|
|
Post by dividavi on Oct 18, 2018 9:28:05 GMT
nypost.com/2018/10/17/stephen-hawkings-final-book-there-is-no-god/Stephen Hawking’s final book: ‘There is no God’ By Lia Eustachewich October 17, 2018 | 11:03am | Updated God is not dead — he or she never existed in the first place, Stephen Hawking declared in his final book. “There is no God,” the late theoretical physicist wrote in “Brief Answers to the Big Questions,” CNN reported. “No one directs the universe.” The British scientist pointed to his own diagnosis of Lou Gehrig’s disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, for the basis of his belief. “For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God,” he wrote. “I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature.” Hawking died in March at age 76 before the book could be completed — but colleagues and family, including his daughter Lucy, stepped in to finish it. “He realized that people specifically wanted his answers to these questions,” Lucy told CNN. In the book, he also postulates about alien life — saying “there are forms of intelligent life out there” — and time travel. “Travel back in time can’t be ruled out according to our present understanding,” he wrote.
Hawking also suggests that “within the next hundred years we will be able to travel to anywhere in the Solar System.” Lucy Hawking said her father saw the world on the cusp of a “vast transformative change” when he died, but was troubled over how “divided we’ve become.” “He’s asking us not to go into the future blindly,” she said. “How good is the track record of the human race in using advances in technology for the good of ordinary people? “He makes this comment about how we seem to have lost the ability to look outward, and we are increasingly looking inward to ourselves,” she added. In the final chapter of his book, the renowned scientist offered one last bit of advice in answering the question “How do we shape the future?” “Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet,” he wrote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 18, 2018 9:42:30 GMT
Hawking is not an expert on religion and any criticism of it by him is ridiculous.
As it turns out Hawking isn't much of a scientist either. Math and science tell us the stars are beyond our physical capacity to reach them. Even if we could obtain the speed necessary any debris in space would be like a projectile wielding lethal damage. I of course would like to know how to solve either of those problems and ponder them often enough, but I find other pursuits more rewarding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 18, 2018 9:53:11 GMT
Hawking is not an expert on religion and any criticism of it by him is ridiculous. As it turns out Hawking isn't much of a scientist either. Math and science tell us the stars are beyond our physical capacity to reach them. Even if we could obtain the speed necessary any debris in space would be like a projectile wielding lethal damage. I of course would like to know how to solve either of those problems and ponder them often enough, but I find other pursuits more rewarding. Hawking had every right to question religion and the notion of God, just like anyone else does. He studied the universe, its matter and used scientific theory to logically explain it. Whatever his, yours or mine notion of God is, is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 18, 2018 9:56:27 GMT
Hawking is not an expert on religion and any criticism of it by him is ridiculous. As it turns out Hawking isn't much of a scientist either. Math and science tell us the stars are beyond our physical capacity to reach them. Even if we could obtain the speed necessary any debris in space would be like a projectile wielding lethal damage. I of course would like to know how to solve either of those problems and ponder them often enough, but I find other pursuits more rewarding. Hawking had every right to question religion and the notion of God, just like anyone else does. He studied the universe, its matter and used scientific theory to logically explain it. Whatever his, yours or mine notion of God is, is irrelevant. There is a significant difference between having a "right" to criticize something and being any good at criticizing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 18, 2018 10:03:11 GMT
I agree with Arlon on this more or less. Hawking may have been brilliant in his field, at least within the context of the status quo approach to it, but he said a lot of stupid shit whenever he stepped out of his field.
I agree with his conclusion about the existence of God, but his reasoning for it, at least as explained above, is poor.
And the idea of "backwards" time travel is completely incoherent. It might work per how physics standardly deals with time in equations, but his physics standardly deals with time in equations isn't identical to what time is ontologically. And what time is ontologically--simply the ontological process of change or motion, makes it incoherent that we could travel back in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 18, 2018 10:28:10 GMT
Hawking had every right to question religion and the notion of God, just like anyone else does. He studied the universe, its matter and used scientific theory to logically explain it. Whatever his, yours or mine notion of God is, is irrelevant. There is a significant difference between having a "right" to criticize something and being any good at criticizing it. Yes, perhaps he may not have been good at this aspect, but I don't think it would matter either way with you, because of his lack of belief in God from the religious perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 18, 2018 10:42:40 GMT
I am not quite sure what he means by this. Looking outwards towards what? Who is he referring too, scientists in his field or humans in general?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 18, 2018 11:30:11 GMT
There is a significant difference between having a "right" to criticize something and being any good at criticizing it. Yes, perhaps he may not have been good at this aspect, but I don't think it would matter either way with you, because of his lack of belief in God from the religious perspective. I'm cut. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 18, 2018 11:47:43 GMT
Yes, perhaps he may not have been good at this aspect, but I don't think it would matter either way with you, because of his lack of belief in God from the religious perspective. I'm cut. Thought you might be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2018 11:53:30 GMT
I agree with Arlon on this more or less. Hawking may have been brilliant in his field, at least within the context of the status quo approach to it, but he said a lot of stupid shit whenever he stepped out of his field. I agree with his conclusion about the existence of God, but his reasoning for it, at least as explained above, is poor. And the idea of "backwards" time travel is completely incoherent. It might work per how physics standardly deals with time in equations, but his physics standardly deals with time in equations isn't identical to what time is ontologically. And what time is ontologically--simply the ontological process of change or motion, makes it incoherent that we could travel back in time. You may think that, but it's not credible that the BBC documentary "Doctor Who" would have lied to us all this time. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 18, 2018 15:03:16 GMT
I agree with Arlon on this more or less. Hawking may have been brilliant in his field, at least within the context of the status quo approach to it, but he said a lot of stupid shit whenever he stepped out of his field. I agree with his conclusion about the existence of God, but his reasoning for it, at least as explained above, is poor. And the idea of "backwards" time travel is completely incoherent. It might work per how physics standardly deals with time in equations, but his physics standardly deals with time in equations isn't identical to what time is ontologically. And what time is ontologically--simply the ontological process of change or motion, makes it incoherent that we could travel back in time. I wouldn't get too fixated on your axioms and use them to declare what is coherent or incoherent. The history of science shows that any of them are open to question. For example classical physicists (including Newton) thought of time as an independent attribute of reality (unaffected by space or motion) and space as something that obeyed Euclidean geometry. Einstein's theories of relativity showed that those views are untenable. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 18, 2018 15:09:35 GMT
Hawking is not an expert on religion and any criticism of it by him is ridiculous. I doubt any of the bishops of Rome or Christian emperors were experts on pagan religions either, but that didn't stop them from closing down the Olympic Games, the schools of Athens or the Oracle of Delphi. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 18, 2018 15:44:40 GMT
I agree with Arlon on this more or less. Hawking may have been brilliant in his field, at least within the context of the status quo approach to it, but he said a lot of stupid shit whenever he stepped out of his field. I agree with his conclusion about the existence of God, but his reasoning for it, at least as explained above, is poor. And the idea of "backwards" time travel is completely incoherent. It might work per how physics standardly deals with time in equations, but his physics standardly deals with time in equations isn't identical to what time is ontologically. And what time is ontologically--simply the ontological process of change or motion, makes it incoherent that we could travel back in time. I wouldn't get too fixated on your axioms and use them to declare what is coherent or incoherent. The history of science shows that any of them are open to question. For example classical physicists (including Newton) thought of time as an independent attribute of reality (unaffected by space or motion) and space as something that obeyed Euclidean geometry. Einstein's theories of relativity showed that those views are untenable. It's obvious what time is, though. That makes the idea of backwards time travel incoherent. I don't think it's something we need to pretend might be coherent out of some sort of feigned modesty or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 18, 2018 18:19:25 GMT
tortas
i want to sell
my
cia security clearances
along with
my
oprah book club membership
and slather
these
all over my body
while having the saudi's
explain to me
what i can do with my wife walking
three feet behind me
to a
press conference
about reporters being dismembered.
yes,
they are that
delicious.
sjw 10/18/18 inspired at this very moment in time by the hope that dozens of new recipes will filter through trumps gestapo being assembled.
from the 'benevolent series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 18, 2018 18:56:57 GMT
I wouldn't get too fixated on your axioms and use them to declare what is coherent or incoherent. The history of science shows that any of them are open to question. For example classical physicists (including Newton) thought of time as an independent attribute of reality (unaffected by space or motion) and space as something that obeyed Euclidean geometry. Einstein's theories of relativity showed that those views are untenable. It's obvious what time is, though. That makes the idea of backwards time travel incoherent. I don't think it's something we need to pretend might be coherent out of some sort of feigned modesty or whatever. It is not obvious. Einstein showed that time and space are interrelated, and that by altering one's frame of reference there is cross talk between space and time measurements. You are making the unfounded assumption that time is static, just as Newton did. There's no shame in that (for Newton), the view was consistent with all of the experimental data available to him at the time. Einstein wasn't being modest, nor feigning it, when he overthrew the classical assumptions of space and time. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 18, 2018 19:39:33 GMT
The question is not does God exist
The question is does it really matter if God exist?
the answer to that question is no
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 18, 2018 20:15:51 GMT
It's obvious what time is, though. That makes the idea of backwards time travel incoherent. I don't think it's something we need to pretend might be coherent out of some sort of feigned modesty or whatever. It is not obvious. Einstein showed that time and space are interrelated, and that by altering one's frame of reference there is cross talk between space and time measurements. You are making the unfounded assumption that time is static, just as Newton did. There's no shame in that (for Newton), the view was consistent with all of the experimental data available to him at the time. Einstein wasn't being modest, nor feigning it, when he overthrew the classical assumptions of space and time. In my view it is obvious. Time and space are related in that time is the ontological process of motion or change, which requires extension or extensional relations, which is what space is. Motion/change obviously isn't static--it's just the opposite, so I don't know where the heck you're getting the idea from that I'm saying that time is static. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 18, 2018 21:18:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 18, 2018 21:21:42 GMT
Hawking is not an expert on religion and any criticism of it by him is ridiculous. I doubt any of the bishops of Rome or Christian emperors were experts on pagan religions either, but that didn't stop them from closing down the Olympic Games, the schools of Athens or the Oracle of Delphi. I'm old, but not that old. I wasn't there. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 18, 2018 21:29:17 GMT
It's obvious what time is, though. That makes the idea of backwards time travel incoherent. I don't think it's something we need to pretend might be coherent out of some sort of feigned modesty or whatever. It is not obvious. Einstein showed that time and space are interrelated, and that by altering one's frame of reference there is cross talk between space and time measurements. You are making the unfounded assumption that time is static, just as Newton did. There's no shame in that (for Newton), the view was consistent with all of the experimental data available to him at the time. Einstein wasn't being modest, nor feigning it, when he overthrew the classical assumptions of space and time. Penny for your thoughts on the grandfather paradox. |
|
