Your magical “creator.”
Now this I got to see, how do you know it has no merit? Do you know already that other experts have seen the physics involved and do not agree with him?
I Don’t think that Hawking’s explanation for the origin of the universe is actually physics. He is just guessing.
I’m not being an asshole. That’s just what it is.
Hawking’s do doesn’t believe in the Higgs Bosun btw, and that’s also just a guess.
Do you know what the word “physics” means?
He’s rendering a hypothesis that would comport with what is known of physics. Your objection is based on something you think you know about physics. Who’s more likely to be making a mistake (and by “making a mistake,” I just mean in misunderstanding the physical principles involved, not necessarily in the hypothesis being right or wrong).
Why do you say magic and wizard. I already just gave an example of a theory of a created reality complete with creator that requires neither wizards nor magic.
Hmmmm. You haven’t read the book and you don’t know what he says in it. Apparently though that doesn’t stop you from arguing about it.
This makes it hard for me to talk to you about it, as you obviously don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
For example, I don’t think that Hawking would have a problem with my characterizations of guesswork, as he points out that these things are a black box the contents of which it is impossible for us ever to perceive.
You are sailing right by the point. The hypothesis itself is irerelvant to my point since I’ve made no comment on it. Basically all I’m saying is that you aren’t qualified to evaluate it.
Not at all. Since you don’t have any clue of what it is that I am actually commenting, you have no idea whether or not I have any business commenting on it.
Or so your logic extends. In reality, your argument is complete stupidity, unusual even for you. The worthiness of an argument has nothing to do with who is making it.
Hawking saying that Unicorns are extinct because Noah threw them off the ark, doesn’t make it so.
Cite?
Ever see a unicorn fossil?
His post is his cite.
Actually, I do know. It just isn’t particularly relevant to the fact that you look like a buffoon when you announce that you’ve spotted an error in Stephen Hawking’s knowledge of physics. You don’t understand his hypothesis. You further exacerbate this image of yourself as a clown by declaring that a “creator” is more likely. Both of those statements make you look like a fucking idiot.
Ok great. You do know! So then, what is wrong with my assessment?
I’m watching the NBA finals. I’ll explain after the game.
That was Hawking who said that?
I thought it was Silverstein…
For the record, what Hawking said was that God isn’t necessary to explain the origin of the universe, not that God is impossible.
Exactly, belief is not rational. I doubt anyone ever said said otherwise.
This is your basic misunderstanding. All of those virtual particles create their own very limited spacetime. In fact, they are spacetime. Most of these particles (which can be analogized as “bubbles” in a “quantum foam” come and go in an instant (figuratively speaking) with (really as) tiny little spacetimes. Some of the bubbles blow up and expand into universes, with their own expanding spacetimes.
Were you under the impression that you would stump Stephen Hawking with that objection? Did you think you had spotted a hole that he had overlooked (and not just Hawking, by the way. He’s explaining M theory in The Grand Illusion, but he didn’t formulate it. You would have to imagine that you were tripping up all the best minds in theoretical physics by pointing out a simple flaw). Seriously, did it not occur to you at all that maybe you were just missing something yourself? Is your ego that huge?
M Theory is unproven and (thus far) untestable. It mostly exists as math. Any kind of multiverse scenario, though, makes God unnecessary.
Your computer program scenario, by the way, only regresses the question (as does goddidit). It’s not impossible, but it only means you no have to explain where the computer came from. It also (like goddidit) multiplies entia without necessity.
You observe all of this, but then fail to place “God/Budda/The Fates/religion” into this equation? Religion consists of fables we made up because we can’t stand not knowing.
And I’m pretty sure you understand the difference between a scientist’s hypothesis vs claiming ‘fact’. Scientists say “I don’t know” all the damn time, then dream up the experiment to try to figure it out. But since it is a process, we can always look back in time from a place of greater enlightenment at the mistaken beliefs of the past. Except with religion, not so much…
“Blimps” was one of the 5 funniest things on this Board, ever.
I miss classylady’s contributions, it amused me the only adjective she had at her command was a variant of the word ‘fuck’. Classy indeed…
And a scientist would throw a squirrrel into the electrified fence, (and the PETA demonstration would follow)…
To the degree that I understood it, I think Hawking was saying that the net balance of energy/matter in the universe is zero, and that we observe matter spontaneously appearing in a vacuum. so that quite literally it is possible that “we came from nothing” without the need for a creator.