Why we shall have to wait for a real biography of Stephen Hawking

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 14, 2012

Books of interest, Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a review of Kitty Ferguson’s Stephen Hawking, Ed Lake “examines how Stephen Hawking gets the world to sit up and take notice” (Telegraph, January 12, 2012):

When he speaks, as he has this week on his 70th birthday, the world takes notice. That’s partly down to his distinguished career but, let’s not be squeamish, partly because his motor neurone disease and voice synthesiser have made him a convenient symbol for the life of the mind. That aura of mystical detachment doesn’t quite stand up to examination, however. “Was it just an accident that he always seemed to come up with attention-getting statements whenever public and media attention appeared to require a boost?” asks Kitty Ferguson in her starry-eyed biography. As one of Hawking’s assistants told her: “He isn’t stupid, you know.”

One starts to suspect that his real genius may be for judging the appetites of the public.

Well, how about the appetites of self-conscious urban elites – people who feel knowing about “imaginary time” and space wormholes, who could not point to and name a single star visible in their own region.

Indeed, there’s so little that’s dark or sad about her Hawking, the effect is almost sinister. Perhaps he really is just a permanently upbeat and sunny chap. On the other hand, …

On the other hand, that’s highly unlikely. Such people exist, to be sure, but they don’t think, say, or do the things Hawking has. Which is why we shall have to wait for a real biography of Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking at 70: What would revolutionize our understanding of the universe

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

But we are waiting for the one that evaluates the real science achievements against the media blitzeroo. Maybe Brian Cox can write it (if he's unknown there at least Elizabeth will get it!).Jon Garvey_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Alternative: Conciousness is a property of certain material systems. Therefore it is a consequence of material reality and cannot have preceded it.
That's easy to say, but does it really make sense? One can imagine programming a computer to act as if it felt physical pain or love, but how would one program a computer, no matter how complex or sophisticated, to actually feel physical pain, or love. How would you go about it? Where is "feel pain" in the instruction set of any programming language? How could you write a subroutine called "feel pain" in any such instruction set? Similarly, given that the neurons in our brains are entirely material, how is it possible that simply by virtue of their number and the pattern of their interconnections, experience, (physical feelings, sights, sounds, taste, emotions, thoughts, memory, etc.) comes into being? I can think of no possible way that this could happen, nor, I submit, can anyone else. The best that materialist philosophers and other kinds of thinkers have come up with is that qualia (the technical term for experience) are epiphenomena of activity in the brain. But this is no explanation at all. It is simply putting a label on what cannot be comprehended. To me the question is crucial. It is one of the considerations that led me to abandon my belief in materialism. To say, "consciousness is a property of certain material systems" is in my view simply a restatement of one's faith that somehow consciousness is compatible with materialism. It is necessary if one is going to continue to adhere to a materialist philosophy, but is also a form of denial of the insuperable problem that any materialist world view must cope with: the fundamental fact of our existence, namely consciousness, has no place in an exclusively material universe.Bruce David_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Come on Elizabeth, everyone is biased, even scientists. I'm not cutting him down at all, I think he's brilliant, but at the end of the day, I sure wouldn't invest my entire intellect into everything he has to say. Here's a quote from Hawking from the "state of the universe conference" “‘A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God." So what if we had to appeal religion and the hand of God for the creation of the universe; if that's where the evidence points, so be it. And would science really break down? You wrote: "we don’t judge science by whether we like its implications or not” Judging by Hawking's quote, many do!KRock_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

"we don’t judge science by whether we like its implications or not" chuckle chuckleUpright BiPed_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Here is what Penrose had to say about the 'mathematics of existing theories' which give rise to these multiverses:
'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/
Of related note;
Baron Münchhausen and the Self-Creating Universe: Roger Penrose has calculated that the entropy of the big bang itself, in order to give rise to the life-permitting universe we observe, must be fine-tuned to one part in e10exp(123)?10^10exp(123). Such complex specified conditions do not arise by chance, even in a string-theoretic multiverse with 10^500 different configurations of laws and constants, so an intelligent cause may be inferred. What is more, since it is the big bang itself that is fine-tuned to this degree, the intelligence that explains it as an effect must be logically prior to it and independent of it – in short, an immaterial intelligence that transcends matter, energy and space-time. (of note: 10^10^123 minus 10^500 is still, for all practical purposes, 10^10^123) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/baron_munchausen_and_the_selfc.html
here is what Penrose said about the multiverse itself:
Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5741&printer_friendly=1
Here is a comment on another 'ad-hoc' theory that was invented by atheistic materialist to 'explain away' some parameters of fine-tuning
One of cosmic inflation theory’s creators now questions own theory - April 2011 Excerpt: Inflation adds a whole bunch of really unlikely metaphysical assumptions — a new force field that has a never-before-observed particle called the “inflaton”, an expansion faster than the speed of light, an interaction with gravity waves which are themselves only inferred– just so that it can explain the unlikely contingency of a finely-tuned big bang. But instead of these extra assumptions becoming more-and-more supported, the trend went the opposite direction, with more-and-more fine-tuning of the inflation assumptions until they look as fine-tuned as Big Bang theories. At some point, we have “begged the question”. Frankly, the moment we add an additional free variable, I think we have already begged the question. In a Bayesean comparison of theories, extra variables reduce the information content of the theory, (by the so-called Ockham factor), so these inflation theories are less, not more, explanatory than the theory they are supposed to replace.,,, after 20 years of work, if we haven’t made progress, but have instead retreated, it is time to cut bait. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/cosmology-one-of-cosmic-inflation-theory%E2%80%99s-creators-now-questions-own-theory/
bornagain77_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

you proclaim without any actual evidence that consciousness can 'emerge':
Conciousness is a property of certain material systems. Therefore it is a consequence of material reality and cannot have preceded it.
Really???? so you hold that consciousness holds no particular special position within material reality??? Unfortunately, quantum mechanics testifies against your 'emerging consciousness' position. Once again, though you will refuse to listen, here is the argument with the references following: The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
references:
Quantum mind–body problem Excerpt:Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601 The mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - Johns Hopkins University Excerpt: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” Sir James Jeans http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
bornagain77_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

you proclaim without any actual evidence that consciousness can 'emerge':
Conciousness is a property of certain material systems. Therefore it is a consequence of material reality and cannot have preceded it.
Really???? so you hold that consciousness holds no particular special position within material reality??? Unfortunately, quantum mechanics testifies against your 'emerging consciousness' position. Once again, though you will refuse to listen, here is the argument with the references following: The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
references:
Quantum mind–body problem Excerpt:Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601 The mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - Johns Hopkins University Excerpt: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” Sir James Jeans http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
more detailed notes here:
Let There Be Light http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
bornagain77_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Yes, that's more or less the kind of thing that attracted our attention too. Hawking radiation was a valuable discovery, but it isn't really up there with Einstein's major finds. How many people had their worldview challenged by Hawking radiation? True to the age he has lived in, Hawking is more like a persona, a certified, branded icon that appears in key pop cult entertainments possibly his final legacy. Einstein became an icon, it is true, but only after he had done theoretical physics that really mattered. In those days, you really did have to do that. Not any more. Not when media personalities direct attention. Well, we shall see. Elizabeth Liddle is of course right about the perils of an ex-spouse's biography. One needs it, where available, for context. But we are waiting for the one that evaluates the real science achievements against the media blitzeroo.News_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
False dichotomy.
2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
Contingent on false dichotomy not being false, and it is.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
Unsupported assertion.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
Therefore fallacious inference. Alternative: Conciousness is a property of certain material systems. Therefore it is a consequence of material reality and cannot have preceded it.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Yes, I would agree with that, sorry if I sounded combative! The cult of celebrity is annoying for many reasons. Science couldn't proceed without collaboration and consensus, and even Newton talked about standing on the shoulders of giants. And there's no doubt that Hawking's disease makes him a romantic figure. Of course Penrose is a populariser too, but maybe not such a household name. Although at least part of the popularity of Hawking's book was that last line, which I think his publishers pressured him to write. tbh, I think both men write a load of cobblers when they stray into philosophy outside their fields. Doesn't mean they are not brilliant within them, though!Elizabeth Liddle_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, I wasn't doubting Hawking's brilliance, nor even the readability of Brief History (which I coped with OK, but then I'm not the kind of reader who made it a bestseller). The question is what makes him a household name in science - as opposed, say, to Roger Penrose who was not only Hawking's co-author, and arguably as significant an academic. The public perception would not be that he is one cosmological theorist amongst a number, nor that he has detractors. This doesn't necessarily say anything about Hawking himself, but does give a worrying view of what factors make for the popular consensus on science. If he were out on a complete limb within his field, I doubt we'd ever know about it from the general press (which was why I drew attention to the Telegraph science-writer's greater interest in his birthday than the conference he missed).Jon Garvey_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Apologies for the snarky tone. But, seriously - the desire to cut this man down to size is disturbing. What matters is the science. And we don't judge science by whether we like its implications or not. Well, we shouldn't, anyway. And needn't. Science isn't morality, or theology, and never will be.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Yeah, an ex-wife's view is bound to be unbiased. Right.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

There's no real comparison between Dawkins and Hawking as scientists. Dawkins isn't primarily a scientist, he's a science communicator and thinker, and his chair Oxford was "Professor for Public Understanding of Science". His actual research output is pretty minimal, and is in ethology. In total contrast, Hawking's chair at Cambridge (until his compulsory retirement at 67) was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, one of the most distinguished academic posts in the world, the second holder of which was Newton. Other holders include Charles Babbage and Paul Dirac. He has been an active researcher all his academic life, his research output is prodigious, and includes major work regarding the nature and physics of black holes and the origins of the universe. His two big things have been Hawking radiation (the discovery that black holes can actually, counter-intuitively, emit radiation) and the idea that the singularity at the beginning of the universe is better described as a curve than a point (analogous to the North pole, as opposed to the summit of Everest). AND he can write. Seems pretty awesome to me. Dawkins barely comes up to his bootlaces, I'd say.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

The search is now on, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that a bubble collision has occurred within our cosmic horizon. That's a shame, but given how incredibly lucky we are to be in a rare bubble tuned so finely for our existence, it would be a real oversight if we haven't got a bubble collison in it as as well.Jon Garvey_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

1. How did he get to be thought of as the smartest scientist in the world, the peer of Newton and Einstein?
Well, he didn't get Newton's old job because he had motor neurone disease. And he did discover Hawking radiation, which was a pretty awesome bit of theoretical physics. But there's no doubt that being able to write popular science books (whether readable or not) results in more media attention. I actually thought that A Brief History of Time was pretty readable. I think it contained one equation (and that was the one we all know anyway).Elizabeth Liddle_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

More seriously, my own two pennyworth would be that he came to public attention through some very good work on the imagination-captivating black holes, became a public figure because of his unfortunate health problems bravely borne, became Mr Science through writing a book that, though readable, was hard to understand, and became a national treasure through his unique voice. There's a parallel there with how Richard Dawkins became Mr Evolution, but the latter has failed to become a national treasure because he has a considerably less winsome persona. Ones scientific status certainly seems to get a boost, in the public eye at least, if one is a populariser of science rather than a mere scientist. S J Gould is an example - everyone's heard of punctuated equilibria, but who talks about neutral theory in the street? I won't mention earlier popularisers like Charles Darwin...Jon Garvey_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

It probably helped to write the most unread coffee-table book everybody bought! ;-)Jon Garvey_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

The multiverse as far as I can tell, is not falsifiable in principle once we accept that universes besides our own might exist.
The multiverse hypothesis is not an ad hoc, independent theory; it arises out of the mathematics of existing theories. It's not essential that the multiverse itself be falsifiable (though it would be nice if it were); what is essential is for the underlying theories to be falsifiable.
These other so called multiverses will never interact with our universe and we’ll never be able to observe them.
That's not actually true. Vilenkin writes:
Surprisingly, observational tests of the multiverse picture may in fact be possible. Anthony Aguirre, Matt Johnson, Matt Kleban and others have pointed out that a collision of our expanding bubble with another bubble in the multiverse would produce an imprint in the cosmic background radiation—a round spot of higher or lower radiation intensity. A detection of such a spot with the predicted intensity profile would provide direct evidence for the existence of other bubble universes. The search is now on, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that a bubble collision has occurred within our cosmic horizon.
champignon_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

BA77: Thanks for the info the other day. The more I'm understanding about the "multiverese" the more I realize that its nothing but a pipe dream and In the words of John Polkinghorne "Pure speculation". The multiverse as far as I can tell, is not falsifiable in principle once we accept that universes besides our own might exist. These other so called multiverses will never interact with our universe and we'll never be able to observe them. So how can their ever be a true scientific hypothesis to confirm or falsify their existence? Once again, thanks for the links and don't ever stop posting them.KRock_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

I just added "Music To Move The Stars: A Life With Stephen Hawking” to my amazon wish list, thanks for the tip..KRock_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

A real biography I would recommend is Jane Hawking's own "Music To Move The Stars: A Life With Stephen Hawking". It reveals origin of Stephen Hawking's brutal pride and arrogance as well as the resolve and perseverance of one classy lady, Jane Hawking. Jane keeps it real, intimate, honest and informative of what really happened. A good read.Bantay_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

OT News; I think that this weeks Unbelievable Christian radio show may interest you:
Unbelievable Christian Radio- Topic on this weeks show: ,,Is our physical brain one and the same with the consciousness, thoughts and perceptions we experience? Is matter all there is ultimately? http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
Related note:
The argument for God from consciousness Excerpt: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpDwWetu66fBRlPM7zjA5BpHzcu5wBY7AdB7gOz51OQ/edit
bornagain77_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Yes, Jon Garvey, that's the sort of thing that cries out for a thorough biography, not a hagiography. And, heaven forbid, not a gossipy spitefest where bitter mediocrities get their unenvied revenge. Well, maybe even that does some good for some people, but we are mainly looking for: 1. How did he get to be thought of as the smartest scientist in the world, the peer of Newton and Einstein? 2. Will this exalted status stand the test of time? 3. If not, is there anything to learn from the whole business? Input appreciated.News_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

That’s partly down to his distinguished career but, let’s not be squeamish, partly because his motor neurone disease and voice synthesiser have made him a convenient symbol for the life of the mind. Whether it's intentional or not, it seems to be a fact that here in the UK Hawking's views are popular because he is a "national treasure", and that has a lot to do with his persona, as well as his ability to write popular books, of course. In the Daily Telegraph, for example, the science news had an article about his being to ill to attend the Cambridge cosmological conference, but has failed to mention the content of that conference, including Alexander Valenkin's rather significant address.Jon Garvey_{January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply