Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

[JimmyCarter]

Pwoo-eek ?
Maybe?

I'm thinking the end is like "oink" without the "n"?

[wooley12]

You need to be told?

[babybear]

So what is the pronoucement?

if I get a couple more bieres in me maybe i’ll video how to pronounce it.

[Kenny Satch]

am I missing something or isn't all religion theoretical ?

western Canada has a very high % of atheiests so i am very likely to think this

Yes it is except for Buddhism

Buddhism has it right because bald men in robes know the path to enlightenment. Long haired hippies don't

[XXX-er]

http://dudeism.com/

yeah so like thats just your opinion eh?

note that Buddha, Lao tzu, Jesus, Ghandi, Jeff Spicoli and Jerry Garcia are all listed as "great dudes in history"

[Dantheman]

Don't forget that at the end of the day, Stephen Hawking was a theoretical physicist. Don't misunderstand me. The man was absurdly brilliant and his works always fascinated me. I read A Brief History of Time when I was in middle school and it blew my adolescent mind. Still, as genius as he was, his works are ultimately theoretical. Absolutely plausible, yes, but still theory. I believe that even Hawking himself would never want us to take his works as absolute.

He would almost certainly agree with your last sentence, but I'm not sure you fully grasp what the word "theory" means in the context of theoretical physics.

even for me that doesn’t sound that great

then 15 seconds and pwoooyk
i’d prefer 71 of something else pls

10/10

[MontuckyFried]

He would almost certainly agree with your last sentence, but I'm not sure you fully grasp what the word "theory" means in the context of theoretical physics.

I totally get the context of theory as in they're trying to explain a known with an unknown. That unknown COULD be X or Y or Z or.... It's often trying to shoehorn a possibility. Some theories certainly being more of a stretch than others. Some more plausible, and certainly more "provable." We've all certainly see a lot of theories out there come and go. Heck. Many of Mr. Hawking's theories have been proven wrong. He's even proven them wrong himself! This is true of ANY good scientist. It would be junk science if he never did.

I've always found the field absolutely amazing, and it wouldn't exist without (A) solid mathematics, and (B) a certain level of imagination and curiosity. Most of us here would make TERRIBLE theoretical physicists due to that second part, but we wouldn't have enough brain cells to rub together between the entire lot of us to even come close to the great minds of Einstein, Hawking, etc.

[SumJongGuy]

So, back to the original work. If the universe can die once all the energy from all the stars dissipates... BUT, there are likely other parallel universes around different dimensions... Is there a broader term that includes all possible universes.. i.e. a universal term that includes everything known and unknown??

FWIW, I believe that when we die the same thing happens to our soul or essence that happens to the light leaving a flashlight after the power is cut and batteries are removed.. It leaves us probably eventually getting sucked in to a black hole somewhere, crushed, then spit out on the other side as something else..

[The Suit]

FWIW, I believe that when we die the same thing happens to our soul or essence that happens to the light leaving a flashlight after the power is cut and batteries are removed.. It leaves us probably eventually getting sucked in to a black hole somewhere, crushed, then spit out on the other side as something else..

I was with you right up to the part where the batteries are removed.

[summit]

I totally get the context of theory as in they're trying to explain a known with an unknown. That unknown COULD be X or Y or Z or.... It's often trying to shoehorn a possibility. Some theories certainly being more of a stretch than others. Some more plausible, and certainly more "provable." We've all certainly see a lot of theories out there come and go. Heck. Many of Mr. Hawking's theories have been proven wrong. He's even proven them wrong himself! This is true of ANY good scientist. It would be junk science if he never did.

I've always found the field absolutely amazing, and it wouldn't exist without (A) solid mathematics, and (B) a certain level of imagination and curiosity. Most of us here would make TERRIBLE theoretical physicists due to that second part, but we wouldn't have enough brain cells to rub together between the entire lot of us to even come close to the great minds of Einstein, Hawking, etc.

Math is hard, yo. Tensors make my head spin. Even Einstein got himself a tutor for tensors and the beauty of Einstein's General Relativity is its ability to express space-time with the Einstein Field Equations, which are tensors.

[PNWbrit]

I totally get the context of theory as in they're trying to explain a known with an unknown. That unknown COULD be X or Y or Z or.... It's often trying to shoehorn a possibility. Some theories certainly being more of a stretch than others. Some more plausible, and certainly more "provable." We've all certainly see a lot of theories out there come and go. Heck. Many of Mr. Hawking's theories have been proven wrong. He's even proven them wrong himself! This is true of ANY good scientist. It would be junk science if he never did.

I've always found the field absolutely amazing, and it wouldn't exist without (A) solid mathematics, and (B) a certain level of imagination and curiosity. Most of us here would make TERRIBLE theoretical physicists due to that second part, but we wouldn't have enough brain cells to rub together between the entire lot of us to even come close to the great minds of Einstein, Hawking, etc.

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

[Dantheman]

I totally get the context of theory as in they're trying to explain a known with an unknown. That unknown COULD be X or Y or Z or.... It's often trying to shoehorn a possibility. Some theories certainly being more of a stretch than others. Some more plausible, and certainly more "provable." We've all certainly see a lot of theories out there come and go. Heck. Many of Mr. Hawking's theories have been proven wrong. He's even proven them wrong himself! This is true of ANY good scientist. It would be junk science if he never did.

You're confusing the common usage of "theory" with the scientific meaning. You've described a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is an overarching framework that accurately describes existing experimental results and observations that have proved or disproved previously suggested hypotheses, but also makes testable predictions about previously unknown phenomenon or untested hypotheses. Wiki has a good explanation of how this applies to physics, specifically:

In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries—like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—that is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is classical electromagnetism, which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. The specific mathematical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory are termed "laws of electromagnetism," reflecting the level of consistent and reproducible evidence that supports them. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested.

Much of Hawking's work is "theoretical" in the sense that it makes predictions that have yet to be proved or disproved because of major technical challenges to doing so, but the mathematical foundation they are built on is incredibly robust. The mathematical underpinnings of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics make vast numbers of predictions, most of which were untestable when it was first developed. As technology progressed and these predictions became testable not a single result has been inconsistent with the predictions of the Theory.

So, back to the original work. If the universe can die once all the energy from all the stars dissipates... BUT, there are likely other parallel universes around different dimensions... Is there a broader term that includes all possible universes.. i.e. a universal term that includes everything known and unknown??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[summit]

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

[Timberridge]

I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

Space has been heralded as the final frontier. But is it? There could be something even bigger out there.

[PNWbrit]

Space has been heralded as the final frontier. But is it? There could be something even bigger out there.

I've giv'n her all she's got captain, an' I canna give her no more.

[Timberridge]

What if the Scottish are the chosen ones, not the Jews?

[PNWbrit]

What if the Scottish are the chosen ones, not the Jews?

Sssssssh.. or they'll want another referendum.

[grskier]

Is there a broader term that includes all possible universes.. i.e. a universal term that includes everything known and unknown??

Multiverse.

[XXX-er]

Space has been heralded as the final frontier. But is it? There could be something even bigger out there.

There could be nothing out there

The world could actually be empty and meaninglesss



Except for this pint of Sherwood Munich lager sitting in front of me as I gaze out at the rapidly disappearing Howasons

[SumJongGuy]

Multiverse.

[summit]

What if the Scottish are the chosen ones, not the Jews?

Quantum foam is actually haggis

[highangle]

Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
What you see as weakness, I see as strength, being able to believe based on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.

Yes, this sort of statement has been an extraordinarily success rhetorical move, at least for those who find the idea of "faith" appealing. But "faith" is also glaring mechanism of control, a tool for tamping down critical dispositions and for unifying masses of people by inciting a fear tinged with a sense of moral superiority.

It's also a utilitarian argument. He's saying that by holding anecdote and self-reference (and presumably dogma) as "evidence" as firm and rigorous as empiricism, he gets to save a lot of time and thought energy otherwise spent working out new things.

[SumJongGuy]

It's also a utilitarian argument. He's saying that by holding anecdote and self-reference (and presumably dogma) as "evidence" as firm and rigorous as empiricism, he gets to save a lot of time and thought energy otherwise spent working out new things.

Nope, I'm saying evidence is not necessary at all with "faith".

[highangle]

And I wonder why no other aspect of "Creation" works that way?

I mean, if you want a better mousetrap, you have to work out every fkn step and you can't get rid of the vermin-infested little bastards with "faith-based" mousetraps. KWIM?

Space travel with faith-based orbital mechanics. Any volunteers?

Faith healing,... not reliably efficacious against polio or smallpox (presumably creations of the same faith-craving God too)...

[PNWbrit]

I mean, if you want a better mousetrap, you have to work out every fkn step and you can't get rid of the vermin-infested little bastards with "faith-based" mousetraps.

These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vast hyperintelligent pandimensional beings. The whole business with the cheese and the squeaking is just a front