In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
“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,” Hawking writes.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
I'd like to mention, since this comes often up with people not well versed in physics; is that to make any sense of our greater understanding of the universe and its existence is to think of it as eternal.
No beginning, no end, just existence that has been and always will be.
Because the most typical question I hear is "well how did it start".. So while we can say the big bang was the start of our universe (which for all we know could be part of infinite universes in bubbles) it is not a good idea to start thinking in our earthly terms of a beginning and an end.
Its VERY hard for us to wrap our minds around something not having a start or finish, but I think for physics to make more sense we need to go that route and force ourselves to at least consider this as the ultimate explanation.
Our brains are hardwired to think in these terms, so its not an easy thing to accept without a lot of consideration.
Again its probably why a great number of physicists are non believers, simply because for them depending on their views of course within physics; it makes sense for there to be no creator and that this is all a process which exists whether we believe it does or not.
Just like Lawrence Krauss has a decently simple way of explaining a universe that comes from nothing, since its also a common thing to hear people say "how does something come from nothing!"
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
This probably has some impact upon a certain type of theology. Otherwise, it really doesn't mean all that much for theists. The notion of cyclical time has been around for a very, very long time.
^
Except that "cyclical time" is not really what Hawkings seems to be alluding to, and I don't think that Thor's explanation of eternity conforms to that either. For those surviving religions that do subscribe to cyclical time, you are right: this will certainly not mean much, but this is given that Eastern religious systems where cyclical models still persist are generally uninterested in the validation of "science".
For virtually every monotheistic religion in the Western world, this most certainly makes an impact, as for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, the idea of progression and purpose toward a future goal is central to their religious tenants. The idea that the universe is the result of necessary natural causes is problematic for most who belong to one of these.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'd like to mention, since this comes often up with people not well versed in physics; is that to make any sense of our greater understanding of the universe and its existence is to think of it as eternal.
No beginning, no end, just existence that has been and always will be.
Most religions that I am familiar with maintain that God is an infinite and eternal being, so for the religious among us I would imagine that an idea of things without beginning or end is not as foreign as one may think.
If God is eternal, why is it impossible that matter could be as well? Not all Christian religions teach that God created the universe from nothingness. There are some who believe that he rearranged "matter unorganized."
Depending on what one's ideas of God and creation are, religion does not necessarily exclude science. It is entirely possible for God as an almighty being to be the impetus, while science as we understand it could explain his methods.
__________________ "There will be a short outage tonight sometime between 11:00PM and 1:00AM as network upgrades are performed. Please do not panic and overthrow society. Thank you."
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Redliner For This Useful Post:
^
Except that "cyclical time" is not really what Hawkings seems to be alluding to, and I don't think that Thor's explanation of eternity conforms to that either. For those surviving religions that do subscribe to cyclical time, you are right: this will certainly not mean much, but this is given that Eastern religious systems where cyclical models still persist are generally uninterested in the validation of "science".
For virtually every monotheistic religion in the Western world, this most certainly makes an impact, as for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, the idea of progression and purpose toward a future goal is central to their religious tenants. The idea that the universe is the result of necessary natural causes is problematic for most who belong to one of these.
Possibly for followers but it doesn't seem to me a big deal theologically and philosophically. The Gods discussed by Kant, Aquinas, and Maimonides are more concerned with metaphysics and human morality than the material world.
I don't think that anything Hawkings is saying is very new by the standards of the Enlightenment. Even Galileo was basically saying the same thing in regards to the cosmology of his day; the Universe doesn't seem to be created for human beings.
As well, I'd ask this question honestly and humbly; where do the constant laws come from? Like if all we needed is the Law of Gravity to ensure the constant collapse and renewal of the Universe, why puts that in place? This is coming from someone pretty naive and uninterested in physics.
As well, I'd ask this question honestly and humbly; where do the constant laws come from? Like if all we needed is the Law of Gravity to ensure the constant collapse and renewal of the Universe, why puts that in place? This is coming from someone pretty naive and uninterested in physics.
I haven't read the book yet so I don't know if there's something new in it, but going by the kinds of things Hawking and Mlodinow have written in the past, the constants are also a result of a kind of evolution.. or rather that we're here to observe the constants is because the constants allow us to be here, while other universes have different constants and those that do not allow for life won't have life in them to observe. Multiverses essentially.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
C.KSeptember 2nd 2010, 10:23am
Does ANYONE read the BIBLE ANYMORE? Before YOU make STATEMENTS like THIS! GOD SPOKE THE EARTH INTO BEING ! WE are HIS LIKENESS & FORMED after HIM! STEPHEN HAWKING I PRAY FOR YOU ! TURN YOUR LIFE AROUND BEFORE IT IS TO LATE! YOU CAN SEE HIS GLORY ALL AROUND YOU! E.G: [the Birds of the AIR ,the NEW LIFE at the Bottom of the SEA,the NEW PLANITS in the SOLAR SYSTEM].HOW CAN YOU NOT ACKNOWLAGE HIM! C>K
What a ridiculous argument. PLANITS! BIRDS = GOD!!!
The Following User Says Thank You to alltherage For This Useful Post:
I really like Old Hawkings a lot. He's a pretty depressing example of an atheist though. In fact, most of the New Atheists are just a bunch of wheezy liberal secularists not even deserving of the moniker "humanist." Hawkings believes that humanity's only chance for survival is to colonize space. Not very optimistic.
Hawkins is a very smart man and far smarter then me. But if God is who he is then I think he would be the type to leave just enough doubt out there to question his existence. Because if he left 100% evidence for his creation - why would we need to exercise any faith? I don't think he wants a bunch of robots to follow him anyways.
Hawkings believes that humanity's only chance for survival is to colonize space. Not very optimistic.
There are finite resources on the planet, so either we become a steady state society with every birth and death planned and every erg of energy and molecule of resource is tracked, or we expand to space. If we do neither, our species is still subject to the same forces that have caused the extinction of countless species before us. Not to mention all the external threats to the species and the earth.
Just because one acknowledges challenges and requirements for survival doesn't make one a pessimist. I have to eat to live, does saying if I don't eat my next meal I'll starve make me a pessimist?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe
