Does the universe need to have a cause? Michael Heller 2008 Templeton Prize winner

[Andrewlohbihler]

The Templeton Prize says "Heller's current work focuses on noncommutative geometry and groupoid theory in mathematics, which attempts to remove the problem of an initial cosmological singularity at the origin of the universe." Basically he is using fancy math to prove that the Big-Bang did not happen. This goes very much against the grain of modern science. This is well paid bullshit !!

[jonnylazer]

Really, what are your credentials...I mean what is that you have done that qualifies you critique the work. Are you a practicing professional in the field or are you just Joe Public.

[Andrewlohbihler]

What matters is what the scientific community says about Heller's work, and what his peer reviewers say in the precise research field that he is involved with. By peer's, I mean leading cosmologists like Dr. Steven Hawking, and NOT fellow priests, the pope, and the Templeton prize committee. The "real" scientific peer's have rejected his Heller's work as pseudoscience. As for my credentials, they are of no concern to lice like you.

[jonnylazer]

You clearly have no credentials speak of. Heller is actually a theoretical physicist not a cosmologist. Again, the Templeton prize is not a science award, the first winner was Mother Teresa. My favourite writer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has also won the award. I think you should go and educate yourself on the difference between philosophy metaphysics and physics. I respect your views on Hellers science, if you dont agree with it then thats fine, your choice. Unfortunately that is not the issue.

[Andrewlohbihler]

You called it "Heller's science". I actually called it Heller's pseudoscience. In reality most modern day Templeton Prize winners are in fact scientists, but they had to bend their views toward religion to become candidates. Maybe you should educate yourself of the difference between science and pseudoscience. That is the real issue here.

[jonnylazer]

The bottom line is that I have a first class bachelors degree in Electrical and Electronic, an Msc (masters degree to the layman (such as you)) in Signal Processing and Communication Engineering and am currently researching for a Dphil (doctorate) in High frequency Comms. I dont have a religous bone in my body, however, I am fascinated by metaphysics and the philosophy of science. Maybe you could send me the links to the disparaging peer reviews, that would put this to bed.

[Andrewlohbihler]

So what ?? Many PhD candidates think highly of themselves, but only "experts" in a limited field. Since we are now comparing marbles, I have a similar set. I am a mathematician myself, with research and publications to my credit. I studied and obtained my doctorate 25 years ago, but that did not qualify me to be an expert. I suspect that you are young and naive, and scientifically undiciplined. Read Michael Shermer's work on pseudoscience, or Steven Hawking's origins of the universe.

[jonnylazer]

I am familer with Shermer, I am simpathetic to his position, he sometimes comes across as closed minded and fundamentalist however. His debate with John Lennox is insightful. I would have to disagree about Hawking, it took leonard Susskind to correct some profound errors on his part. To consider him a leading cosmologist is outdated at best and just incorrect at worst. I suspect Hawkings 'popular' writings have had an impact on you ? Thats no disgrace !

[Andrewlohbihler]

Hawking mathematical papers and collaborations were more interesting because they discuss black-holes and singularities in an attempt to obtain a theory of quantum gravity. Black holes do exist so baby universes are an extension to that theory, including multiverses. Its no disgrace because it is real science with supporting evidence.

[jonnylazer]

Are you familier with Lee Smolin ? I found his ideas connecting darwinian natural selection to the evolution of the universe quite persuasive. He calculated that our universe is the best possible universe at creating black holes i.e if we changed the constants in our universe in any way whatsoever there would exist fewer black holes. Basically, that there are universes inside black holes and that the big bang was just the creation of another black hole in the multiverse.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Yes, I am familiar with Lee's works, and others at the Perimeter Insitute. There is much supporting evidence to this work, including evidence for dark matter, etc. Superstring theory also discusses multiverse's as in compacted dimensions within our own 11 dimensional universe.

[jonnylazer]

Well, I think this brings the debate to an end. I dont think there is a million miles between our views. As a parting shot I would say that I think your views are closer to scientism than real science and I would urge you to find room in your world view for alternatives.

[Andrewlohbihler]

One would be a fool to not look at alternatives. The problem, as Shermer says, is that let's not open our minds too much such that our brain falls out. Real science needs evidence to complete the picture. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

[jonnylazer]

Well, that is the world view that you and Michael Shermer subscibe to......anyway, this is what JBS Haldane (Geneticist) thought.

Theories have four stages of acceptance.

i) this is worthless nonsense;

ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view,

iii) this is true, but quite unimportant;

iv) I always said so.

In the grand scheme of things I think Shermer and his disciples will end up with cosmic egg on their ( - ; s

[Andrewlohbihler]

You are naive. I don't think you have lived long enough to experience or appreciate the true number of nonsense and garbage theories, including questionable medical practices that are pervasive in our current science and medical world. Just read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" to get a taste for this extreme deluding effects of modern day religions. Shermer is an atheist like Dawkins, and they don't attract followers, just encourage people to be skeptical.

[jonnylazer]

No they are as fundamentalist as any religous nutter out there, as are you. I read Dawkins book the day it was released and loved it, the difference is I have room in my mind to accomodate other ideas. Yet again it is obvious that populist literature is where you turn for guidance. I believe a breadth of interests will lead to the truth far more successfully than your arrogant scientism. It is in fact you who is naive and closed minded, which I assert has lead to your impoverished world view.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Are you sure you are working on a Dphil? You sound really fucked up in the head to keep your logic straight. Get your silly emotions in check before you think, as it would help your petty life.

[jonnylazer]

Have you seen the documentary 'God under the Microscope', Dawkins and Heller, although Heller says little, are present in the debate along with the historian David Starkey and some others. The thing about the likes of Dawkins and Shermer is that they dont bring anything to the party, although Dawkins is a highly regarded 'scientist' they have no big ideas. To say evolution is not enough because it all comes down to why does anything exist in the at all. Science will never answer that one.

[Andrewlohbihler]

They don't have to add anything to the list of stupid ideas. So what ?? Better nothing than something stupid, or misleading. If you want an answer to the "why" question, you won't find one. Ask, why is the rock of Gibraltar there? The answer: because it is there. Its a silly question. You are naive because you think there is an answer to everything. So get a God to answer you, and someday I hope he does answer, for your sake.

[jonnylazer]

You should Lie down if you arent already, I think your tired or something. The geomorphology community would be outraged at your latest claim. I cant take you seriously now, you should take that one back.

[jonnylazer]

Upon reflection...there is just no way you could be educated to a high level and think that we dont know why rocks are the way they are. BTW I dont believe in God, my philosophy is not set in stone, as you pointed out I am young with much to learn but I have nothing to learn from the likes of lice like you and Shermer. I wonder whether you worked out the lice metaphor yet ? I have read many of the great philosophers, Parmenides, Plato, Leibniz, Spinoza,*Wittgenstein*, I think you would bnefit

[jonnylazer]

I would just like to correct myself and say that the reason the rock of gibralter is there would come under Geology and Geomorphology.

[Andrewlohbihler]

The question of "why" is not a scientific question you stupid arsehole. It is similar to asking why is the moon there, or why you are an idiot? There is no answer other than the moon IS there, nothing more. Or, you ARE an idiot for no apparent reason why, unless perhaps you chose to be one.

[jonnylazer]

I am now convinced you dont have the education that you claimed. To couch it in your terms I think you have either lost your 'marbles' or you didnt have any in the fist place. I would like to pin you down about the rock of Gibralter thing, I shall explain the next comment

[jonnylazer]

The Rock of Gibraltar is a monolithic limestone promontory. It was created when the African tectonic plate collided tightly with the Eurasian plate. The Mediterranean became a lake that, over the course of time, dried up during the Messinian salinity crisis. The Atlantic Ocean then broke through the Strait of Gibraltar, and the resultant flooding created the Mediterranean Sea. The Rock forms part of the Betic Cordillera, a mountain range that dominates south-eastern Iberia.

[jonnylazer]

The reason the moon is there isnt so clear. There are many hypotheses, all of which are based on sound science.

Fission hypothesis

Capture hypothesis

Co-formation hypothesis

[Andrewlohbihler]

Again, you seem to want to answer the HOW question, even with your limited knowledge of science. But you have missed the point entirely when it comes to the essence of the WHY question. If you think there is an ultimate purpose for the moon or Gibraltar, then I would like to hear it. Stay on topic bozo.

[jonnylazer]

To start off with I am not sure it is for you to distill the why question into its essence. If you did attempt to do that I would consider that a deeply philosophical assertion. From what you have said thus far, philosophy doesnt seem to be part of your general outlook, being an advocate of scientism. I will do some distillation of my own now, for you now to be talking of ultimate purpose and then accusing me of going off topic is positively schizophrenic. A cowardly way to backtrack.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Huh ?? This is weird. I think you are on the wrong medication.

[jonnylazer]

It would be good if you could put your opinions forward without calling me names or swearing. It immediately weakens your argument. You dont see language like that in academic papers or peer reviews and that why I dont believe you read that sort of material. "Why" iron is magnetic has nothing to do with its 'ultimate pupose', if you would like me to explain 'why' iron is magnetic I could do so in forensic detail because be that would be me seriously "ON TOPIC"

[Andrewlohbihler]

OK, since you brought it up. Does magnetism have a purpose in the universe? Was it purposefully created? To hold matter together, maybe? Can you answer that in simple words?

[jonnylazer]

You have tried to lump together two very different questions together as synominous. The first is a totally scientific question (rock of gibralter) and the other is clearly a philosophical question, a question of purpose. Then you have said the latter question was a silly question. I think your saying that philosophy is not relevent in the persuit of the truth. That is fundamentalist scientism, I would ask you, why you have FAITH in that, where is the evidence for your position.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Philosophy is how the human mind investigates the truth, not truth itself. Heller is a "philsopher" that believes the universe had no beginning, that does not make him right. Other "philosophers" believe in Demon theory, and Stork theory, so this is the class that Heller belongs. I don't need to present idiots like you evidence. I merely need to remind you of Heller's goal in research, which you should clearly see as wrong. So if you think Heller is right, you are clearly fucking stupid.

[jonnylazer]

On that note (you calling Plato, Parmenides,Leibniz,Spinoza,Sch­openhauer, Wittgenstein et al idiots) I must call time on this debate. And remember... it is you who is the wierdo, Ive seen your favourites list...WOW.

Bear in mind that I wont be reading any replies, your posts have become unengaging.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Philosophers are not stupid, just that they were not bearers of scientific truth. I don't think that any of these men would claim to be self-centered as yourself. Grow-up or spend a friday at the college pub and get laid, as you need a dose of real life.

[jonnylazer]

I think about magnetism as an emergent property, an "effect of electrical phenomena" as Feynman says in his Berkeley physics course. The magnetic field doesnt, as I am sure you know, have a charge carrier associated with it like the electric field. Therefore to ask what is the purpose of magnetism is meaningless, you shouls read the difference between proximate causality and ultimate causality. You need to read Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, its your only hope !!!

[Andrewlohbihler]

Yes, magnetism has no purpose and the question is meaningless, that was my point all along !! Are you finally getting it? The science of magnetism is something else, but I would not call it an "emergent property", its been around since the universe began.

[jonnylazer]

The question of why anything exists at all in the first place is a far more subtle and nuanced question than the 'why' questions you injudiciously cited. If you think the question of ultimate causes is a silly question well you are entitled to to do that. In my years of reading the great philosophers I have never come across this point of view, I think fundamentalist skeptics have some of the most irrational faith based beliefs I have ever come across.

[Andrewlohbihler]

There you go throwing out your pseudo-wisdom again. It is very annoying that you tend to over-complexify things when they don't need to be. That is youth and naivety.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Again, philosophy is a human mind investigation of the truth, not truth itself. Keep reading these people, but you won't learn anything new. BTW Skeptics and atheists don't have Faith, they try to keep their beliefs fluid. Religious believers by contrast tend to "lock" their beliefs, and guard them with their lives.

[jonnylazer]

Dont be offended but in my opinion if your doctorate doesnt make you an expert in the field then you should give it back.

[Andrewlohbihler]

You missed my point. My PhD did not make me an expert in Heller's theory of noncommutative geometry, but in a branch of quantum electronics. I earned mine, but I suggest you earn YOURS before you come across as an expert in anything.

[jonnylazer]

Quantum Electronics ! I imagine you know about quantum computing then. Its the only application of quantum electronics that I am familier with. I dont envisage obtaining my Dphil anytime soon but that doesnt preclude me from being an expert, in fact, my program supervisor doesnt have doesnt have a doctorate but he is indeed an expert. BTW I am young (good for me) but not naive...maybe a little impulsive though

[Andrewlohbihler]

My research preceded quantum computing, but that is not by far the only application. Its a wide field. I don't work in that field anymore, just that there is more fun developing technology.

[jonnylazer]

BTW, 'lice like you' is my script and not yours. Now come on, use your imagination man! Oh I forgot you dont have one. GOOD DAY

[Andrewlohbihler]

Oh, come on, relax. Clearly your emotions are out of control. This is a common reaction by people of religious influence to emotionalize when their world is shattered by scientific fact. I do not call well meaning people "lice" and neither should you. Having said that, I still believe that Heller's theories are religious banter, rewarded by the dubious Templeton prize.

[jonnylazer]

(1) - A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

(2) - Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Planck was abetter scientist that most.

Max Planck was a better scientist than me, you and Michael Heller

Open your mind

[sharndan]

a great mind

[kajakpaddler92]

oooo nooo what a Idiot!!!!

I've read every works from Michael Heller... It's a lot of crap!

[jonnylazer]

read every works doesnt make sense you fucking ignoramus

[jonnylazer]

Fancy trawling your way through a load of crap. That sounds like a silly thing to do.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Someone gave this idiot $1.6 million to say that ?? What did this guy do to earn that money, other than cram a bible up his ass !!

[jonnylazer]

Hellers work on the non commutative geometry of space time is what seperates him from lice like you. Now Fuck off !!

[Andrewlohbihler]

Really, he extended the theory of space time. That's all !! His peer reviews were nothing special. There are many better mathematicians out there who get far less for much better work. This is a guy who sucked up to Jesus Christ and got rewarded for his scientific cowardice, not his math.