Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We are living in a giant hologram, or a giant trailer filled with poop, or whatever Stephen Hawking says we are living in

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So says Ars Technica at Wired (August 1, 2011)

“Hawking used quantum theory to derive a result that was at odds with quantum theory,” as Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft described the situation. Still, that wasn’t all bad; it created a paradox and “Paradoxes make physicists happy.”

“It was very hard to see what was wrong with what he was saying,” Susskind said, “and even harder to get Hawking to see what was wrong.”

The arguments apparently got very heated. Herman Verlinde, another physicist on the panel, described how there would often be silences when it was clear that Hawking had some thoughts on whatever was under discussion; these often ended when Hawking said “rubbish.” “When Hawking says ‘rubbish,’” he said, “you’ve lost the argument.”

Settles it then. Hawking is right.

What was missing from the discussion was an attempt to tackle one of the issues that plagues string theory: the math may all work out and it could provide a convenient way of looking at the world, but is it actually related to anything in the actual, physical Universe? Nobody even attempted to tackle that question. Still, the panel did a good job of describing how something that started as an attempt to handle a special case—the loss of matter into a black hole—could provide a new way of looking at the Universe. And, in the process, how people could eventually convince Stephen Hawking he got one wrong.

Which is all that matters. Rest.

Comments
BA, Is it something that I said? You seem a little angry. I agreed with you that if Hawking said science can disprove the existence of the divine he was wrong that is outside the scope of science. That should be honest I'll even agree that I would not be surprised if he was arrogant,that should be honest in your view Of course your proof of his " hypocritical arrogance" is a bone of contention , I find it mean spirited but worse it doesn't work. I think a much better argument would be to be straight up with it...for instance," I can't believe a wheelchair bound atheist with an incurable disease can be arrogant enough to act like a theist who knows for a fact how the universe came to be" , that way the whole ridiculous " he should cure himself " thing goes away. That way you can be more honest as well So is this it? BA : some fairly concrete scientific evidence substantiating his ‘recipe for a chocolate cake’ is what makes you dishonest scientifically As I honestly said before I am incapable of personally judging the accuracy of his math, and truth be told whether we are a multiverse or not is way down on my list. I am origins ambivalent. I'm glad someone wants to spend their time doing it. It has nothing to with the divine. People can believe whatever they want, it is what it is. One question, we agree that science can't prove the God doesn't exist,right? Why do you believe it can prove he does? This doesn't seem contradictory? Why believe God leaves an inadvertent trail of bread crumbs that our primitive science can detect,outwitting His obvious reluctance to come forward? BA :The same goes for the ever shifting sands of Elizabeth’s method of argumentation!! Not sure what this means, but I think it is a compliment. Thanks for the discussion or whatever this is, BAvelikovskys
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground objective beliefs within the materialistic worldview; John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo further notes on the absurdity inherent within atheistic/materialistic thought Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012 At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation; ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+b^i, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’. John Lennox - Science Is Impossible Without God - Quotes - video remix http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/bornagain77
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Also of humorous note in Hawking's use of math to try to disprove the existence of God, is that without God math would be impossible in the first place; :) This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Infinite Multiverse vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetic - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ Moreover the atheist argument for 'truth claims' falls apart in the neo-Darwinian framework: Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a cause for objective morality; The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M "Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110227abornagain77
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.htmlbornagain77
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
velikovskys, I haven't dropped the argument. I still think it is the ultimate of arrogance for a man to presuppose he can figure how the entire universe came into being, in all its stunning glory, all the while something vastly more trivial, perspective-wise, his disease, testifies to the extreme limit he has to solve problems of much more limited scope. That you do not see the hypocritical arrogance he exercises in the matter concerns me not one wit as I have seen atheists do completely insane things over and over, all the while pretending they are being rational.,,, Moreover, you are right with the word forthright, I should have used the word dishonest as i did with you,,, i.e. that you yourself would not demand at least some fairly concrete scientific evidence substantiating his 'recipe for a chocolate cake' is what makes you dishonest scientifically, whether you are aware of it or not. The same goes for the ever shifting sands of Elizabeth's method of argumentation!!bornagain77
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Ilion: Well, he, himself — and his disease — are both parts of The Total System He Has Explained I see,his mathematical proofs are invalid if he doesn't know the secret of a perfect soufflé? That is certainly a tasty part of the total system. The secret of the perfect golf swing? That would more valuable to me than m- theory. Do I understand your argument correctly?velikovskys
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
BA, First ,thanks for dropping that argument and second,thanks for a link free post. Refreshing BA: Hawking, in appealing to M-theory as his basis for his ‘theory of everything’, has stated in no uncertain terms, in his ‘Grand Design’ book, that he knows God did not create the universe Two points 1) Grand Design is a popular science book,not a formal mathematical explanation for his confidence in the M theory. 2)In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary." So you are correct that even if M-Theory is correct that is no proof on the nonexistence of God. So if math can't prove his nonexistence ,it seems odd to believe it can prove his existence . ( I am begging you no links,just your own words). Hawking agrees with your complaint and has modified or changed his position. BA: the future and see if it is correct. Thus velikovskys if Hawking himself is not sure that his m-theory equations are correct exactly why in blue blazes should you or I put any faith whatsoever in what he says about what equations indicate They could be the recipe for a chocolate cake for all we know. There are lots of math smart people who can't completely understand what the blue blazes they mean. So our opinion is meaningless as to whether they are correct,unless you are hiding your lamp under the basket. But he still has to show his work, and prove to his peers that his ideas are sound.No free passes. BA : says about what equations indicate??? There is absolutely no scientific warrant to do so, and for you to pretend that he is being forthright is certainly not honest on your part. And now you have to ruin it, Yes BA I believe he is forthright about his equations and his views, since you know of course forthright doesn't mean correct only honest and open, it seems hard to accuse me of dishonesty on whether that was my true opinion. Sorry for the lengthvelikovskys
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
You people make a conscious and concerted effort to misunderstand and invent insult where none exists, don't you? Hawkins asserts that he has Explained The Total System. Well, he, himself -- and his disease -- are both parts of The Total System He Has Explained. And, still, he is crippled by the disease.Ilion
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
EL, Perhaps ba77 is under the impression that a “Theory of Everything” in the sense used in cosmology is actually a theory that explains every single phenomenon in the universe Surely BA realizes that has been answered. 42 Not to sound too fanboy, EL, but Thanks for All the Fish.velikovskys
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
velikovskys, as fate would have it; John Lennox Takes On Stephen Hawking in Seattle, Friday, August 19 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/john_lennox_takes_on_stephen_h049021.html Lennox is a mathematics professor!bornagain77
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
velikovskys you state: Stephen Hawking: “I would go forward and find if M-theory is indeed the theory of everything.” Gee, BA, he said he would go ahead and find if m-theory is …theory of everything. How arrogant to try to prove something. Not everyone is sure they have the correct answer to the theory of everything as you are. Now velikovskys, you seem to have missed the obvious point here. Hawking, in appealing to M-theory as his basis for his 'theory of everything', has stated in no uncertain terms, in his 'Grand Design' book, that he knows God did not create the universe, yet here we have Hawking admitting before Larry King, on national TV, that he does not even know for sure if M-theory is correct in the first place, and he would like to go to the future and see if it is correct. Thus velikovskys if Hawking himself is not sure that his m-theory equations are correct exactly why in blue blazes should you or I put any faith whatsoever in what he says about what equations indicate??? There is absolutely no scientific warrant to do so, and for you to pretend that he is being forthright is certainly not honest on your part.bornagain77
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
HMMM, and yet though Hawking has ZERO empirical support for his mathematical conjectures, his views are held as absolutely authoritative by atheists because,,, because,,, because by-golly the alternative is unthinkable!!! Well excuse me for not being so easily swayed by appeal to the authority of the lead atheistic mathematical sorcerer and all his smokes and mirrors, and await ANY empirical evidence.,,, Empirical evidence as perhaps creating a single photon from scratch?!?bornagain77
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Perhaps ba77 is under the impression that a "Theory of Everything" in the sense used in cosmology is actually a theory that explains every single phenomenon in the universe including the causes and cures of ALS. It's not - it's just a theory (non-existent yet) that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity.Elizabeth Liddle
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Ilion: What? Hawking gets a free pass because he’s crippled? No, whether he is crippled is irrelevant to the validity of his views unless he cites it as proof that he is correct, has he?velikovskys
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
BA : Well velikovskys, I did not originally make the statement. I thought I made that clear. And though I feel sorry for the man with his horrible disease, the point, though rough, is none the less very fitting and valid for the claim he is making Sorry that doesn't wash, it doesn't matter who said it, you choose to use it as an insightful comment. Has he arrogantly claimed to know everything? Does expertise in physics translate into expertise in all fields? If not, then it is neither fitting or valid to claim that his diease is somehow proof that his theory is wrong Stephen Hawking: “I would go forward and find if M-theory is indeed the theory of everything.” Gee, BA, he said he would go ahead and find if m-theory is ...theory of everything. How arrogant to try to prove something. Not everyone is sure they have the correct answer to the theory of everything as you are. BA :( just in case the real point of the story was too subtle) All the while his own debilitating disease clearly testifies against him that his ability to solve problems is much more limited than he, or his supporters, would care to admit the reality of to the general public BA, he is a physicist, not a physician. It is an incurable disease . He has never claimed to be able to cure it. This is kindergarten stuff. I get you don't like him. Everything he says is not necessarily correct, but none of it is incorrect because he has ALS. Prove him wrong with math not with ad hominem.velikovskys
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
BA77 Shame on you .... Just think of it velikovskys, here the man is claiming to have figured out how the entire universe, in all its grandeur and glory, was brought into being, and despite this grandiose claim, a claim that certainly shows no signs of modesty (nor does it show signs of ever garnering a Nobel prize), he has not the slightest clue how to solve his own debilitating disease I think you and many of the others on this site are pretty certain about how the universe came into being - are you not? (And I see zero signs of modesty from most contributors). How come you have failed to find the cure to any serious diseases? Could it because it is different area of expertise? You are trying to use his condition to make his claims less plausible when it is utterly irrelevant.markf
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
What? Hawking gets a free pass because he's crippled?Ilion
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Well velikovskys, I did not originally make the statement. I thought I made that clear. And though I feel sorry for the man with his horrible disease, the point, though rough, is none the less very fitting and valid for the claim he is making. Just think of it velikovskys, here the man is claiming to have figured out how the entire universe, in all its grandeur and glory, was brought into being, and despite this grandiose claim, a claim that certainly shows no signs of modesty (nor does it show signs of ever garnering a Nobel prize), he has not the slightest clue how to solve his own debilitating disease. A problem that should be, perspective-wise, a far easier problem to figure out than creating a universe.,,, ,,,But hey velikovskys I am open to any actual evidence he may have presented but he has presented none. In fact, he has not even created a single photon from scratch!!! Shoot, creating a single photon from scratch would at least give him some credibility,,, and would certainly earn him a Nobel prize as well. ,,,, So velikovskys, the brute reality is that it all boils down to a sad crippled man in a wheelchair, with delusions of grandeur, imagining that he can create universes, with not one single photon of credible substantiating empirical evidence. All the while his own debilitating disease clearly testifies against him that his ability to solve problems is much more limited than he, or his supporters, would care to admit the reality of to the general public. notes: 'What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science." – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip: Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking's New Book 'The Grand Design' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5278793/ Hawking gave the game away for his 'omnipotent' claims for M-theory with this quote that he gave in response to a question from Larry King at the beginning of a interview King had with Hawking about his book: Larry King: “If you could time travel would you go forward or backward?” Stephen Hawking: “I would go forward and find if M-theory is indeed the theory of everything.” Larry King and others; “Quietly laugh” The following expert shows why the materialistic postulation of 'string theory' is, for all intents and purposes of empirical science, a complete waste of time and energy: Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law: Peter Woit, a PhD. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092756 Here is Professor Peter Woit's blog where he has been fairly busy showing the failure of string theory to pass any of the experimental tests that have been proposed and put to any of its predictions: String Theory Fails Another Test, the “Supertest” http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3338 ,,, as to Hawking creating a photon from scratch, the only problem that Hawking has with that problem is that he will have to figure out where to find the right kind of infinite specified, and transcendent, information: Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of quantum information in this universe must be complete and instantaneous.) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html More supporting evidence for the transcendent nature of information, and how it interacts with energy, is found in these following studies: Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html etc.. etc.. etc.. ,,,velikovskys, so there you have a brief outline of it,,,, specified, Infinite, quantum information is required to create a single photon,,,, perhaps that is why the first law of thermodynamics became a law of science in the first place???,,,,, by the way velikovskys, I've heard said God is infinite, and perfect, in knowledge (information).,, moreover I heard that He defeated death, for our behalf, out of His love for us,,, AIN'T NO GRAVE (Can Hold My Body Down) Johnny Cash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66QcIlblI1Ubornagain77
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Ba: ‘if stephen hawking can figure out how the entire universe was made, how come he cant figure out how to get out of that wheelchair and talk?’ Kind of rough, but it does expose the sheer arrogance of Stephen Hawking’s thinking in a direct way. Kinda rough? Don't be so modest, it is awful and awful on many levels. First a snide way of demeaning him because he has ALS ,he can't be that smart,haha Second,"expose..sheer arrogance", so he should be humbled by his disease and not act like he is smarter than us walking guys? If you got a problem with Hawking fine, leave the low blows,it is distastefulvelikovskys
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
SCheesman at 3: Error fixed. Thanks for notiff.News
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
“Hawking used quantum theory to derive a result that was at odds with quantum theory,” as Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft described the situation.
If that is what Hawking did, then one of possibilities is true: 1) Hawking made a mistake; 2) Quantun theory is self-contradictory; which is to say, false.Ilion
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
The first link gives me a 404 File Not Found error.SCheesman
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
I believe Stephen Hawking may have also used 'quantum tunneling' in his model for the universe being created from scratch,,, But it has also now been found that quantum tunneling is essential for DNA repair: Can Quantum Mechanics Play a Role in DNA Damage Detection?, - video http://www.scivee.tv/node/25476 So exactly what are we to make of having a quantum effect in our body which some atheists are so enamored with as to use it for creating universes from scratch???bornagain77
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
I remember one comment when Hawking's 'Grand Design' first book came out. The guy made it clear he wasn't being mean spirited, but he honestly wanted to know: 'if stephen hawking can figure out how the entire universe was made, how come he cant figure out how to get out of that wheelchair and talk?' Kind of rough, but it does expose the sheer arrogance of Stephen Hawking's thinking in a direct way. ,,,My take on all this was that if Stephen Hawking was really concerned about being 'scientific', instead of just furthering his atheistic religion, then perhaps he should try to violate the first law of thermodynamics and actually create a single photon from scratch before he exercised such hubris as to pronounce how the entire universe was created. ,,, As well, recentlybornagain77
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply