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

[ark]

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

Don't worry. Me too.

 

[dant]

That made me laugh, but you have your foot
in the crack of the "infinity door". I cannot
even see the door! :)

 

[WhiteBear]

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."
..............

I'm seeing how the opposite edges of the real projective plane curve around and meet to form the cylinder, and how the open ends of the cylinder curve to meet each other, forming the torus...but do the octagon, hexagon and pentagon shapes form the initial projective plane, instead of the standard square?

 

[Laura]

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.

The above is about the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. It also reveals something rather shocking about Hawking: that he ever bought into the "humanity is at the top of the heap" thing. Geeze, didn't he factor in the idea that there were probably millions, if not billions, of planets and beings all through the universe BEFORE he heard about this other planet???? Are we to understand that he did not consider that a possibility/ probability? Now, we have to think about everything he has ever done as coming from an extremely narrow mind.

 

[WhiteBear]

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.

The above is about the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. It also reveals something rather shocking about Hawking: that he ever bought into the "humanity is at the top of the heap" thing. Geeze, didn't he factor in the idea that there were probably millions, if not billions, of planets and beings all through the universe BEFORE he heard about this other planet???? Are we to understand that he did not consider that a possibility/ probability? Now, we have to think about everything he has ever done as coming from an extremely narrow mind.

I think he knew exactly what the probability was that there were planets around other stars...but, in good scientific humor, he waited until there was objective evidence before making a statement to the public that counters what millions of God-fearing monotheists hold dear to their hearts. He knows the intensity of the spotlight he stands in (okay, sits), and is accordingly cautious in his words, I believe.

 

[Laura]

I think he knew exactly what the probability was that there were planets around other stars...but, in good scientific humor, he waited until there was objective evidence before making a statement to the public that counters what millions of God-fearing monotheists hold dear to their hearts. He knows the intensity of the spotlight he stands in (okay, sits), and is accordingly cautious in his words, I believe.

In short, he's part of the mind manipulation machinery. Hey, works for me! In our house, he's not considered to be as bright as he is painted by the media.

 

[ark]

I think he knew exactly what the probability was that there were planets around other stars...

How could he know? Depending on your assumptions you can make this probability very small or very big.

 

[John G]

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.

The above is about the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. It also reveals something rather shocking about Hawking: that he ever bought into the "humanity is at the top of the heap" thing. Geeze, didn't he factor in the idea that there were probably millions, if not billions, of planets and beings all through the universe BEFORE he heard about this other planet???? Are we to understand that he did not consider that a possibility/ probability? Now, we have to think about everything he has ever done as coming from an extremely narrow mind.

Yea that's a pretty dumb thing to even bring up; I heard right from a sermon in a Catholic Church, God being defined as what was before the Big Bang. Even the not so bright Church realizes it's dumb to put its eggs in the earth is special basket. This planet has such a wide variety of people to follow for twisted thinking.

 

[JGeropoulas]

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.

The above is about the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. It also reveals something rather shocking about Hawking: that he ever bought into the "humanity is at the top of the heap" thing. Geeze, didn't he factor in the idea that there were probably millions, if not billions, of planets and beings all through the universe BEFORE he heard about this other planet???? Are we to understand that he did not consider that a possibility/ probability? Now, we have to think about everything he has ever done as coming from an extremely narrow mind.

I agree with everyone's comments, but my strongest reaction was the same as yours: how could such a brilliant mind harbor such a dim-witted concept. As you say, the mathematical odds alone make it impossible to believe that earth has a monopoly on life!

Because of this simple logic, life on other planets has always been a given to me. Still, I remember 20 years ago, while reading some channeled material, being caught off guard when I read this matter-of-fact statement:

"There are many classes of living creatures: some chemical-based, some electrical-based; there are breathers and non-breathers--in fact you might be surprised to know there are some non-breathers living relatively nearby..."

 

[ark]

the mathematical odds alone make it impossible to believe that earth has a monopoly on life!

And how would you calculate these odds? Drake's equation? Faulty. Yes, there are infinite possibilities, but even if you would calculate mathematical odds, one fact can change it all in a dramatic way. There is no excuse for not seeking for evidence. Even if you are 99.9999999.... sure that something is true - still you need the evidence and not just odds. That makes our lives somewhat difficult, but who is scared of difficulties?

 

[lamalamalamalama]

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

And the laws of physics were inevitable consequence of what?

Why the big bang of course!

 

[Breton]

When I saw the title of this thread's title: "Hawking: "Creator" is redundant. Universe can create itself from nothing"

It reminded me of a something I heard Alan Watts say in a speech back in the 60's [paraphrased]: Can intelligent life come from a stupid universe?

For some reason I found this simple thought very powerful, and made me want to give a very high probability of the existence of a consciousness from which creation comes from: God with capital G, or Prime Creator or a Universal Consciousness, or Divine Cosmic Mind, if you will.

It is a real work (and fun too) to try discover the mechanism or mechanisms with which this creative force manifests in creation!

 

[msante]

"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.

I have not much light at the time to understand theoretical physics, but I wonder what Hawkins meant by "universe". I feel that this physicists can not escape from a material conception of the cosmos, nor the idea of linear time. They constantly speak of a beginning (and an eventual end), when intuitively it seems more logical think that everything has existed in an eternal present, and what we see as non-existent going to exist, is merely cyclical changes happening all over "moment".

Sorry, I think I mess. My English is too limited to express ideas that not even clear in my mind. Unfortunately google translate is not helping me much this time.

 

[Windmill knight]

Sorry, I think I mess. My English is too limited to express ideas that not even clear in my mind. Unfortunately google translate is not helping me much this time.

I think you were quite clear msante, and I agree!

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

This isn't even that surprising coming from Hawking. I wasn't a big fan of him after I found out that he supports looking for signs of intelligent life in the universe via things like SETI, and totally dismisses UFO's as not even worth investigating and just a bunch of nonsense (I can't find the exact quote now because google is swamped with his latest warning that aliens would treat us like columbus treated the native americans). In other words, he has put a limit on which evidence he will allow himself to investigate or even consider, and that's a whole LOT of very powerful evidence he's ignoring here. As the C's say, he's looking for a way to invent indoor plumbing, and refuses to consider that it might already be set up under his house.

So honestly this latest thing seems right in line with his narrow mindedness, no surprises there.

Oh, found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyw9UmcFMIE

I am discounting reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?

* As quoted in a TED talk, "Asking big questions about the universe"

So, who's the crank here?

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.