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

[Buddy]

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?

I second that. Aside from his contemptuous pigeonholing (cranks and weirdos) he has said nothing but:

I am discounting reports of UFOs made by human beings. Why would they appear only to some human beings and not others? (excluded middle, or 'all or nothing' bias, OSIT)

 

[Laura]

I second that. Aside from his contemptuous pigeonholing (cranks and weirdos) he has said nothing but:

I am discounting reports of UFOs made by human beings. Why would they appear only to some human beings and not others? (excluded middle, or 'all or nothing' bias, OSIT)

I propose an answer: because only about half of human beings have souls on this planet, thus being capable of perceiving anything higher and, of that half, only a small percentage are developed enough to actually do so. Obviously, Hawking isn't one of them.

 

[msante]

I propose an answer: because only about half of human beings have souls on this planet, thus being capable of perceiving anything higher and, of that half, only a small percentage are developed enough to actually do so. Obviously, Hawking isn't one of them.

I'm Sorry, an offtopic:
I have never seen a UFO, which makes me wonder: I am an OP? Or maybe I'm more asleep than I think? And this is what I've always wondered: is it necessary to have seen UFOs or extraordinary experiences as indicative of a higher state of consciousness? If so, I'm lost ...

 

[Jacques]

I propose an answer: because only about half of human beings have souls on this planet, thus being capable of perceiving anything higher and, of that half, only a small percentage are developed enough to actually do so. Obviously, Hawking isn't one of them.

I'm Sorry, an offtopic:
I have never seen a UFO, which makes me wonder: I am an OP? Or maybe I'm more asleep than I think? And this is what I've always wondered: is it necessary to have seen UFOs or extraordinary experiences as indicative of a higher state of consciousness? If so, I'm lost ...

Well, if so, I am lost too. ;)

As far as I understand what Laura is saying in the above statement, "perceiving anything higher " does not mean that we have to see it absolutely with our eyes. We can perceive it with our knowledge, our work.

 

[msante]

Well, if so, I am lost too. ;)

As far as I understand what Laura is saying in the above statement, "perceiving anything higher " does not mean that we have to see it absolutely with our eyes. We can perceive it with our knowledge, our work.

:D Thank you, I imagined that should be so, although I must say that sometimes this issue has troubled me. In general I've had a good life, loving parents (although somewhat dogmatic), now a beautiful family, synchronicities that have helped me when needed, and even if I look in my life I feel that even the most difficult situations I have taken the best advantage, I learned the most important lessons.
Sometimes I feel like a weirdo because my experiences do not resemble those of other people, and I've asked several times if I'm on the right track ...

 

[Buddy]

I second that. Aside from his contemptuous pigeonholing (cranks and weirdos) he has said nothing but:

I am discounting reports of UFOs made by human beings. Why would they appear only to some human beings and not others? (excluded middle, or 'all or nothing' bias, OSIT)

I propose an answer: because only about half of human beings have souls on this planet, thus being capable of perceiving anything higher and, of that half, only a small percentage are developed enough to actually do so. Obviously, Hawking isn't one of them.

He probably needs to get out more.

 

[The rabbit]

I second that. Aside from his contemptuous pigeonholing (cranks and weirdos) he has said nothing but:

I am discounting reports of UFOs made by human beings. Why would they appear only to some human beings and not others? (excluded middle, or 'all or nothing' bias, OSIT)

I propose an answer: because only about half of human beings have souls on this planet, thus being capable of perceiving anything higher and, of that half, only a small percentage are developed enough to actually do so. Obviously, Hawking isn't one of them.

He probably needs to get out more.

Either that or stay in an area where there is not much light pollution and keep looking. Should´nt take long. Got to make time and keep looking. Cant miss them ;D

 

[Deleted member 8431]

I do not beleive in the big bang theory as described with a linear perception of time.

With a linear perception of time, we could always ask what was before what we think of being the beginning. We could always ask what created matter, energy, laws of physics etc. A never ending loop of questionning and often denial.

There are so many holes in the theory of the big bang it's not even funny anymore, yet, mainstream scientists are embracing it like if it was still the hot topic of the year. That and the theory of evolution, strings and consciousness being a simple by-product of the brain that we now oh understand "so much". LOL.

I was watching "Superscience" on TV last week and they were, again, saying the big bang is real, happened 13.7 billions years ago, maby in a cyclical way (big bang --> black hole --> big bang...) and that we were one step away fron the UFT, thanks to Einstein, Hawking and string theory. Never a single word about flaws and "anomalies" and holes in those theories. But hey, that's part of the game.

 

[Buddy]

Never a single word about flaws and "anomalies" and holes in those theories. But hey, that's part of the game.

Yup! I must have a love-hate relationship with Hawking because, on the one hand he can be a brilliant thinker, and on the other he can drive me near insane with his inability to see his own classical, conventional bias. Of course, he doesn't have a network to help either, I guess.

He's certainly not the first to try and reconcile classical physics with quantum science while holding dearly to their beloved One-Global-Truth-in-One-Global-Context Universe.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Never a single word about flaws and "anomalies" and holes in those theories. But hey, that's part of the game.

Yup! I must have a love-hate relationship with Hawking because, on the one hand he can be a brilliant thinker, and on the other he can drive me near insane with his inability to see his own classical, conventional bias. Of course, he doesn't have a network to help either, I guess.

He's certainly not the first to try and reconcile classical physics with quantum science while holding dearly to their beloved One-Global-Truth-in-One-Global-Context Universe.

I hear ya bro!

I can't beleive that he (and others mainstream scientists) are so dishonest. I mean, they say their theories is close to being proved (UFT, big bang, random/natural selection etc) when they are actually obsolete and are crumbling down under a pile of "anomalies" and "discordances". Random? Mistake/errors? Sorry but I don't think such things exist.

What about the expanding universe Mr Hawking? Why are some now thinking it might not be expanding at all like we previously thought?

What about those who seriously think that even the laws of physics could be diffrent in diffrent galaxies?

What about the obvious? Where did that "big bang" came from? A black hole? Like a cycle? What initiated it? What is the source of matter and who/what "designed" the laws of physics?

Those are the kind of questions they avoid anwsering to. "Science will resolves those issues, don't worry." and bla bla bla. Oh they will? When? How? Your theories are crumbling and failing... how are you then supposed to "fix them"?

My thoughts.

Peace.

 

[John G]

There are "big bang" ideas out there that include cycles, black holes, multiple big bangs, and an eternal "now". Discover magazine had a good article on these ideas:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

 

[Buddy]

There are "big bang" ideas out there that include cycles, black holes, multiple big bangs, and an eternal "now". Discover magazine had a good article on these ideas:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Thanks for that link, Bluelamp. I respect Steinhardt and Turok's work, but I feel a bit disgusted with Barbour’s model.


[quote author=page 4 where bolding is mine]
In Barbour’s view there is no invisible river of time. Instead, he thinks that change merely creates an illusion of time, with each individual moment existing in its own right, complete and whole. He calls these moments “Nows.”

“As we live, we seem to move through a succession of Nows. The question is, what are they?” Barbour asks. His answer: Each Now is an arrangement of everything in the universe. “We have the strong impression that things have definite positions relative to each other. I aim to abstract away everything we cannot see, directly or indirectly, and simply keep this idea of many different things coexisting at once. There are simply the Nows, nothing more and nothing less.”

Barbour’s Nows can be imagined as pages of a novel ripped from the book’s spine and tossed randomly onto the floor. Each page is a separate entity. Arranging the pages in some special order and moving through them step by step makes it seem that a story is unfolding. Even so, no matter how we arrange the sheets, each page is complete and independent. For Barbour, reality is just the physics of these Nows taken together as a whole.[/quote]

Barbour seems to evidence a bias for a predominately visual model. Basically, all reality at bandwidths beyond our sensorial spectrum and our liminal threshold--a quantum reality in which all 'parts' have their being and interrelationships with all other 'parts'--is simply denied as existing. There is no animate 'included-middle'. Esoterically, would there be a gnosis?

The analogy of a novel seems strange. He admits of "physics of these Nows taken together as a whole", yet his "pages of a novel" must be "ripped from the book’s spine" where they were already joined together and arranged as a whole?

Quantum reality will not be denied, though. It seems he has only transferred motion and unstoppable change to a mysterious, ambiguous sounding "moving through them". Sleight-of-hand?

If Barbour's model will help break the spell of classical-ism though, I guess I can tolerate it for awhile being in the top 3.

 

[obyvatel]

I thought Barbour's analogy is close to what the C's said about time being selective as in slides on a projector. Given that our 3D minds are limited in conceptualizing time, Barbour's theory seems like a good effort. Ouspenski's model was also interesting imo.

 

[Buddy]

I thought Barbour's analogy is close to what the C's said about time being selective as in slides on a projector. Given that our 3D minds are limited in conceptualizing time, Barbour's theory seems like a good effort. Ouspenski's model was also interesting imo.

Indeed, and sometimes I get confused about this, but I'm currently thinking that the C's description is about what our minds are abstracting from our percepts to create our various views of time. In the projector analogy, motion is simply transferred to the motor that runs the show, so the existence of an underlying dynamic flux of a quantum reality remains uncompromised!

I believe our minds do take 'snapshots' of reality and place them on a 'line' 'projected' out into a 'space', but that doesn't necessarily require reality to conform to us, OSIT.

still learning. :)

 

[tschai]

I thought Barbour's analogy is close to what the C's said about time being selective as in slides on a projector. Given that our 3D minds are limited in conceptualizing time, Barbour's theory seems like a good effort. Ouspenski's model was also interesting imo.

I agree-the model presented seems to be inline with what I took away from the C's description-perhaps Barbour's anology was not the clearest one to use-I like the C's way of describing as a slide carrousel, also - but if you do not know what a slide projector is and how it functions this anology would be lost upon you-so perhaps the pages of a novel are apt because almost everyone knows what a book is, so he made have used this to reach a broader audience.