Stephen Hawking is talking about God again.
His new book, due in America in September 7, has the champions of atheism all excited. Jerry Coyne is ecstatic that the new book will put to rest the claim that the heroic cosmologist is "religious, even in a deistic sense."
In the précis for the book, Hawking says" In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse-the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature."
Hawking's grand claims are indeed based on science -- sort of. Quantum mechanics is a real scientific theory, established beyond all doubt to be the way the world works. But quantum mechanics, like everything in fundamental physics, is deeply mathematical and not everything mathematical has a counter part in the real world. Not every solution to an equation corresponds to something that is actually happening.
Physicists have had lots of practice in solving equations with many solutions and then examining the solutions to see which ones, if any, correspond to the real world. Even something so simple as the equation for the path of a baseball has two solutions. One solution will correspond to, say, the path that the baseball took as it rocketed off the bat of David Ortiz. But there will be another solution to the equation that will describe a very different baseball -- one that is clearly not coming off the bat of David Ortiz. In freshman physics, students learn to toss these "non-physical" solutions aside.
Physics is the art of looking for equations that somehow describe the real world, finding the solutions to these equations, and then matching the solution against the real world. The importance of connecting the mathematical descriptions to the physical reality is essential. When Hawking says that "every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously," he is making an assumption that his freshman professor probably told him not to make -- namely that every solution to one's equation describes a real physical reality.
"Every possible history of the universe" is a remarkable set of narratives. "Possible" in this case, would loosely mean "not-self contradictory." So we have universes more or less like this one but with interesting differences -- the French won in North America instead of the English; Hitler was successfully assassinated. Or the earth is at the center of the solar system. Reality TV was never developed. And, of course, there will be all the universes where the laws of nature are just different enough to prevent life from existing. And universes that never really got going because gravity was too strong and they collapsed immediately after they were born. We are being asked to believe that all these universe actually exist.
If all these many universes exist, then one mystery of our universe is dispelled -- the so-called "fine-tuning" puzzle. Our universe is unexpectedly hospitable to life, a fact that many have suggested provides support for belief in a purposeful Creator. But, if all possible universes exist, then of course one will be like this one. We do know that this one is "possible" since it is "actual."
It is entirely possible that these histories are real. If we have learned anything from physics, it is that lots of crazy things are true. But physicists have always anchored their more speculative theories in careful observation. When Newton was developing his theory of gravity he waited anxiously for new observational data so he could be sure he was on the right track. Unfortunately, the multi-verse enthusiasts have no such caution. It appears that the impossibility of actually finding real evidence for alternative "histories," has become a license to make confident and grandiose claims without such evidence.
Ervin Laszlo: When Stephen Hawking Speaks About God, Don't Mistake Him for a Scientist
By CORNELIA DEAN
The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is “unassailable fact,” the journal Nature said this month in an editorial on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought. A headline on the editorial drove the point home: “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
Or as V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of “the universal spirit of the cosmos,” but the soul as it is usually spoken of, “an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.” Belief in that kind of soul “is basically superstition,” he said.
To continue to read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26soul.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
I do have to add that there is also a whole lot of ignorance going on of the other side. Take the bit about not being created in the image of God. The author of that line doesn't even grasp what the term means. None of the major religions teach that God has a physical body. the reference there is to the ability to love, the need to communicate with others, grasps concept of Justice, appreciate beauty, free will. Claiming we have fathomed all of that to deduce it doesn't exist is just rambling rhetoric. There is a desperate attempt to go way beyond where the science is by extrapolation and it is sure to backfire. Frankly its already beginning to backfire. In the UK pieces have been written that suggest physicists may well lose funding because hawkings has demonstrated going beyond the scientific method to draw conclusions
As far as the term God, again poetry is difficult, read through the eyes of literalism. Apparently Hawkings has been listening to the dimwits in the theology department.
"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists".
Blaise Pascal
--aaazzz111
This is the basis for the seemly "eternal fluctuating state"..
The evidence does not "conclude", humans do the concluding.
They "concluded" that we live on a flat world, for a very, very long time.
It even worked.
Wars, trade, romance all went along quite well in a flat world.
It was really, really wrong, but it worked.
Our minds hear sound at 44mhz +/- so we can make MP3s that throw out 9/10ths of the actual sound record and still "hear" the whole of the music.
We as biological machines operate in time slices.
We build sensors and computers and all sorts of gizmos to IMPROVE our information gathering abilities.
But we have as yet not managed to build a machine to help us INTERPRET information, or even to know what questions to ask.
As killer Apes we do well enough but it is pure folly and fiction and hubris to suppose that we can know very much about Infinity.
I think we would do well to even admit Infinity exists.
You would think our best scientists would lead the way in that.
But they don’t.
I suspect that Infinity stuns there sensibilities and there hubris and there self esteem otherwise.
They have not the faith to exist all un-knowing within Infinity.
There are some I suspect do have that faith, not in religion per se, but in “something”.
Like Jane Goodall is it? The Ape lady? She seems very loving and humble and secure.
The truth is you are ignorant about Heavenly Pies.
You know nothing about the Pie-in-the-Sky.You know absolutely nothing more than Einstein about what you call “something” and that he called a product of human weaknesses.
you are quite mistaken with respect to infinity
in fact infinity is hugely important in mathematics and mathematical sciences such as physics
we have successfully explored the notion of infinity - a process in which the work of Cantor was hugely important.
But infinity is also extremely important to analysis.
And assessing the role of infinity in mathematical models is one of the trickiest and most important problems in modern physics eg in string theory
You are right in one thing though. There is an attempt to redefine nothing but in classic definition the attempt no longer qualifies for nothingness. When people use the word nothing they do not mean nothing with something added to it regardless of what that thing is. they mean nothing. If you add a law to nothing you no longer have nothing. do the Macarena but words are what they are they express concepts and that kind of nothing does not fit the concept.
you come around time and again to your private understanding of nothingness which is clearly extremely important to your whole world view. The problem is that practically everything you say about it is opaque. You talk as if scientists have never thought about nothingness, as if you are some kind of pioneer, or perhaps someone trying to awaken us to ancient insights science has lost sight of. But if you truly have important insights about nothingness rather than a destructive carelessly expressed criticism of others it would be extremely important because it goes the the heart of modern theory about nothingness, vacuum energy and gravity. So I'd love to hear you step up and be more specific. You have made all the generalities we need to hear on this. Where's the beef?
Do you know what your ratio of deleted posts versus posted comments is? 1309/2085 -- Do you know what that means? The direction you're going indicates that it will take you a very, very long time to get your moderator badge because you have no clue what an abusive flag is intended for, and your overall tone is so poor that no one in their right mind would want to get to know you. The fact that you repeat the same mistake over and over again is a serious concern for everyone who is aware of your profile. Thus, until you clean up your act, I say: adios, hasta la vista, hasta luego.
Thankfully I was reading your comments on your site to see what you have been reading and commenting on and I saw the comment that you made to me yesterday. That was your daughter's birthday, tell her that a fellow blogger friend of her daddy wish her a very happhy birthday and that she is a very loved and blessed daughter and when you hug her among the many hugs that you give her, give her one on my behalf. I am touched to learn about your mom and sister passing and the great source of comfort you were for them. Trust me you are blessed all the way and I am sure these experiences have given you your sense of greater purpose. I wish that I could write some more but I am going to prepare for work, if I have free time, I will blog some more later on.
I am finding the atheists on this site to be very difficult to exchange with, they challenge everything as if they were hypervigilant. Until next time fellow blogger:)
thanks for the tip but clearly we have different objectives here. Having taken at look at your profile and posts to better understand where you are coming from I can see this is obviously important to you from the number of recent posts explaining how to get badges quickly. By way of contrast I have no interest in becoming a moderator or in collecting any other badges. So if I were to give you a tip it would be to restrict your advice on this topic to those who share you interest in being top boy scout.
With respect to the abusive flag I very rarely flag anything as abusive so I am not sure what your point is. I have only ever flagged something as abusive if it either (a) is clearly abusive eg racist or vulgar (b) violates clear terms of HP eg is a cross thread piece of spam. I freely confess that I shall be extremely surprised indeed if you find any of my flags to the contrary.
The conclusion of the Man of the Century: For Einstein, the greatest Jew ever, the word God was devoid of the divine.
Most mortals believe in a “personal God”, in heaven and souls, in idols and all kinds of sacred follies. They also believe that Einstein believed in God.
Not only Einstein’s personal God has been dead all along. God was never even alive according to Einstein.
According to Einstein, God is “a product of human weakness”. That is what’s important. Beyond that all the pretentious, pseudo-science is empty, meaningless, and delusional.
Einstein’s quotes were used by dealers of delusions to confuse the common man to fool him about Einstein true religious beliefs. Einstein categorically rejected the supernatural.
In his article, Albert Einstein’s God — the “Product of Human Weaknesses”, published on Thursday, May 15, 2008, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth wrote: Einstein’s language is very clear. God is dismissed as “nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses” — a statement hauntingly like the verdict of Friedrich Nietzsche... In the end, it is better to see Einstein, not as a believer of sorts, but as an atheist of sorts. Belief in God was simply childish, he asserted.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2008/05/15/albert-einsteins-god-the-product-of-human-weaknesses/
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html
I say near because the GODs we mortals concoct are Idols and Graven Images of various kinds.
Fundamentally they serve to support human power structures that serve themselves before all else.
We calls these "Religions".
They exist, like governments and other power structures to Farm the FARMERS.
Somehow I feel certain GOD cares not at all about any Religion.
In fact thinking of Jesus whipping the money changer I rather think they might tend to piss GOD off.
Be all that as it may it has little to do with the question Hawking is struggling with.
His issue is with his firmly held "belief" that there has to have been a BEGINING.
Apparently he cannot wrap his mind around the idea that within an Infinite Reality all local phenomena would have beginnings and ends, even as the whole was an everlasting process of existence.
Or perhaps his monkey mind is too afraid of the concept of Infinity to do anything other than battle with it.
Like St. Paul.
He would do better to contemplate his navel rather than try to pretend away Infinity.
And all of us pretenders to the throne of thought might do better to take a long hard look UP at the stars, and another DOWN at the fossil record, and take a long THINK about what in the world we are here FOR, as a more important question that might really have an answer.
Thanks for your comment. I agree with my "Rabbis", Spinoza and Einstein, and with Shelley.
My Post Judeo-Christian series
IT IS EASIER TO SUPPOSE THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS EXISTED FOR ALL ETERNITY THAN TO CONCEIVE A BEING BEYOND ITS LIMITS CAPABLE OF CREATING IT.
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley
I would pose the more likely possibility that "creation" has always existed and will always exist as an Infinite reality without beginning or end and certainly without a single “center” that the sun revolves around or a world that is flat.
Existence is a process that will always end up expressing the most complex or life forms as a natural phenomenon of what existence is.
To be in the center of something means that there is an equal distance from that center to any edge in any direction, within Infinity anyplace or all places are in the “center” because it is always equally “far” in any direction from that place in any direction.
Have we discovered that center in the so called expanding universe (another silly theory that science accepts as fact in error that only points to our limited abilities to observe and acquire data).
Science is challenged by the monkey minds that practice it.
The key word being practice.
it is the deep result of an enormous amount of research
it absolutely is contrary to intuition, but that is because our intuitions are frequently mistaken about the nature of reality at the extremes physics is now capable of exploring
the kind of thinking you are playing with is the same kind of mythical speculation that has informed superstition for centuries - it was fine when we had nothing better. Anyone with imagination could play with ideas about the ultimate nature of reality, the origins of creation, the meaning of life etc. But we are so far beyond those everyday speculations now and there are such excellent popular accounts available about modern science that anyone who has a serious interest can easily educate themselves. They will quickly discover that no matter how bizarre their ideas they are easily outstripped by reality.
this is science from the science popularizer noise. On the face of it it seems so reasonable but It pretends that we have come to an end of a journey and now know all there is to know. Just extrapolate from a bit of science and extend it to where the data just has not reached and pretend that it has. Furthermore its just plain dishonest. In another post you said you only respected Penrose. Go back and read. he doesn't even believe we have a complete understanding of Quantum mechanics much less. This kind of restraint is good for science not the book sellers version. Prove everything.
So here are the facts. there is very little data that has been drawn in regard to absolute nothingness. nada. We are not there yet. Every test we have run has been inside of our very much something universe and we are on the hunt for what constitutes most of our universe which we have yet to detect and particles that will merely be our FIRST steps toward testing string theory.
If you believe in the scientific method (and there is little evidence that many really do) then you wait for the data. You don't trumpet M-theory as proven or draw conclusions on string theory when it isn't even complete (again check Penrose ). Old fashioned science.
That theory is largely accepted by scientists on “faith”.
The most significant "evidence" is what is known as red and blue shifting of visible light as we perceive it.
Firstly there is evidence that the observer affects the observed, so the observations themselves need to be questioned.
Secondly if in fact the shifting is happening nobody seems to ask if there is a possible explanation other than that apparently everything is expanding AWAY from us as if we are somehow in the center of everything.
What if the weight of gravity on the Away side being observed is equal to that on the unobserved side but is the "closer" due to it's being observed and thus it acts to slow light as if it was coming from objects that are moving away from us.
We know that gravity does in fact affect light.
Or what if the deep space between galaxies has different energy potentials than space within galaxies?
What we do know is that when we make a device that can see better and point it at the very darkest, most empty places we previously "observed", we find not darkness but a whole slew of new stuff.
Will we ever be able to build a device that can see to Infinity?
If we do, might we not find ourselves looking back?
I know he has a a bachelors from Nazarene and a Masters and Phd from Rice. But what were the masters and phd in? I would like to know how deep his physics background is.
I am highly confident that when (if) he reads the book he will discover that Hawking has not made "an assumption that his freshman professor probably told him not to make" and to be honest it is pretty ridiculous to make a charge like this.
you may be right, but you don't know that do you Michael?
you would just like it to be true.
I respect a reviewer like Penrose, but most of the other reviewers, (very likely including the writer of this article) aren't notably competent to review the book even if they have had access to it.
The key word? Infinity.
Limiting infinity with words, the meanings of which seem to be fluid and limiting, like that of the word “universe”, seems to be a way to escape from having to deal with Infinity.
Until Infinity is acknowledged by Hawking and other scientists, they cannot have a rational discussion about, or seek real understandings of “creation”.
It seem the monkey mind is unable or unwilling to admit that infinity exists, indeed that it must exist as any “end” to creation provides some sort of termination to it that thus implies “somethingness” beyond that terminator, one would assume at least space and therefore time as well.
Could a galaxy collapse into a single black hole and then invert itself to spew itself forth once again in a rebirth of a new galaxy?
BANG!
Why not? That even makes sense.
But Infinity?
No.
It isn’t possible as Infinity would be forever collapsing, without end, and therefore not collapsing at all in fact.
What is obvious is that they can in no way pars out the fact of Infinity.
It seems that evolution has not caught up to the facts as yet, thus leaving monkey minds to sputter and mutter around in FINITE ways as they seek “understanding” which they then adhere to with religious fervor, just as all other “religious” people cling to whatever DOGMA floats their boat.
Infinity always IS, therefore so is GOD.
Ugh...
If you want to define "GOD" as an abstract mathematical concept go right ahead. But INFINITY does not have a personality. INFINITY does not have will and volition. INFINITY does not run around issuing ethical instructions. Nobody has ever been told by INFINITY to chisel commandments on big stone tablets. INFINITY has never knocked up a virgin. INFINITY doesn't care if you pray 5 times a day.
Or in other words, your "GOD" is not a deity.
Matter and energy without awareness are barren and without purpose and therefore chaotic.
We exist as the proof that reality has more in the way of PURPOSE than the cycles of creation and dissolution that systems of matter and energy can achieve on their own.
While Hawkins’s contention that physical laws are sufficient to be the "creator" of everything might even be true if "everything” were limited, they cannot be responsible for Infinity.
Infinity exists or it doesn't.
I contend that it MUST exist if anything exists.
If it exists, it always has existed, otherwise it is not by definition Infinite.
Allowing that evolution can complexify life (however “created”) begs the question as to what then goes on when that life achieves a complexity sufficient to express love.
When love can cause people to sacrifice themselves for others they don't even know, as in running up the burning towers, (behavior that runs counter to evolutions demands) have we achieved a new place as to evolution?
Patterns repeat and scale up and down infinitely.
Is it less likely, or more likely that the pattern of love we observe does that as well?
What Is observe is that monkey minds cannot deal with Infinity.
They seem to require a beginning and a middle and an end.
Where does love “start”?
Then we have to look into the universe as rather circular as in the symbole of Ouroboros, found in many ancient cultures, depicted as the serpent biting its own tail, or the dragon biting its tail forming the circle as in ancient Chinese symbolism. This symbol is transcendental as it can take various meaning to various sects. One can ascribe to it INFINITY as it self recreate constantly. One can look inside of it or outside of it for meaning.
I may seem to digress from the highly scientific talk but frankly I found this dry science too limiting of possibilities. Although Dr Hawking and company seem to be using an out of the box mode of thinking when they hypothesized the idea of the multiverse. I believe this is his right brain talking. His left brain will eventually get into more dialogue with his right brain and I am waiting for the result. It will be quite astounding.
"I may seem to digress from the highly scientific talk but frankly I found this dry science too limiting of possibilities. "
I don't want to assume too much about your scientific background but if you will forgive me this sounds like someone without a deep background. The reason I say this is because your statement, which may well strike a chord with people who themselves don't have much science, couldn't be more wrong. Today it is science that is anything but dry and it is science that is uncovering truths more fantastic than humans have ever previously dreamt of.
there is a wonderful quote by Eddington that goes to the heart of this.
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
The key point is that before science we explored ideas largely by metaphors drawn from our everyday experience. "we have to look into the universe as rather circular as in the symbole of Ouroboros, found in many ancient cultures, depicted as the serpent biting its own tail, or the dragon biting its tail forming the circle..."
But today we have burnt out everyday metaphors. The models we are building now to understand the universe are not models we can intuitively come up with from the story of everyday experience. They are models the universe forces us to accept.
This is so important. I you want me to explain it more (or better) don't hesitate to ask.
The most interesting thing I've seen coming from this discussion of Hawkings' new book is that the ultimate "cannot know" of physics is beginning to apply equally to religious thought.
That is, physicists say the universe came from nothing, a sudden, infrequent, but possible explosive event in the quantum vacuum. Religion's natural question is, "How did such possibilities come about if not from a Creator?"
That's a great question, but one that exists for Religion as well. Assuming a Creator exists, when, how, and why did s/he come to exist in the first place? What existed before the Creator?
Isn't it odd how the ultimate question is the same for both science AND religion?
Assume there IS a creator. Didn't s/he create the laws that scientists discover? If those laws can demonstrate that a Creator was not necessary for our universe to evolve, what does that say about the Creator?
and where exactly do the laws demonstrate that proposition? or are you equating hawkings with the laws? I've never seen a law make any claim as to where it came from. Have you? Please do tell because that last sentence in particular makes absolutely no logical sense.
In addition it was religion that first came up with ex nihilo and stated that creation was made by nothing more than command (equivalent to law). Religion is not responding to Hawking's position as you imply. They have been making the near identical argument for lets see - a few thousand years before him. Only functional difference is that Hawkings is claiming the laws exist to themselves and is uncaused and religion claims that God is self existent and laws are derived from his intelligence. Care to posit a observational test in this universe that can "demonstrate" the difference?
besides that test religion and science find themselves barking up the same tree on equal footing on that issue...... if we are being logical.
Assuming a Creator, the laws science has proven were initiated by that Creator. Do you propose to deny that? Are you qualified to refute the scientific proofs? Are you qualified to speak for the Creator's actions? If you are not qualified on either level, as I suspect to be the case, then your logic is no more valid than mine.
You ask, "Care to posit a observational test in this universe that can "demonstrate" the difference?" I would posit that science has proven a set of predictive explanations of the origin of OUR universe which do not require a Creator. In that sense, science has already posited and proven the observational test you propose.
Do you have some observational test, as well founded in theory and reality, to posit the existence of a Creator?
No, it isn't odd... because it isn't a question "for" science or religion, it's just a question. Some people actually try to answer it (science) and some people just pretend they have an answer (religion).
It's sad, but it's not odd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90WTDnvYqpA
Scientists playing to be God are far worse than Gods playing to be human...
The anthropic principle has been a thorn in the side of many hardcore atheists and materialists. The odds that this one universe would exist in such a way as to allow for the development of life and consciousness is very remote indeed. Hawking's "all potentialities exist simultaneously" idea, is a way around it.
But not really.
There is absolutely no proof, as of yet, that there are multiverses around us.
All of those serious minded "show me the proof" types, are jumping on an unproved and imaginary bandwagon.
I do however know plenty of religious people who claim to have understanding over the ultimate truth of reality...
But, there isn't a lot of difference between "I don't know the answer" and "God did it". Neither explains anything.
What is really meant when scientists say that M-theory 'enjoys no observational support' or 'can't be tested' , is that there is no "definitive confirmation or falsification of a unique prediction from it [M-theory]". Just because the theory has no unique supporting data, does not mean that the available data does not support the theory.
The realization that Hawkings is violating the restraints of the scientific method is just sinking in
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/by_hamish_johnstonstephen_hawk.html
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/stephen-hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/philosophy+Hawking+universe/3510788/story.html
M-theory is an unverified theory which is based on all tangible evidence.
'nuff said.