Hawking: "Creator" is redundant. Universe can create itself from nothing.

[JGeropoulas]

A review of Stephen Hawking's newest book, "The Grand Design"
by Michael Holden
Yahoo News
Thu Sep 2, 2010

God Did Not Create The Universe

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

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.

[Sure fits what the C's have said: gravity actually has consciousness and there's nothing that's not gravity. Maybe that's why we refer to serious or important things as "weighty" and "heavy"]

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.

His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.

He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.

"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 evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

Hawking, who is only able to speak through a computer-generated voice synthesizer, has a neuro muscular dystrophy that has progressed over the years and left him almost completely paralyzed.
...
Last year he announced he was stepping down as Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position once held by Newton and one he had held since 1979.

"The Grand Design" is due to go on sale next week.

 

[mkrnhr]

The problem with this kind of comments is to first define what is god. In this case, if someone defines god as being the laws of physics or the laws of gravitation, the whole discourse is redundant. On the other hand, defining god as being necessarily separated from creation (as it is implied from this review) is a materialistic definition (cosmos has no consciousness in itself), which makes think that all those religions who advocate a separate god could be described as materialistic in their essence.

 

[ark]

"and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"

And the laws of physics were inevitable consequence of what?

 

[Windmill knight]

The problem with this kind of comments is to first define what is god. In this case, if someone defines god as being the laws of physics or the laws of gravitation, the whole discourse is redundant. On the other hand, defining god as being necessarily separated from creation (as it is implied from this review) is a materialistic definition (cosmos has no consciousness in itself), which makes think that all those religions who advocate a separate god could be described as materialistic in their essence.

That is close to my own thoughts, mkrnhr. In another thread I wrote:

For me, having doubts, struggling and seeking (as opposed to being a true believer) is the bread and butter of 'God's children'. Because God is not a king on a cloud, but God is here and is as much light as darkness, knowledge and doubts. The miracle is that both light and darkness are allowed to coexist. Therefore, the question about being 'good and virtuous' and saving one's soul is simply one of choice and responsibility. 'God' is not going to judge you either way, because in every case you will be serving one of the manifestations of 'God' (in this sense we are all, in fact, God's children!). As Ra said, "It is impossible not to serve the One". Surely at the level of the One (the Absolute), God has only one face that solves all contradictions, but we human beings cannot know what that face looks like. For us, to love the light is to embrace the struggle and the quest offered by God, which leads to an increase in knowledge of Reality. To escape into illusion is to love the darkness offered by the other face of God, which leads to eventual disintegration or the 'sleep of the spirit'. And isn't it wonderful that we are here and have the possibility of choosing, and in the process do and experience many things good and bad, right and wrong, pleasant and painful? Isn't this the miracle and the gift - that we are imperfect, accepted by God as such, we live in the 'Mixtus Orbis' and because of that we can move one way or another and have all sorts of adventures?

This reminds me that a couple of days ago a newspaper had as its main headline: "God didn't create the Universe, says Hawking. Big Bang was result of laws of physics." I didn't read the article but I thought that this was such a waste for the front cover of a newspaper, because this was one of those statements that was not even wrong. I mean, to ask if God created the Universe or not is to completely miss the point about the nature of God. Once you understand this, thinking in terms of 'atheist' or 'believer' becomes a bit nonsensical. Isn't it enough to look around you and see that the Universe IS?

"and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"

And the laws of physics were inevitable consequence of what?

Exactly. Hawking may be a great physicist, but he is not a philosopher.

 

[ana]

Maybe i'm imagining too much but what if the laws of physics are formed even before the creation in a kind of vacuum wich contains all possibilities, as a limiting factor of every consciousness level before they were expressed in the big bang.

Then the answer would be, consciousness itself, awareness of its own possibilities.

 

[mkrnhr]

Re-reading the Wave, I arrived yesterday to a chapter (didn't finish it yet) that addresses exactly this question:
The Wave 3, Chapter 26: A Walk in Nature Among the Names of God... :)

 

[John G]

Maybe i'm imagining too much but what if the laws of physics are formed even before the creation in a kind of vacuum wich contains all possibilities, as a limiting factor of every consciousness level before they were expressed in the big bang.

Then the answer would be, consciousness itself, awareness of its own possibilities.

There was an interesting topic (also started by JGeropoulas) relating consciousness to information theory and having this be the basis for all that is:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=17701.0

It's also possible that the idea of before the big bang doesn't exist in that the whole structure of big bangs as seen at different densities always was, is, and will be (or something like that).

 

[ana]

There was an interesting topic (also started by JGeropoulas) relating consciousness to
information theory and having this be the basis for all that is:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=17701.0

Interesting indeed, specially the free will concept under that theory.

It's also possible that the idea of before the big bang doesn't exist in that the whole
structure of big bangs as seen at different densities always was, is, and will be (or something
like that).

Agree, the nonlinear concept would require "seeing" everything happening right now, osit. :)

 

[The rabbit]

It's also possible that the idea of before the big bang doesn't exist in that the whole structure of big bangs as seen at different densities always was, is, and will be (or something like that).

Kind of i am the Alpha and the Omega. This is the question that formulates when one is a young child , in my case anyway . My thoughts have only got as far as there is no time , no center , and everything is happening all at once. Oh and anything that a human being can think of or dream of "is"

And finaly i dont have the right question never mind expecting an answer.

Is there a mathematical set of symbols for that?

 

[John G]

Kind of i am the Alpha and the Omega. This is the question that formulates when one is a young child , in my case anyway . My thoughts have only got as far as there is no time , no center , and everything is happening all at once. Oh and anything that a human being can think of or dream of "is"

And finaly i dont have the right question never mind expecting an answer.

Is there a mathematical set of symbols for that?

It may be more all the possibilities for where you could be in space and time exist all at once/eternally (and other versions of "you" may be there) but individuals still (at least below 7th density) experience them in steps not all at once. 6th density does likely perceive more all at once than us but they still likely have to take steps to get to "places" too.

I tend to think of the math for information theory as Clifford Algebra but that could be wrong for 7th density type information (if 7th density is information) or it might not be the only way or best way. Perhaps the best way is beyond 3rd density brains.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/simph.html

 

[ark]

I tend to think of the math for information theory as Clifford Algebra but that could be wrong for 7th density type information (if 7th density is information) or it might not be the only way or best way.

February 5, 2000
..........
Q: It's really sad that Santilli is involved with such flakey people! (F) Hasn't he always been? (L) He is certainly influenced by the wrong people! And I don't think we want anything to do with him at all. (A) Now, we we were talking about Kaluza Klein, and you mentioned the Germans "exploring the loop of the cylinder" in relation to time travel. I don't know what this means but I have the idea that it is related to extra dimensions, hyperspace. Now, we asked a question at some point and you said that a cylinder is really a double loop. You then suggested that we meditate on the true meaning of this sentence. Now, I don't know how to meditate, but I do know how to do math. So, I drew three pictures here: one is a real cylinder, two is a which is a kind of cylinder inside a cylinder, and three, like a torus. Laura said that it wasn't any of these, that it should only have one side like a cylinder/mobius strip - no left and no right. So, this could be option 4, something like a Klein bottle or option 5, something called a twisted torus. Is it 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5? Or 6, none of the above? Is it one of these?
A: Selection 3.
Q: 3 is the torus. (L) What is a loop of the cylinder? Yes, there is one loop and then there is another loop. One loop is probably what we call time - cyclical time.
A: Time cycle.
Q: What is the second loop?
A: Included, but not inclusive.
Q: I guess that means that it is included, but is not the whole thing. It covers that, but that isn't the whole thing. What DOES it mean?
A: Yes.
Q: Wait, I asked what is the second loop. The second loop is included but not inclusive?
A: Remember, you do have cycles but that does not necessarily mean cyclical. 3 Dimensional depiction of loop, seek hexagon for more. Geometric theory provides answers for key. Look to stellar windows. Octagon, hexagon, pentagon.
Q: Are those the different levels of density?
A: No, but it relates. Geometry gets you there, algebra sets you "free."
..............

 

[dant]

[Sorry if it is Off topic?]

Am I correct to assume that for 3D geometrical objects, as the
number of 3D faces or 2D edges increases, the more closely it
represents a perfect sphere/circle?

Are 3D geometrical objects the same in 4D? I would assume
that 3D would be akin to "flatland" when compared to 4D,
just missing a dimension, perhaps.

I note as it is presented in the C-text, one might think of
geometrical ordering starting from lowest number of faces
(or edges) and increasing, but the C's used reversed ordering:
starting from Octagon, hexagon, pentagon as if in "down counting",
skipping one: 7?

Why is 7 missing, and looking for a geometrical object of 7 faces
in 3D is noted as Pentagonal prism? Note that the prior sentence,
it says: "Look to stellar windows" ==> Pentagonal {Prism}?

Of course, I am just speculating and I hope I am not making to
much noise...

FWIW,
Dan

 

[John G]

I note as it is presented in the C-text, one might think of
geometrical ordering starting from lowest number of faces
(or edges) and increasing, but the C's used reversed ordering:
starting from Octagon, hexagon, pentagon as if in "down counting",
skipping one: 7?

Why is 7 missing, and looking for a geometrical object of 7 faces
in 3D is noted as Pentagonal prism? Note that the prior sentence,
it says: "Look to stellar windows" ==> Pentagonal {Prism}?

There is a 7 for sure but in the context of 8-6-5 for Kaluza Klein dimensions to increase the normal four spacetime ones, 7 is likely more a halfway to 8 thing. 6 on the other hand is much more interesting than just a doubling of 5 as in the 4,2 (adds to 6) in the abstract of Ark's new "stellar window" paper. The 3D could be the idea of going to 8 instead of just 5. One extra Kaluza Klein dimension would give you a torus aka donut around the time loop. Four extra Kaluza Klein dimensions around your time loop would give you a messy donut. Then you have the space loops to add in too.

 

[dant]

Ok, thanks for the explanation, even though I cannot
even begin to understand it. I am truly humbled! :)

Speaking of which, a torus, in the 3D sense, right?

 

[John G]

Ok, thanks for the explanation, even though I cannot
even begin to understand it. I am truly humbled! :)

Speaking of which, a torus, in the 3D sense, right?

Yep in the add only one extra really small dimension case, you start with the 2D time loop and wind a bunch of really small extra loops around it and you get the regular 3D torus aka donut. This really small dimension could perhaps be thought of as electromagnetic charge. Adding three more really small dimensions to this torus (for perhaps color charge) would be a 6-dim shape I think and all but the initial 2D time loop would be really small.

6 is kind of special for reasons besides just adding charges. I think you can picture it like 5 produces gravity translations that still have to stick to the outside of the loops but 6 via conformal transformations lets you take shortcuts via the inside of the loops, which relates to possibilities like time travel. There's also some time and space mixing via that infinity symbol diagram.