PDA

View Full Version : Hawking's new book


Russell Nash
09-03-2010, 02:11 PM
Author Hawking says God not needed for creation - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100902/ap_on_en_ot/eu_britain_hawking)

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to set the Universe going."

But, of course, Mr. Hawking, other than: blah, blah, blah, where is your proof...? Why should we trust these guys...?

With Strength I Burn
09-03-2010, 02:53 PM
I found his allusions to panpsychism silly.

Russell Nash
09-03-2010, 03:28 PM
I found his allusions to panpsychism silly.

Have you read this story by Isaac Asimov...? What do you think: is it possible? Is it panpsychism?

The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)

Gray House
09-04-2010, 03:43 PM
I have not read Hawking's new book but I have read in many places--it seems to be theoretically proven--that nothing can be known of anything before the big bang. Because everything was created by the big bang, there exists no evidence on which to base speculation of what was before. Therefore, it seems to me, there is no evidence that it was created by a god. This seems to me to be proof that it is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going. Because nothing can be invoked to set the universe going. But this very well might not be the argument Hawking presents.

Russell Nash
09-04-2010, 08:00 PM
Because nothing can be invoked to set the universe going.

You all know my position about Hawking: he is a brilliant scientist but that fact doesn't mean that he is right. "Brilliancy" cannot be used to support a theory, without proof. Of course, he can published 500 books, if he lives enough to do it, I have nothing against that, but the quantity of books published supporting a theory, or quantity of people defending that same theory, doesn't mean that a theory is true.

Gray House just pointed out one of the so many problems with the current theory: if we don't have enough theory to understand whatever happened in the beginning (if there was one), how could Hawking affirm so many things, without evidence? Currently there are still three models that fight to explain the Universe: Big Bang theory, Steady State theory, and Plasma Cosmology. There might be more in the next coming years, or not. Big Bang cosmology is almost entirely based on the redshift phenomenon, that until now, has only one possible explanation: we are expanding. Many people, other physicists (even MIT graduates) do not accept this claim. In the last hundred years or so, many explanations have been proposed but apparently they are not enough, or are incomplete. This doesn't mean that redshift is due to the expansion of the Universe, as Hawking wants us to believe. It is a possible explanation, but it cannot be verified. We assume that this is true, and we are in this adventure together, trying to see if this is true or not.

At this point of Science, nothing can be proved. I must resign myself to die without knowing whether there was a beginning or not. I'm not so optimistic as Penrose who says that we are going to have a definite theory within a hundred years. I think that we might probably never know.