universe without a beginning. Where's the bang? Hawking clearly says he "changed his mind." This is equivalent wording to "turning his back." Hawking's new idea of a no boundary universe has never caught on.The previous thread was about the standard cosmology of the big bang and how the universe bursting into existence "smacks of divine intervention." I stated early on that I did not have time to debate all of the minor theories which compete with the big bang such as colliding branes. Whatever Hawking's current theory is, it is different than the accepted view of the big bang.

But he doesn't. This is something that you have made up.

I have read the book. Your personal insults do not do anything to advance the discussion. Deal with the quotes or provide your own.

No it isn't.Do you not know what "singularity" means? And you established this how? And you established this how?Can you find me one cosmologist who maintains that General Relativity is correct at all scales and that there really was a singularity, rather than it being an artifact of Einstein's equations?

I am not making up these quotes. Hawking says he has changed his mind. Pull out your copy of the book and prove me wrong.

quote:

---

I mentioned this in passing because I was under the impression Hawking had abandoned his "no boundaries universe" - the Hartle Hawking state - to embrace colliding branes and a return to the big bang.

---

So you mentioned a website because it contradicts an impression that you have - even though that impression hasn't been brought into the discussion ? That's a pretty weird thing to do.

quote:

---

Of course, colliding branes is another way to get rid of the need for a creator which seems to be Hawking's main motivation.

---

That may be the motivation that you want him to have, but it's far from clear that it is his motivation. It seems to me that his goal is to have a complete explanation of why our universe is the way that it is without appealing to boundary conditions.

quote:

---

Hawking rejects the universe having a beginning of time.

---

But isn't he referring to the universe as seen in "imaginary time" here ? Isn't it the case, according to Hawking, that in "real time" that the universe does go all the way back to an incredibly hot, incredibly dense state that closely approaches a singularity ?

quote:

---

With the big bang, the universe had a beginning. With Hartle Hawking, the universe does not have a beginning. There is an expansion, but no edge, no boundary, no beginning. Through this contrivance he is able to do away with the need for a creator. But again, this idea has never caught on.

---

Again, if you go back in "real time" everything will be the same as the classical version of the Big Bang theory, right up until the point where quantum effects take over - and any theory which doesn't take account of those is almost certainly wrong anyway. Differing views over whether the "initial" state constitutes "a beginning" don't seem to be significant here.I'm still waiting for any evidence that Hawking rejects any part of the Big Bang, apart from a literal singularity, which it seems that even you don't believe in.

The thread has obviously gone off the rails as people want to discuss my previous thread. What all of these disagreements have in common is faulty critical thinking known variously as "confirmation bias," "group-think," "tribalism" and "cherry-picking."The different terms are related but used in different settings. "Confirmation bias" is discussed among scientists, "group-think" among sociologists and the fallacy of "cherry-picking" among logicians. But the terms are closely related.Wikipedia has an interesting article on it Confirmation bias - WikipediaBasically, people look at evidence expecting to see confirmation of what they want to see. They tend to completely skip over information that is contrary to the position they hold. This is why it is recognized as very important to scientists not to go into research with pre-conceived ideas.On a forum such as this, it is common to see group-think at work. You see a post from someone and you can immediately see that you disagree with him but perhaps you don't read closely enough to consider the evidence and logic he presents because you see other people from your "tribe" accusing of logical fallacies and stupidity.Another sign of confirmation bias is when people become very emotional when confronted with evidence which is contrary to their position. Emotionalism is recognized as inimical to sound rational thinking.It is important to try to avoid confirmation bias and tribalism. It is a serious flaw in good critical thinking skills. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

Hawking also disagrees with you, to name but one.

What I reject is the idea the singularity could have any period of existence without being in expansion. The singularity is a mathematical concept. Some people have this mistaken notion that the universe could exist in an infinitely dense and infinitely hot state without expanding. It's impossible.I believe in the singularity but it existed for less than one millionth of a second. It immediately began to expand at the beginning of time. This is what Hawking rejects, the beginning of time.I'm not making this up.

He does not say that he has changed his mind about whether the Big Bang happened. Which is why you can't quote him saying any such thing.

Then may I suggest that you read it again, particularly chapter 8. Being nonexistent, they have no effect whatsoever. The quotes you have provided do nothing to support your delusions.

Have you seen this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What I reject is the idea the singularity could have any period of existence without being in expansion. The singularity is a mathematical concept.

---

You just contradicted yourself. If the singularity is ONLY a mathematical construct then it cannot ever have physically existed. Either it is something that was physically real or it isn't. And quite frankly since the idea that it did exist relies on using Classical physics and ignoring Quantum effects even though they are significant I don't think that you have much of a case that it was a physical reality.

quote:

---

Some people have this mistaken notion that the universe could exist in an infinitely dense and infinitely hot state without expanding. I

---

I don't see why you feel the need to disagree with people who aren't here, and so far as I can tell don't even exist.

quote:

---

I believe in the singularity but it existed for less than one millionth of a second.

---

So you do NOT believe that it is just a mathematical construct. Why did you contradict yourself and how do you deal with the quantum effects that must be considered before concluding that the singularity actually existed ?