The world’s foremost physicist, Stephen Hawking has once again enjoyed a burst of creativity. He has in recent days made several intriguing statements, offering a number of spontaneous views, and generally given to those of us within the Hawking sphere of influence, some new things to think about.
Hawking has it seems joined the previous greatest thinker on Earth, Doctor/Professor Albert Einstein, in a new determination that there is no God. Einstein we recall, while describing himself as a “deeply religious man,” went on to say he could not conceive of a God who would “reward or punish,” nor could he condone a belief in a consciousness which would “survive physical death.” Hawking cites the existence of even a single planet revolving around a star not our sun as proof that “There is no God.”
Hawking has co-authored a new book, The Grand Design, with American physicist physicist Leonard Mlodinow, the book to be released the week of September 6, 2010. The physicists disagree pointedly with Sir Isaac Newton, who believed that because the Universe could not have been wrought out of chaos, it must have a divine origin. Hawking’s point is that the universe, with planets other than our own, was therefore not designed simply to please humans. It should be mentioned that this marks a change of thinking for Hawking, who did believe in God as recently as 1988.
In other matters, Hawking warns us that we might do well to leave our home planet of Earth and travel to a few other destinations, not as it were, placing our “eggs” in a “single basket.” He says the future of Earth is “touch and go,” and mentions specifically the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963 as a point in time when it all might have ended. We recall that Soviet missiles had been installed in Cuba, aimed at the U.S., and then-President John Kennedy warned that if they were not removed we would strike from a flotilla of warships that we emplaced around that island nation. The missiles at the last moment were removed. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev ordered the dismantling of the offensive weapons and returned them to the Soviet Union. The point then is that Stephen Hawking say’s with potential extinction a distinct possibility within periods of decades, surely we cannot face hundreds or thousands of years with the expectation of survival.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - John Lake
Good Morn, Naresh..
Probability indeed; also, cause and effect.,
like myself you must be some philosopher!
The rules as you know governing time and space, curved or otherwise are part and parcel of God, not as some speculate, a thing apart.
2 - John Lake
Note: Naresh had a comment on my philosophy, and he seemed to be quite an avid thinker himself. Somehow, someway, his comment vanished. Maybe he thought twice. In any case, ...
3 - Udaybhanu Chitrakar
Philosophy is dead. Is Logic dead also?
"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."
- Stephen Hawking in “The Grand Design”
“As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously 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.”
- Stephen Hawking, Ibid
Here three questions can be asked:
1) Which one came first, universe, or laws of gravity and quantum theory?
2) If the universe came first, then how was there spontaneous creation without the laws of gravity and quantum theory?
3) If the laws of gravity and quantum theory came first, then Hawking has merely substituted God with quantum theory and laws of gravity. These two together can be called Hawking's "Unconscious God". Therefore we can legitimately ask the question: Who, or what, created Hawking's unconscious God?
Not only this, but there are other problems also. If the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes spontaneously appearing from nothing, then initially there was nothing. Then wherefrom appear those laws of gravity and quantum theory to allow universes appearing spontaneously from nothing? In which container were those two laws of nature?
Now regarding the M-theory: I have already written something on multiverse theory (not yet published anywhere). There I have come to the conclusion that if there are an infinite number of universes, then only within that infinite number of universes there will certainly be at least one universe in which life will emerge. If the number of universes is only 10 to the power 500, then it is very much unlikely that any one of them will support life, because no universe will know which set of values the other universes have already taken, and if everything is left on chance, then there is every probability that all the universes will take only those set of values that will not support life. There will be no mechanism that will prevent any universe from taking the same set of values that have already been taken by other universes. There will be no mechanism that will take an overview of all the universes already generated, and seeing that in none of them life has actually emerged will move the things in such a way that at least one universe going to be generated afterwards will definitely get the value of the parameters just right for the emergence of life. Only in case of an infinite number of universes this problem will not be there. This is because if we subtract 10 to the power 500 from infinity, then also we will get infinity. If we subtract infinity from infinity, still then we will be left with infinity. So we are always left with an infinite number of universes out of which in at least one universe life will definitely emerge. Therefore if M-theory shows that it can possibly have 10 to the power 500 number of solutions, and that thus there might be 10 to the power 500 number of universes in each of which physical laws would be different, then it is really a poor theory, because it cannot give us any assurance that life will certainly emerge in at least one universe. So instead of M-theory we need another theory that will actually have an infinite number of solutions.
Now the next question to be pondered is this: How did the scientists come to know that an entire universe could come out of nothing? Or, how did they come to know that anything at all could come out of nothing? Were they present at that moment when the universe was being born? As that was not the case at all, therefore they did not get that idea being present at the creation event. Rather they got this idea being present here on this very earth. They have created a vacuum artificially, and then they have observed that virtual particles (electron-positron pairs) are still appearing spontaneously out of that vacuum and then disappearing again. From that observation they have first speculated, and then ultimately theorized, that an entire universe could also come out of nothing. But here their entire logic is flawed. These scientists are all born and brought up within the Christian tradition. Maybe they have downright rejected the Christian world-view, but they cannot say that they are all ignorant of that world-view. According to that world-view God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. So as per Christian belief-system, and not only as per Christian belief-system, but as per other belief-systems also, God is everywhere. So when these scientists are saying that the void is a real void, God is already dead and non-existent for them. But these scientists know very well that non-existence of God will not be finally established until and unless it is shown that the origin of the universe can also be explained without invoking God. Creation event is the ultimate event where God will have to be made redundant, and if that can be done successfully then that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does not exist. So how have they accomplished that job, the job of making God redundant in case of creation event? These were the steps:
1) God is non-existent, and so, the void is a real void. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist, it cannot be concluded that the void is a real void.
2) As virtual particles can come out of the void, so also the entire universe. Our universe has actually originated from the void due to a quantum fluctuation in it.
3) This shows that God was not necessary to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, as because there was no creation event.
4) This further shows that God does not exist.
So here what is to be proved has been proved based on the assumption that it has already been proved. Philosophy is already dead for these scientists. Is it that logic is also dead for them?
4 - John Lake
The issues you mention are more fittingly addressed in philosophy than physics. I am certain however that BlogCritics readers will find fascination in your words.
5 - roger nowosielski
Don't be giving philosophy a bad name, John.
6 - Matt M
These multiverse theories that keep popping up by athiests all over the place are completely frustrating. I'm pretty sure that Stephen Hawking is quite a bit smarter than I am at any level; but yet he makes such absurd statements about something as completely unproven as bubbling universes. I saw a debate with Richard Dawkins and when his back was against the wall he started babbling on about the same thing.
Stephen Hawking then claims that the universe "can and will create itself from nothing" (as the comment above quotes). Umm, am I the only one asking if there is any evidence for this? It's almost a childish assertion. Well, I say the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing (so there...! naa naa) I'm pretty sure there is more scientific evidence that matter has never been observed coming forth from nothing than for the opposite. Until there is, athiesm will never be "scientific"; which is the great irony. Athiests consider themselves utterly scientific to a fault; but their belief system logically regresses to a very unscientific dependancy at the root of their belief.
Athiets tend to pride themselves on being indifferent, objective and following indisputable evidence wherever it may lead (which to me is pretty laughable to me none the less); but then they start in on their belief in bubbling universes.
Why do I bother; who can argue with such logic? Bubbling universes... who could ever disporve it?
Let's face it, Hawking is and always be a scientific midgit compared to Newton. He may be a great physicist but he is wanting in the study of logic. His beliefs in God can probably be explained by exploring his own psychological situation than by science.
7 - Christopher Rose
What you don't appear to understand, Matt, is that these are THEORIES; until there is evidence to back them up, neither Hawking, Dawkins or any other scientist is claiming them as fact.
This is in stark contrast to faithists, who have no problem at all with their own peculiar theories or in asserting them to be true, despite the fact that there is precisely zero evidence to support them.
Finally, atheists (please note the correct spelling, by the way) DON'T pride themselves on being indifferent or objective.
Maybe cynics or the terminally jaded would consider themselves indifferent and it is scientists, when practising science, that try to be objective...
8 - al bilal siddiqui
stephen sir. my question is can't we make a machine which can reveal the past things that is if we can sy that whatever we spoke the vibratoin particla remain in the universe so can we take those vibration and know about what god han been said
9 - al bilal siddiqui
universe, itself is secret of universe
10 - John Lake
We are closing in on the philosophy of the honored Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
Hawking is also a proponent of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI), as was Richard Feynman before him. MWI essentially holds that for every quantum particle, when that quantum particle changes state, it changes not just to one different state, but to all possible different states, each to a different (and new) reality.
Now for an interesting extrapolation. If each quantum particle indeed changes into all possible states, each state being a new reality of its own, that means not only that the same holds for every new state of every quantum particle in existence, but also for every possible combination of new states of every quantum particle in existence.
So with each change of state of all quantum particles in existence, that would require a new number of realities (N) equal to N to the Nth power minus 1: N^N-1. The number of new realities with every state-change of every quantum particle in every fraction of every second would have to be by now almost infinitely higher than the number of quantum particles extant in the Big Bang 13.7B years ago, and each new quantum particle in each new reality would be creating the same exponential number of new realities every fraction of every second.
Does this twist your mind into knots yet? Remember, this is all on the assumption that Hawking and Feynman are right...but I'm not done yet!
With MWI, since all possible events on the quantum level that can happen, DO happen, then that means - demands - that every possible event on the macro level that can possibly happen, does happen, must happen...no matter how remote the possibility of the event. Think about that for a moment - if MWI is true, then in the next few minutes in one reality you will suffer a heart attack, in another you will win the lottery, in yet another you will commit suicide, and in another you will murder your kids.
And if MWI is true, then to me that almost demands the existence of God as well. Why? Because I cannot believe that in the next minute in any reality that I would physically attack my wife who is sitting a few feet away from me. In other words, if MWI is true, then the only things that don't happen are those things that are not allowed to happen...and there is only one possibility of how any one event can be prevented, nullified, disallowed: the existence of a God Who would not allow it.
I figure that I'm going to be the subject of quite a bit of scorn for all this...but for those who reject my extrapolations on this thought experiment, just show me where my chain of logic is faulty - that's all I ask.
12 - John Lake
For anyone but God it would be challenging to implement any change in any reality without upsetting basic absolutes such as cause and effect.
I sometimes suspect the great thinkers at some point err, then their errors become hopelessly magnified and entangled.
While infinity is as you say an assurance that everything that can, will happen, I refuse to consider any more than one single reality actually prevailing.
The issue of multiple universes was an offshoot of "nothing can exceed the speed of light." So when the relative distances between or among matter exceed that speed, they may be considered existing in different universes. This is all very perplexing, but is of little use to any operational scientist.
I challenged a group of college-aged readers to consider that at the "big bang", time, space and matter were moving outward at speeds faster than light. But if we consider a plane running through the "bang", we must consider those things exiting in all directions, some directly opposite others. Those speeds become more incomprehensible.
An asteroid the size of a school-bus passed the closest in recorded history, today (Jan 27), at one-fifth the distance to the moon.
13 - John Lake
Now that the wheels are spinning…
I don’t mean to be a poo-poo, I find this sort of thing as interesting as the next guy. And I have probably said some of the same things an infinite number of times; if not more.
But now that I’m thinking about infinity, and I concede there really has to be an infinite number of earth like planets, and an infinite number of planets so developed that they can search for and reach the earth-likes (which now that I think about it, may be impossible, thereby reducing the number to zero. Nuclear proliferation, or asteroids and solar flares…) … in any case, they should be arriving shortly.
Since they haven’t, we must consider an unconsidered factor. Maybe with our being one of an infinite number of potential finds, and with the infinite number of searchers, there is some as yet uncalculated delay. Maybe they won’t be here until tomorrow. Or late December.
Okay, I’m off in space. So, the final message, I don’t mean to poo-poo.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
I refuse to consider any more than one single reality actually prevailing.
What you or I refuse or don't refuse to believe doesn't matter. All that really matters on this issue is scientific observation and mathematical proof. Again, if you disagree with my extrapolation of MWI, show me where I'm wrong.
And please read a bit more on MWI - as I understand it, it's not an 'offshoot' of the limit of C.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
On #13, the fact that we haven't seen proof of them doesn't mean a whole lot. After all, we are on a remote part of one arm of the galaxy, and the distances involved are vast indeed - particularly if few (or none) have found a way to exceed the speed of light. Think about it - any civilization that would have detected us must have done so since mankind started radio broadcasts, and so the civilization must be within 100 LY of Earth. What's more, said civilization would have to be monitoring the frequencies we use, and - if they were limited to light speed - would be unable to reach us if they were less than 50 LY away.
16 - John Lake
Many Worlds dates back to the 50's with revision during the 60's when strange ideas were being explored. I prefer to think that although there are many divergent avenues through which time may venture, only one actually prevails.
I must say that you seem less imaginative and more restricted today than usual; you don’t appear to be exploring much beyond radio broadcast monitoring, and earth like creatures limited by the speed of light.
The fact of our location on an edge of an ordinary galaxy would matter in a lesser universe, but we are looking here at infinity, and some things may be possible that we haven’t yet thought of.
I think when it all comes to conclusion we may be disappointed by a discovered similarity with our current pragmatism.
In the end, matter at the speed of light is energy. That explains the pulsing that takes place in sub-atomic and solar (should I say stellar) situations as matter and energy alternate.
If the energy could be propelled to an exponent of the speed of light, we might see some hope for time travel.
17 - John Lake
Here's a relative bit from wiki:
"...The many-worlds interpretation is very vague about the ways to determine when splitting happens, and nowadays usually the criterion is that the two branches have decohered. However, present day understanding of decoherence does not allow a completely precise, self contained way to say when the two branches have decohered/"do not interact", and hence many-worlds interpretation remains arbitrary. ..."
18 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
As far as we can tell, there's no way to send physical objects (much less living beings) FTL. Until we see that such is possible, it's a mistake to think that such is (a) possible or (b) achievable by any but a very, very small proportion of aliens, or (c) that they'd even be interesting in going to the expense of coming to our backwater planet.
19 - John Lake
(c) Obviously you haven't seen Central Park on the Forth of July.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
I saw Central Park at midnight on New Year's Eve a few weeks ago - does that count?
21 - Glenn Contrarian
Times Square was too packed - we didn't show up eight hours ahead of time, so we got shuffled by the NYPD from street to street and finally found our way to the south end of Central Park right next to some nice hotels, and danced in a circle with others singing Auld Lang Syne and swapped picture-taking with families from India and the Middle East and consoled a girl from Nepal who'd lost her friends in the crowd.
22 - John Lake
I once reached out to prevent a purse-snatching on a Times Square New Years Eve. 'twas cold that night, too.
23 - Richard Paulson
I won't bother answering the obvious with my own words. But I would like to present the following to Stephen Hawking, how unscientific atheism is. I quote from one regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived, Isaac Newton:
"One principle in Philosophy is the being of a God or spirit infinite eternal omniscient, omnipotent, & the best argument for such a being is the frame of nature & chiefly the contrivance of the bodies of living creatures. All the great land animals have two eyes in the forehead, a nose between them, a mouth under the nose, two ears on the sides of the head, two arms or two fore leggs or two wings on the sholders & two leggs behind & this symmetry in the several species could not proceed from chance there being an equal chance for one eye or for three or four eyes as for two, & so of the other members. Nothing is more curious & difficult then the frame of the eyes for seeing & of the ears for hearing & yet no sort of creatures has these members to no purpose. What more difficult then to fly? & yet was it by chance that all creatures can fly which have wings? Certainly he that framed the eyes of all creatures understood the nature of light & vision, he that framed their ears understood the nature of sounds & hearing, he that framed their noses understood the nature of odours & smelling, he that framed the wings of flying creatures & the fins of fishes understood the force of air & water & what members were requisite to enable creatures to fly & swim: & therefore the first formation of every species of creatures must be ascribed to an intelligent being. These & such like considerations are the most convincing arguments for such a being & have convinced mankind in all ages that the world & all the species of things therein were originally framed by his power & wisdom. And to lay aside this argument is unphilosophical."
Note: By "unphilosophical" Newton also meant unscientific, as back then in Newton's day science came under the heading of philosophy.
24 - Christopher Rose
Saying someone is the "greatest scientist who ever lived" is about as meaningful as saying one particular band is the "greatest artist who ever lived" or any other such subjectivity.
What we can say with confidence about Sir Isaac Newton is that he died 285 years ago, back in 1727, which was long before 98% of everything we now know was ever discovered.
He was also known as a heretic and an anti-trinitarian and had many other unconventional theist ideas.
Although undoubtedly he played a major role in the development of our scientific understanding, there is no reason at all to take at face value his thoughts on what became known as evolution thanks to the work of Charles Darwin over a century after the death of Newton...
25 - Richard Paulson
To Christopher,
I did not say that Newton was the greatest scientist who ever lived, but that he was regarded as such. The fact is that he is renowned as the father of modern science, and those that dismiss him dismiss him foolishly. Just because time passes it doesn't mean that truth changes. Newton was far better than many give him credit for in so many ways.
Actually Newton was not a heretic as you say. I know that biographers say that he was an anti-trinitarian, but it is based on unfounded assumption. There are a few who having studied his own works have shown it to be unverifiable. But it is not only in this that he has been misunderstood. Many make so many other assumptions also and defame him in so many ways. However, when you actually examine Newton's own words and writings, you won't find him denying that Jesus is God. It is just a lie. He was not anti-trinitarian. Many also say/write that he was arrogant and bitter, but when we examine his life and his own words it is apparent that he has been greatly misunderstood. He was actually a very humble, good and godly man, very kind and generous and very sensitive to his conscience, seeing sin in himself even where there wasn't any. It's really sad that his character is so defamed. People just make assumptions that cannot be verified and they end up as unfounded opinions of ignorant people who write "biographies". What makes Newton so outstanding was that he was an honest seeker for truth. So many are not so. This does not make him flawless but it does make him more reliable than those who deny obvious facts like Charles Darwin. Darwin was foolish. So are many scientists/philosophers who deny God's existence. The Bible says: The fool has said in his heart there is no God.
Science (and invention) has indeed progressed in some remarkable ways, (but so much because of Newton, and a few others like him,) but then so has foolishness abounded and people continue in ignorance. Newton gave us so much and made so much possible, which cannot be said for Charles Darwin, for instance.
The fact is that the words I quoted from Newton are irrefutable and plain to all those that can understand them. Can anyone refute his argument? No. Can Darwin? Certainly not. Evolution is full of empty words that have no meaning, and people are fooled when confronted with concepts that lack any real definition. In Darwin's totally imaginary and fictitious work "Origin of Species", we see a desperate attempt to make evolution seem credible. Is there a God? Of course. But there are a whole bunch of liars out there also blinding many.