Stephen Hawking to God: You aren't necessary

OrochiEddie

Kobaïa Is De Hündïn
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Posts
19,316
In what may not be debated by creationists and evolutionists world wide. Stephen Hawking declares that creation is spontaneous and natural

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

'Planetary conditions'

In his new book, an extract of which appears in the Times, Britain's most famous physicist sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have sprung out of chaos.
Continue reading the main story
Related stories

Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

"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 light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

The book was co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow and is published on 9 September.

In his 1988 bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe.

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he said.
 

Xian Xi

JammaNationX,
15 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Posts
27,762
Interesting. I still don't agree with him on his thoughts on time travel as I think time travel only works going forward in time, not turning back the clock.
 

xiao_haozi

Avid Neo-Expert
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Posts
1,977
Interesting. I still don't agree with him on his thoughts on time travel as I think time travel only works going forward in time, not turning back the clock.

Well that makes sense logically to us as people observing where entropy and time (and so forth) are going one way, but mathematically and by quantum mechanics, there is no reason why time can't be travelled in the opposite direction.
This idea, in my opinion, starts to become pretty logical to our ways of thinking if you think about the sum over histories theorem (see feynman).
 

Xian Xi

JammaNationX,
15 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Posts
27,762
My thoughts:

Time is what it is, time.

You can not go back in time, only move forward in time faster than before.

If you wanted to visit a planet that is 1 light year away, if you were traveling at 1000mph you would get there in 5,878,630,000 hours or 73 years to get there so of course you'd have to be 17 years old or younger to see the end of the journey.

But if you find a away to travel faster or instantly you skip that 73 year journey. Folding space or use of a wormhole would get you there instantly. So if 2 17 year old boys left at the same time and one traveled at 1000mph and the other instantly, one boy would have to wait 73 years in order to meet up with the other boy. So in essence he traveled 73 years into the future.

I might have calculated that wrong but you get the drift of it.
 

wizkid007

Hyperspin King., Beer Not Included.,
20 Year Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Posts
8,022
This is the same guy that said crop circles were made by winds from a helicopter.

But, as it stands, I dont think he is necessary ether.
 

xiao_haozi

Avid Neo-Expert
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Posts
1,977
My thoughts:

Time is what it is, time.

You can not go back in time, only move forward in time faster than before.

If you wanted to visit a planet that is 1 light year away, if you were traveling at 1000mph you would get there in 5,878,630,000 hours or 73 years to get there so of course you'd have to be 17 years old or younger to see the end of the journey.

But if you find a away to travel faster or instantly you skip that 73 year journey. Folding space or use of a wormhole would get you there instantly. So if 2 17 year old boys left at the same time and one traveled at 1000mph and the other instantly, one boy would have to wait 73 years in order to meet up with the other boy. So in essence he traveled 73 years into the future.

I might have calculated that wrong but you get the drift of it.

But that's still biasing for a perception of time in one direction....
It's just a way that we quantify the progression. And it doing so, we are only allowing time to progress one way by defining it as such.
And your example is basing ideas on relativity.
Quantum mechanically though, there is no reason why it has to be seen that way.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v76/i6/p749_1 ... which has been expanded on quite a bit if i recall correctly.
 
Last edited:

Average Joe

Calmer than you are.
20 Year Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Posts
17,094
I always find the idea of people debating the possibilities of time travel hilarious.

For no other reason than because of the natural progression of human understanding and how little it ultimately means as the centuries pass us by.

I personally adopt a mentality that I don't think we really know anything.
 

OrochiEddie

Kobaïa Is De Hündïn
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Posts
19,316
I always find the idea of people debating the possibilities of time travel hilarious.

For no other reason than because of the natural progression of human understanding and how little it ultimately means as the centuries pass us by.

I personally adopt a mentality that I don't think we really know anything.

In all honesty time travel is pointless unless it means speeding up travel between planets. Even then the technology is far from existing
 

Supasaru

Windjammers Wonder
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Posts
1,389
Can't wait until this gets blown out of porportion. I hope people realize he said that spontaneous creation is much more reasonable than thinking the "marbles were set in motion" by a higher power or by endospermia - and not that there is no God, believers dr00l, atheists r00l!

ITT - Armchair theorists.

Time travel is absolutely possible because every event is not in a series, but rather happens completely in parallel to one another.
 

xiao_haozi

Avid Neo-Expert
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Posts
1,977
In all honesty time travel is pointless unless it means speeding up travel between planets. Even then the technology is far from existing

True but I think the question is interesting to particle physics.

I mean we know have technology that creates small scale black holes, I don't think it will be long before it's public that we have arrived at an experiment that demonstrates particles entangled over a time scale like showing positron effects.

They are all pretty moot outside the world of particle physics, but they are things that I think are bringing us much closer to new ways to produce energy. So I think on a larger scale these ideas do end up having meaning... just not so much in the sci-fi way we tend to think about them (macroscopically).
 

genjiglove

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Posts
15,080
Sometimes I think about how funny it would be if some super advanced aliens came from space and told us how retarded we are and how far off any of our ideas are.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
25 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
Sometimes I think about how funny it would be if some super advanced aliens came from space and told us how retarded we are and how far off any of our ideas are.

It would be even funnier if they came in to proselytize for their religion, while trying to trade us feathers for gold and raping our women.
 

Loopz

Formerly Punjab,
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Posts
12,871
This is the same guy that said crop circles were made by winds from a helicopter.

But, as it stands, I dont think he is necessary ether.

Wizzy...you'll never be even 1/100th as educated or intelligent as Stephen Hawking.
You're a legend in your own mind. You can't even spell 'either'.
 

Poonman

macebronian
15 Year Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Posts
9,961
His bedroom walls bore mute witness,
to those many nights where he begged god to heal his muscular dystrophy...

If even for a day...





Of course he isn't necessary, Stephen.
Because of gravity and shit.


Whatever you say, Mr. Hawking.
:crying:





Humans who don't even understand the inner workings of their own bodies are telling the world how the universe works. :tickled:
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
25 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
Wizzy...you'll never be even 1/100th as educated or intelligent as Stephen Hawking.
You're a legend in your own mind. You can't even spell 'either'.

dude, I think he meant "necessary ether", as in chemistry. Wizkid's posts always leave out some element from the sacred geometry that would make it a revelation.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
25 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
Humans who don't even understand the inner workings of their own bodies are telling the world how the universe works. :tickled:

I think I understand my body better than I understand the universe.
 

Poonman

macebronian
15 Year Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Posts
9,961
I think I understand my body better than I understand the universe.

I was talking about Stephen Hawking who for all his brilliance, is a man who can't even isolate or understand the cause of his own paralysis, let alone an entire fucking universe that is infinitely more vast and complex.
 

cannonball

Master Brewer, Genzai Sake Co.
15 Year Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Posts
5,174
Interesting. I still don't agree with him on his thoughts on time travel as I think time travel only works going forward in time, not turning back the clock.

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but his documentary a few months back had him flat out saying he didn't think travel to the past was possible. So I think you're both in agreement there. He used paradoxes as proof if I remember correctly, about the man shooting himself through the portal or something.

He threw a party for time travellers which nobody showed up for, and talked about the theory that maybe travel to the past was only possible starting at a point when some device for time travel was created, but he debunked it using the example earlier. I dunno it's all confusing to me.
 

Xian Xi

JammaNationX,
15 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Posts
27,762
I think I saw that one, too. He also said that maybe no one wanted to come to the party...lol
 
Top