Theology unnecessary, Stephen Hawking tells CNN

[Gerald]

(CNN) -- Theology is unnecessary. So says Stephen Hawking, the world-famous physicist who controversially argues in a new book that God did not create the universe.

"God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator," Hawking told CNN's "Larry King Live" in an interview that aired Friday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/eu....html?iref=NS1



Note:September 11, 2010 Updated 1106 GMT

[Bubblehead1980]

This is news? Been obvious for a long time that "god" did not create the universe, durrrr.

[Skybird]

I read about that some days ago, too. While I agree that a theistic conception makes no sense in explaining the universe, Hawkings imo stumbles when he c,laims that science does explain it. What he said, reminds of the theory of so-called self-organisation (maybe he even refers to that, I have only read a brief summary in the news about the event where he spoke).

I happen to agree that matter has the ablity of self-organisation indeed.

However, neither science nor blindly assuming the existence of a god explains WHy it has that chracteristic. If Hawkings really said that "science can explain the universe", then he is practicing a lousy standard or scientific methodology. Science does not do that, and I dohb t it ever will be capable to do that. Because the 100 billion dollar question is: why is there something at all? why is there simply not just nothing?

And this is a complete mystery, a secret, ad balance on the sharp edge of a sword: between hope and trust, and existential doubt and despair. Assuming that a god fired a starzting shot, is just guessingk, there is no evidence, and no reason to assme that. Plus there is plenty of arguments and mind experiments shopwing how absurd the human conception of gods existing is.

But science also is not capable to explain the beginning of the universe. It only is increaiongly competent in explaing the patterns and mechanics by which the universe is unfolding scince it began. Science holds the current theory of a Big Bang, and it is quite cionvincing in explainign events since then. But it does not have anything to say about WHY there was the Big Bang it assumes.

Why is there anything at all? Why is there not just nothing? If there was a Big Bang indeed, why did it happen? Where did it happen if nothing was before? Or was there something before? Something different? Etc etc etc.

The most human and most honest answer is: we do not know, no matter the religious or scientific gymnastics we try. A walk on the sharp edge of the sword this life is indeed.

And it hurts. Everybody is a liar who claism that he never feels the pain, the existential doubt. That also is part of what it means to be human. And it seems to be the drive behind quite many things we try, in good and in bad.

therefore I would want to supplement Hawkings staements, or thre theory of self-organisation. I would want to say that matter not only is able to aquire more complex forms of organisation, but also has the ability to aquire more and more self-awareness, and that maybe the meaning of life and existence and the universe is that the universe becomes finally aware of itself. at least that is how I use to think of it.

[Gerald]

but no news for me

[bookworm_020]

So I guess his uncle was a monkey?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

This is news? Been obvious for a long time that "god" did not create the universe, durrrr.

Obvious how?

Current science on this issue does not agree with your conclusion one bit. While it does agree that any deity religion believes created the universe is HIGHLY unlikely, the concept of a creator is not outside the realm of science - in fact, we believe that whole universes could quite possibly be created in a laboratory, ultimately making said creators "gods".

Furthermore, multi-dimensional M-Theory suggests that an infinite number of universes are possible. This combined with the "Many Worlds" interpretation of wave-function collapse (the Copenhagen interpretion - the two most widely accepted views of quantum probability {wave function}) means that, due to an infinite number of universes being likely, an infinite number of them result from creators - I.E., "Gods".

Now I do not believe in a deity. However, I choose to respect those that do, and I dislike whenever one tries to belittle that belief from behind a faux scientific veil. In no way is what you're claiming "obvious" - science has no real strong fundamental answer to the question of Genesis - what resulted in the Big Bang. (In fact, the idea of a Big Bang was repulsive to Albert Einstein due to it's suggestion that a deity may actually exist - so much so that he contrived what was called the "Cosmological Constant" in order to support a steady-state universe.)

In any case, what you claim is obvious is not quite so, and that's not what I believe Hawking was attempting to express.

[Aramike]

I missed this:

But it does not have anything to say about WHY there was the Big Bang it assumes.

That's not true. Neil Turok (the pioneer who developed the theory of Inflation) has since proposed wha tis known as the Ekpyrotic universe - essentially the the Big Bang occured because of the collision of two "branes" within the M-brane multiverse.

I believe I understand what you're trying to say - you're taking the postpositivist approach pioneered by your oft-cited philosopher Karl Popper and openly subscribed to by Hawking. While I tend to agree to a moderate approach of positivism, I often disagree with the concept that absolute truths cannot be known for certain - I find this idea to be a play on words rather than the fundamental concept as it is presented. In other words, I believe we can know the ultimate origin of both the universe and the multiverse, which is where I believe we disagree.

The problem is the counter-intuitive nature of modern science. For example the classical and still widely-accepted model of the atom still has electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons - despite the fact that we know that electrons do not "orbit" at all ... they exist as waveform functions (probability). But it is far more intuitive to ascribe orbiting to atoms as a way to teach the basic concept - the problem is that its completely wrong.

Expanding that idea, we accept the idea that this universe involves a very clear progression of cause and effect. In fact, thermodynamic laws require such a concept. We also accept the idea that we live in a stable vacuum while the concept of further stability is counter-intuitive. Yet, the idea of differing laws of physics (including those more stable than ours) are supported by modern science. In this universe, relativity shows space and time to be inseparable. Intuitively we would believe that would apply in any universe.

Why?

Intuitively we only percieve 4 dimensions - 3 spatial and one of time. Why does all variations of string theory and M theory then agree on 11 dimensions? Is it a most improbable coicidence or is the universe truly this counter intuitive?

Furthermore, why does it seem that the vast majority of people would agree that gravity is the strongest of the fundamental forces although it is the weakest by MANY orders of magnitude?

Okay, fine - I'm rambling on and pretty must past my counter argument - science is just too exciting for me. Getting back, ultimately I think your argument's mistake lies it the fact that, although you've taken an even more reasonable approach to your concepts that anyone else, you've still taken A reasonable approach, period. God, science, and the universe are anything but.

(I do agree with your conclusions for the most part, however. Like I said, I just get excited in discussing such things)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I missed this:That's not true. Neil Turok (the pioneer who developed the theory of Inflation) has since proposed wha tis known as the Ekpyrotic universe - essentially the the Big Bang occured because of the collision of two "branes" within the M-brane multiverse.

Like the singularity Big Bang, the brane Big Bang also is just - a model. Concluding on either one of these theories is because they seem to promise to be able to explain a lot of things that have happened since then, and explain that in a more elegant and/or complete way than other cosmologic ideas about how it all started. But we do not know the truth about what really happened. An we do no know WHY it happened. Neither the Big Bang nor the Ekpyrotic model of explanation tells anything about WHY it happened. They only imagine ideas HOW it happened.

I believe I understand what you're trying to say - you're taking the postpositivist approach pioneered by your oft-cited philosopher Karl Popper and openly subscribed to by Hawking.

Do I? I honstely don't know. I never understood what this label "positivism" or "post-positivism" should mean. And for the sake of completeness, many ideas of Popper I do not subscribe to, too. some of them, are sounding almost naive and left to me. But he also said a lot of things that make a lot of sense. these are that I quote sometimes. Others I would never quote at all. He was important a thinker. But he was no Über-brain.

While I tend to agree to a moderate approach of positivism, I often disagree with the concept that absolute truths cannot be known for certain - I find this idea to be a play on words rather than the fundamental concept as it is presented. In other words, I believe we can know the ultimate origin of both the universe and the multiverse, which is where I believe we disagree.

I think we cannot. We cannot see beyond the distance of light as it has travelled from "there" to "here" since it was created by whatever form of event. We also cannot investigate or make conclusions on the state of things before that starting event that we assume to have been there (we already limit ourselves by assuming that there has been that starting event, right). Our thinking is not unconditional, and it necessarily cannot be. we are products of the factors that define us in our existence as human beings, and that includes our brains as well as the way our thought get thought by usunder the influence on the context of cultural and lingual conceptions. We all live in a limited universe - limited by the was the words we use make sense for us. we cannot think beyond the meaning of the words we know. We are what we are - last but not least because we are not anything different. Our thinking is limited in ways, patterns and reach. Something limited cannot embrace something that is maybe unlimited, but at least is incredibly many times bigger in size, dimension, scope, complexity.

The problem is the counter-intuitive nature of modern science. For example the classical and still widely-accepted model of the atom still has electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons - despite the fact that we know that electrons do not "orbit" at all ... they exist as waveform functions (probability). But it is far more intuitive to ascribe orbiting to atoms as a way to teach the basic concept - the problem is that its completely wrong.

And Newton physics versus quantum physics. I would not say the one is right and the other is wrong. Both are covering different parts of one and the same spectrum. Like a laser sensor is not more correct or wrong as is an infrared sensor, Newton physics work extremely well in the range or better: at the scale of matter that they match: the macro-universe, from billiard to astronomy. Quantum physics work better in the micro-universe: particle physics, subnuclear scales etc. That is not something I would call "counter-intuitive". If we understand our perception of existence as is as a spectrum, then it is wise to increase our set of filters and sensors to examine various wave-length ranges of it. Newton and Planck founded two such different tools. there may be more needed, the more we learn and find out about the universe. Theoretical maths also may be understood as such a tool, at least as a basis for creating such tools in the future - by telling us at what directions to look. that is why I think it is stupid if economists often claim that sciences only makes sense if they are focussing on creating new products and markets. we need to look beyond that, else we stay where we are. Grundlagenforschung we call it in german, I do not know the English term.

Expanding that idea, we accept the idea that this universe involves a very clear progression of cause and effect. In fact, thermodynamic laws require such a concept. We also accept the idea that we live in a stable vacuum while the concept of further stability is counter-intuitive. Yet, the idea of differing laws of physics (including those more stable than ours) are supported by modern science. In this universe, relativity shows space and time to be inseparable. Intuitively we would believe that would apply in any universe.

That is not by intuition, but because so far we have not observed or gained any solid information about other universes, nor have we been able to find opposing information on the models we currently use - we conclude on them in theoretical models resulting from abstract math. For example the laws of conservation of movement, energy and impulse are attributed to all our present one universe because so far we have not found them to be violated anywhere where we looked. They also enable us to make precise prediction on events "out there", to remote-control our space probes with remarkable precision, and to bring a lot of our observations into consistency with each other. "Intuition" has not so much t do with it, but basic scientific methodology - and this is that I subscribe to more than to anything else. It is the more profound, basic level on which I approach sciences. And that's why I am aware that both the singularity big Bang and the ekpyrotic universe model both are just models, no real knowledge. It also is the reason why I refuse to be put into a drawer with a label on it like "positivism". If you want to label me, then call me an ancient Greek. Not because of their physical models and theories which for the most have been proven wrong by now, but the methodology that they used before anyone else and that that finds it'S eqivalents in our modern science and the way we run it (ideally).

Why?

Intuitively we only percieve 4 dimensions - 3 spatial and one of time. Why does all variations of string theory and M theory then agree on 11 dimensions? Is it a most improbable coicidence or is the universe truly this counter intuitive?

We see the universe the way in which we approach it. We not only passively perceive it, we also actively define it by the way we ask questions about it. Those 11 dimensions thus may be the logical result of using a certain type of mathematics, and they are asmuch a surprise or wonder like it is a surorise that in the decimal system the mulitplation of 3 and 5 makes a result of 15. Mind you, you are talking not about observable sciences, but abstract or theoretical science, and they will remain to be that at least for the forseeable future.

Furthermore, why does it seem that the vast majority of people would agree that gravity is the strongest of the fundamental forces although it is the weakest by MANY orders of magnitude?

Is it? I am currently runnign through my chapter on gravitation force, and I think it is everything but "weak". It is omnipresent and thus: very basic. Do not mistake it's total value in a given local constellation with its general universal meaning.

Okay, fine - I'm rambling on and pretty must past my counter argument - science is just too exciting for me. Getting back, ultimately I think your argument's mistake lies it the fact that, although you've taken an even more reasonable approach to your concepts that anyone else, you've still taken A reasonable approach, period. God, science, and the universe are anything but.

What would be the alternative? Wild fantasizing? Again, I point out that what you may perceive as my reasonable approach, maybe is just a rational attitude grounding on classical scientific methodology. And that methodology is the basis even for abstract and theoretic science. 11-dimensional cosmological explanations need to undergo it as well as the usefulness of the ekpyrotic universe model will need to accept that it gets judged on the basis of this methodology. And this methodology will decide on whether we stay with these models and accept them for more time to come (Big Bang) or as new theories replacing former ones (ekpyrotic universe), or not.

That is not really a philosophical problem of reasonability, is it. what it is is the difference between science and just pseudo-science.

[ReFaN]

God is twisting is his char right now!

we are all gods children, what stephen hawking says is Blasphemy!

[AngusJS]

Maybe he wrote this book to force idiots like William Lane Craig to stop quote mining him.

[TLAM Strike]

that is why I think it is stupid if economists often claim that sciences only makes sense if they are focussing on creating new products and markets. we need to look beyond that, else we stay where we are. Grundlagenforschung we call it in german, I do not know the English term.

I think it means Basic or Pure Research, although we would tend to call it "Blue Sky Research" in English.

[Aramike]

Only time for a few points:

An we do no know WHY it happened. Neither the Big Bang nor the Ekpyrotic model of explanation tells anything about WHY it happened.

That's my point - our intuitive nature requires a why, a causal relationship. That does not mean that science requires a why.

I think we cannot. We cannot see beyond the distance of light as it has travelled from "there" to "here" since it was created by whatever form of event.

You think we cannot NOW, but it would be foolish to believe that we could not EVER.

And Newton physics versus quantum physics. I would not say the one is right and the other is wrong. Both are covering different parts of one and the same spectrum.

First off, Newtonian physics has been replaced by relativity. Relativity involves the physics of the very large, and quantum physics (the Standard Model) is that of the very small. They don't need to be mutually exclusive (in fact, the Holy Grail of physics is to unite the two theories into the Theory of Everything).

Is it? I am currently runnign through my chapter on gravitation force, and I think it is everything but "weak". It is omnipresent and thus: very basic. Do not mistake it's total value in a given local constellation with its general universal meaning.

You might want to get a new book then.

Relative strength:
Gravitation = 1
Strong Nuclear Force = 10^38
Electromagnatism = 10^36
Weak Nuclear = 10^25

There's a reason the a tiny magnet can pick of a paperclip that has the entire mass of the earth pulling back.

In fact, the relative weakness of gravity is one of the most intriguing questions of physics today, and it was partly responsible for the origination of SuperGravity and Super Symmetry. Furthermore, gravity is not "omnipresent" (general relativity proves this).

By the way, my ideas regarding the counter-intuitive nature of nature are not my own but are generally accepted within the scientific community.

That is not really a philosophical problem of reasonability, is it. what it is is the difference between science and just pseudo-science.

This shows that you missed by point completely. Essentially I was suggesting that a further paradigm shift in science is not only possible, but it is probable. However, there is necessarily a finite albeit quite large amount of data which can be known (else you enter the realm of the supernatural). The positivist (Hawking) believes that nothing can be proven with any sort of absolute. While I understand that approach, I find it to be an unreasonable absolute itself. I believe that any system can be defined absolutely if all data about that system can be known. And while I understand that so-called "measurement problem" would seem to preclude us knowing all data within a quantum system, wavefunction mathematics suggest that we simply need a different mathematical expression.

Ultimately, however the discussion IS philisophical. My position is that we do not yet know if we are capable of abolutely knowing anything. Yours is that we DO know that we CANNOT know everything. Frankly, I find my position more in line with the position you're taking as mine is absolutely void of absolutes, and yours gives an absolute in stating there is none.

[Skybird]

That's my point - our intuitive nature requires a why, a causal relationship. That does not mean that science requires a why.

Oh, it does. You cannot just make a claim and leave it to that without explaining it by showing out why that fact should be a reasonable theory or model. It must be founded on scientific findings. And in the case you make a new observation of a phenomenon that so far has not been expected by existing theories and is not explained by then, you then must do research to find out the why behind this new phenomenon, and you must change and adapt these old theories accordingly, or replace them, or abandon them.

That is the methodology of science, you cannot escape it. An observation or inspiration leads to a hypothesis leads to checking that hypothesis by seeing if that hypothesis can make correct predictions, and then either is confirmed if the predictions are correct: then the hypothesis is becoming a theory; or it is not confirmed, then the hypothesis must be changed or abandoned. That is how science works.

You can do differently, but then most likely it is not science what you are doing.

Sticking with this methodology leads me to say that our science only can examine what has happening, and how, since the beginning that we assume to exist. Maybe we will find information that way that suggests that the beginning has been different as we assume it today, or that – like I have pointed out myself occasionally in the past – maybe no beginning has been. But before that becomes acceptable scientific theory, it must undergo the procedure of scientific methodology as outlined above.

Sorry that are the rules, that is what makes science actually “science”.

Or do you mean that links between several events or several phenomenon not necessarily always are causal by nature? Most likely you then point at quantum physics. And you would be right, such non-causal links, like claimed by the theory of synchronicity, seem to exist. Same would be true for chaotic system unfolding an implicit order. But you see, even these theories have been the result of scientific research and causal conclusions. They are the finding of asking: “Why?”.

Finally, you maybe refer to simply assuming something, or that something not only is that something, but is like this or that description, and thus explaining why it is so is not needed. That would be speculation not even of the standard of a yet-to-prove hypothesis, because it is not based on any observation in nature, any causal inspiration. Most of religion is of this type.

You think we cannot NOW, but it would be foolish to believe that we could not EVER.

And your argument for why that assumption that science will not stay limited to our access to the observable universe, is exactly what? We cannot know what we do not know. We also cannot be aware of our lacking knowledge if we do not know that there is something we do not know. Thus, we cannot examine both. This is what I mean by “access” to the observable universe.

First off, Newtonian physics has been replaced by relativity. Relativity involves the physics of the very large, and quantum physics (the Standard Model) is that of the very small. They don't need to be mutually exclusive (in fact, the Holy Grail of physics is to unite the two theories into the Theory of Everything).

Try to use relativity next time you play pool. Or when you launch a space probe to land on Mars, in a certain predetermined region at a predetermined time. Or when you calculate the mass of the sun and planet of a foreign solar system by measuring it’s rotation cycles. All that are just three examples of Newtonian physics pure. We have not replaced Newton in general – we have limited it’s validity to certain scales of existing matter, and understood that for other ranges, for the dimension of time and the sub-nuclear contexts, we needed to adapt to other models, since Newton does not work there anymore.

Einstein’s theory of relativity does not say that everything is relative, that is nonsense, although it is popular to quote him like that. What it says is that all movement is relative. But it also says two basic things: the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe, and the speed of light is not relative, but absolute.

Newton’s laws of movement for example have not become wrong since Einstein, they still work wonderful and correct, and we use them all day long in everyday life What has been replaced by Einstein is Newton’s understanding of gravity, and Newton’s validity in the range of extreme speeds and extreme masses (extremely small or extremely big) – here is where it fails and where Einstein’s relativity sets off. What has been done with Newton is to reduce the range in the spectrum of existence inside which we can uphold it’s validity. We have not deleted Newton’s validity all together.

You might want to get a new book then.

Oh, 6th edition from autumn 2009 actual enough, and four different teaching university professors authoring it ?

Relative strength:
Gravitation = 1
Strong Nuclear Force = 10^38
Electromagnatism = 10^36
Weak Nuclear = 10^25

What should that be? No units, no objects to which it refers? G=1? 1-what? I would say that one either bases on gravitation being dependent on the involved masses, or you base on Einstein’S idea of the assumed (not yet proven) gravitation-radiation, then it is dependent on the distance from the radiating origin, and let’s see what the candidates for such gravitational forces are assumed to be: black holes, supernovas are the most prominent suspects.

However, I was after something else anyway. Without gravitation, there would have been no speed, no movement, no gas clouds accumulating to matter, no suns, no planets, not even atoms (always assuming the Big Bang theory has a point and it all started with a big bang). In fact, gravitation both in Einstein’s and Newton’s models are one of the most profound and most basic forces there are. That in most parts of space the measurable effect of it is very low, is no contradiction to that. But still you better do not come too close to a white dwarf, a black hole or a supernova.

In fact, the relative weakness of gravity is one of the most intriguing questions of physics today, and it was partly responsible for the origination of SuperGravity and Super Symmetry. Furthermore, gravity is not "omnipresent" (general relativity proves this).

How? General relativity assumed the existence of this gravitation radiation which is embedded as a wave in the geometric structure of the space-time-matrix. It is an integral part of it, then, sometimes more obvious in total effect, sometimes less. But present it is, always, even if the netto effect is too minor to be noticed or to affect a moving mass noticeably.

By the way, my ideas regarding the counter-intuitive nature of nature are not my own but are generally accepted within the scientific community.

Oh, I only say that by that you should not conclude that science can avoid to ask the question: “Why?”, and I also wanted to remind of the fact that we perceive nature always as what our modus of approach allows it to show of itself. Or as Heisenberg put it so elegantly: “what we see, never is nature itself, but nature that is exposed to our way of asking questions about it.” Every experimenting scientists hopefully is aware that by his choice of methods and experimental design he already has defined – and reduced - the range of possible results that can show up. Experimenting means reduction.

This shows that you missed by point completely. Essentially I was suggesting that a further paradigm shift in science is not only possible, but it is probable. However, there is necessarily a finite albeit quite large amount of data which can be known (else you enter the realm of the supernatural).

I totally agree. Science never claims absolute truths of absolute validity for all time, it always produces only theories some of which last short, and some for longer time. Some became so influential and long-lasting, that we call the paradigms. Hey, I have explained all that just a week ago in two different topics!

The positivist (Hawking) believes that nothing can be proven with any sort of absolute. While I understand that approach, I find it to be an unreasonable absolute itself. I believe that any system can be defined absolutely if all data about that system can be known. [/quote]
A fall nto an eternal spiral. If chaos theory is right, than chaos is just an order of a hierarchic degree so complex that we cannot perceive it as order, nevertheless although any order unfolding in future going of development and evolution of the universe already has been led out in the inner core of nature and it’s phenomenons, it nevertheless remains to be unforeseeable and uncalculatable. Chaos guarantees unpredictability.

And such a universe you want to collect all data about that it holds inside, while it is ever unfolding? I think that is a philosophical utopia, or the blue flower of science. The hunt for the final and ultimate world formula (which Hawkins some years ago declared to be no longer believed in by him).

And while I understand that so-called "measurement problem" would seem to preclude us knowing all data within a quantum system, wavefunction mathematics suggest that we simply need a different mathematical expression.

See above. Hawking gave up the chase for the world formula. I also do not see it as a promising approach.

Ultimately, however the discussion IS philisophical. My position is that we do not yet know if we are capable of abolutely knowing anything. Yours is that we DO know that we CANNOT know everything. Frankly, I find my position more in line with the position you're taking as mine is absolutely void of absolutes, and yours gives an absolute in stating there is none.

It is an epistemologic problemn., maybe. But I still find it unreasonable to assume that something of limited reach can fully embrace something that is either unlimited or incredibly much bigger). The eye cannot look at itself, would be another analogy, which implies that if we want to recognise the universe in full we maybe need to give up the form of being human, and become all universe ourselves. Which seems to be the implication of Christian mysticism and Buddhism. To me, trying and desiring to gain understanding and insight into our existence and the universe we are a part of, is part of self-realisation. And to lend words from Paul Watzlawick, prominent representant of radical constructivism: “Selbstverwirklichung ist nur zu haben um den Preis der Selbsttranszendenz” (you can gain selfrealisation only at the price of self-transcendence). If we want to know all universe and all existence, we must stop to be “we”. Or in the language of meditation: the differentiation between witness and event, between object and subject, needs to fall. The witness – not only becomes part of the event, but becomes the event itself.

In a way, all scientific attempt to be objective, can only reduce the level of subjectiveness, but can never reach total objectivity at all.


Damn, 20:45 over here, and I am hungry. I simply forgot to eat. See - that is chaos in action. Nobody could have reliably predicted that I would forget to cook this evening. And it is just so small a part of the events in this universe.

Off and into the kitchen.

[Aramike]

See, I differ with the general idea that you can absolutely determine for certain what our absolute limitations are. I tend to disagree that we can know for sure ANYTHING, including being certain that my last statement is correct. It's an argument based upon circular logic.

I'm not arguing or debating the scientific process (I'm not certain why that's even being discussed). MY point is merely that we cannot for all time state an absolute, including the scientific process. Much like Newton's laws, they work for now.

Einstein’s theory of relativity does not say that everything is relative, that is nonsense, although it is popular to quote him like that. What it says is that all movement is relative. But it also says two basic things: the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe, and the speed of light is not relative, but absolute.

That depends upon whether or not you're referring to Special Relativity or General Relativity. To be more precise, Einstein was saying that all spacetime was relative to velocity in conjunction with a static C.

Try to use relativity next time you play pool. Or when you launch a space probe to land on Mars, in a certain predetermined region at a predetermined time. Or when you calculate the mass of the sun and planet of a foreign solar system by measuring it’s rotation cycles. All that are just three examples of Newtonian physics pure. We have not replaced Newton in general – we have limited it’s validity to certain scales of existing matter, and understood that for other ranges, for the dimension of time and the sub-nuclear contexts, we needed to adapt to other models, since Newton does not work there anymore.

That's actually what I was saying.

What should that be? No units, no objects to which it refers? G=1? 1-what? I would say that one either bases on gravitation being dependent on the involved masses, or you base on Einstein’S idea of the assumed (not yet proven) gravitation-radiation, then it is dependent on the distance from the radiating origin, and let’s see what the candidates for such gravitational forces are assumed to be: black holes, supernovas are the most prominent suspects.

However, I was after something else anyway. Without gravitation, there would have been no speed, no movement, no gas clouds accumulating to matter, no suns, no planets, not even atoms (always assuming the Big Bang theory has a point and it all started with a big bang). In fact, gravitation both in Einstein’s and Newton’s models are one of the most profound and most basic forces there are. That in most parts of space the measurable effect of it is very low, is no contradiction to that. But still you better do not come too close to a white dwarf, a black hole or a supernova.

No one's discussing that, but you are changing original point which was that gravity is by far the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. This isn't an obscure fact by any means. As a matter of fact, this weakness is one of the key questions facing physicists today, ESPECIALLY when condering the Big Bang event. Part of the theory surrounding the event assumes that shortly following the Big Bang all the forces were combined into one super force that split off as the universe was cooling. Where the rest of gravity went is a fundamental physical problem.

Gravity is extraordinarily weak compared to the other fundamental forces. You bring up black holes. Black holes begin as massively dense objects collapse (generally due to the exhaustion of the fuel creating the atomic processes of the object). The mass of the fuel burnt off is no where near the mass of the black hole but yet the atomic processes (electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force) are strong enough to prevent the collapse of said objects prior to the exhaustion of the fuel.

My entire point was scientific (quantum and cosmological) in nature, not philosophical.

And such a universe you want to collect all data about that it holds inside, while it is ever unfolding? I think that is a philosophical utopia, or the blue flower of science. The hunt for the final and ultimate world formula (which Hawkins some years ago declared to be no longer believed in by him).

Don't get me wrong - I greatly respect Hawking; yet I don't take everything he says as "Biblical" (pun intended). He's been wrong before (he one time posited that black holes violate conservation; while he's since conceded to being wrong his alternative is still up for debate).

The bottom line, however is I think we're discussing two different things. You seem to believe that everything requires a causal relationship. I don't. If everything required causality than there would be no way for a causal existance to occur (think about this for a moment). If existance (related to the universe or even the Multiverse) is infinite than nothing caused it (hence, no "why"). Or, if something caused it to be infinite than that thing which caused it much, by extension, be infinite ergo not being caused (again, no "why").

Either way, at some point there is no point to "why" and there's only the what. Einstein errantly conjured the cosmological constant. He was wrong relating to our universe but he might have been on to something. Either way points to a limit to understanding - not that we are limited from understanding everything, but rather there is an everything which can be understood.

But I do suppose that would make you right in the sense that we cannot know the "why" - perhaps because there isn't one. And that's my entire point.

Ultimately, though, a very thought-provoking discussion this has been.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Obvious how?

Current science on this issue does not agree with your conclusion one bit. While it does agree that any deity religion believes created the universe is HIGHLY unlikely, the concept of a creator is not outside the realm of science - in fact, we believe that whole universes could quite possibly be created in a laboratory, ultimately making said creators "gods".

Furthermore, multi-dimensional M-Theory suggests that an infinite number of universes are possible. This combined with the "Many Worlds" interpretation of wave-function collapse (the Copenhagen interpretion - the two most widely accepted views of quantum probability {wave function}) means that, due to an infinite number of universes being likely, an infinite number of them result from creators - I.E., "Gods".

Now I do not believe in a deity. However, I choose to respect those that do, and I dislike whenever one tries to belittle that belief from behind a faux scientific veil. In no way is what you're claiming "obvious" - science has no real strong fundamental answer to the question of Genesis - what resulted in the Big Bang. (In fact, the idea of a Big Bang was repulsive to Albert Einstein due to it's suggestion that a deity may actually exist - so much so that he contrived what was called the "Cosmological Constant" in order to support a steady-state universe.)

In any case, what you claim is obvious is not quite so, and that's not what I believe Hawking was attempting to express.

Obvious how? Gee I don't know perhaps how the very place people drawn their beliefs from, the bible, quran etc was authored, printed and revised by man? I was raised in church and remember laughing to myself at some of outrageous claims much to my parents dismay.Water into wine, one loaf of bread fed everyone, descending from heaven, back from the dead etc All religions make outrageous claims Never understood how an intelligent, educated person can believe that crap, same with any religion.A lot of it has to do with tradition, people want to carry on family traditions and find it so hard to believe their parents, grandparents would believe in such a crock.

Religion was always the way to explain the unexplainable when science was lacking in the past.Now, we can explain so much and will be able to explain more in the future which will hopefully move majority of people away from these absurd beliefs.People used to think disease was punishment from god when its far from that lol.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."


Prob the only quote I'll ever use by Commie Karl Marx(who I despise)