Steven Hawkings M theory is defective..

[Bonam]

It would not be an intellectual or spiritual contest..no matter what I would win any issue that arose between Hawkings and I...the moment I even felt a brief pang of doubt regarding my position - I would simply ring the little weaklings neck..now that is comedic...Oleg Bach slowly choking the life out of Steven...of course the dialogue would consist of ...."Steve...I bet that really hurts...kind of like being water boarded hugh?....and Stevie baby.....how many pounds of presure do you think I am exerting on your feeble little wind pipe...I mean can you break the figures down to a quantum level...You have 15 seconds Steve...and one last thing Steve...is there a God..just say yes and I will stop......."

Unfortunately for you, "Steve" has a lot of people that care about his well-being and would keep crazies such as you away from him.

Of course Steven says know because he wants to commit suicide by Bach...he must be quite miserable

And yet despite being so little, this man has contributed infinitely more than you to the human race and to our knowledge of the universe. Why do you think he is miserable and wants to commit suicide? Is that your appraisal of anyone with a serious disability? Perhaps we should just kill them all, to put them out of their misery? Eugenics went that way ------- >

....I am very curious about this little man...mostly about who milked him for the sperm to create offspring..or what there a machine involved...wonder what it looks like?

Your ex-wife. Oh, and your daughter too. And yes, there was a machine involved... a very large machine.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

I don't have any beef with Hawking, who obviously is brilliant, but who has also been wrong....which is OK. Common folk are quite satisfied to skip all the math and rely on gods instead. Even the math asks us to accept items on faith....like division by zero as being undefined. This is analogous to a universe spawned from absolutely nothing.

Math and logic (they're really two sides of the same coin) are quite unlike religion, science, or probably any other pursuit. For any term in math to be true, all it has to be self-consistently so. There's no real articles of faith, as such. Where you start having to make assumptions is when you apply mathematics to the real world, as you do in physics.

Mathematics can be used to describe universes that don't exist, and are thus false on an epistemological level, and yet providing they're self-consistent, follow the rules laid down, then, from the perspective of the system itself, they are true.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Mathematics can be used to describe universes that don't exist, and are thus false on an epistemological level, and yet providing they're self-consistent, follow the rules laid down, then, from the perspective of the system itself, they are true.

Well forgive me, but the "rules laid down" can also apply to the theories of Deists and Theists. Hell, I often compare the Canadian monarchy to the Holy Trinity because of the like minded "rules" and definitions that defy logic. Abstract mathematics takes some liberties with the domain of logic and reality, if only because that's what "abstract" means.

Contrast this with say...Euclidean geometry based on a hiearchy of proofs, axioms, and theorms.

[ToadBrother]

Well forgive me, but the "rules laid down" can also apply to the theories of Deists and Theists. Hell, I often compare the Canadian monarchy to the Holy Trinity because of the like minded "rules" and definitions that defy logic. Abstract mathematics takes some liberties with the domain of logic and reality, if only because that's what "abstract" means.

Contrast this with say...Euclidean geometry based on a hiearchy of proofs, axioms, and theorms.

I have no idea what deists or theists have to do with mathematics. And you must know you're thoroughly abusing the notion of "abstract" here. I understand the point you're trying to make, but using mathematics, which is a discipline quite unlike any other. It's true that certain theorems, unproved may rest upon assumptions, but when you have a proof in mathematics, unlike in pretty much every other system of knowledge mankind has ever pursued, it is simply true.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no idea what deists or theists have to do with mathematics. And you must know you're thoroughly abusing the notion of "abstract" here.

You may think so, but my experience with engineering mathematics says otherwise. You only maintain that the rules of the game must remain consistent, something that the deists and theists can certainly fix.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but using mathematics, which is a discipline quite unlike any other. It's true that certain theorems, unproved may rest upon assumptions, but when you have a proof in mathematics, unlike in pretty much every other system of knowledge mankind has ever pursued, it is simply true.

No...it is very important not to cross that line if you want the game to continue...theorems are deductive. It is not proven in the same way as elements of other disciplines...just ask PM Chretien.

[bloodyminded]

See! I think bloodyminded took it seriously.

Sure, but it was in response to Oleg...who has told us, among other things, that there's something seriously wrong with Jews, and that homosexuals are actively trying to subvert and destroy masculinity and wreck society, because they are deranged.

With Oleg, literally any opinion he states can be taken at face value.

[Michael Hardner]

An imbalance of what, Michael? The premise is that there was nothing. Well, You are only gong back a few billion years, Michael, Hawkings is talking about the origin of the universe. What assertions am I making?

I don't think the physics of the big bang says there was "nothing". There was something, but something had to make it go "boom", or cause it to be unstable.

[Wild Bill]

I don't think the physics of the big bang says there was "nothing". There was something, but something had to make it go "boom", or cause it to be unstable.

No, not at all! That's the point! Before the Big Bang there was no Universe. Some random fluctuation triggered the Bang and the Universe sprang into being, with all its physical laws established right from the offset.

Eventually we came along and are trying to understand it all. Our very primitiveness limits our understanding. It's hard for us to accept that before the Universe began there was no Time and no Space. We have evolved in conditions of cause and effect. Before the start of the Universe, that was not so. There was NOTHING! Nothing means nothing. The Universe doesn't really care that most of us have trouble with that idea.

[Michael Hardner]

No, not at all! That's the point! Before the Big Bang there was no Universe. Some random fluctuation triggered the Bang and the Universe sprang into being, with all its physical laws established right from the offset.

Eventually we came along and are trying to understand it all. Our very primitiveness limits our understanding. It's hard for us to accept that before the Universe began there was no Time and no Space. We have evolved in conditions of cause and effect. Before the start of the Universe, that was not so. There was NOTHING! Nothing means nothing. The Universe doesn't really care that most of us have trouble with that idea.

Ok - but the point we're arguing is whether there was a 'decision' or not.

[Pliny]

No, not at all! That's the point! Before the Big Bang there was no Universe. Some random fluctuation triggered the Bang and the Universe sprang into being, with all its physical laws established right from the offset.

Eventually we came along and are trying to understand it all. Our very primitiveness limits our understanding. It's hard for us to accept that before the Universe began there was no Time and no Space. We have evolved in conditions of cause and effect. Before the start of the Universe, that was not so. There was NOTHING! Nothing means nothing. The Universe doesn't really care that most of us have trouble with that idea.

Yes. No time and no space. So time and space are fabrications. I don't know if it is more easily understood if one said nothing is no beginning-no end, essentially being expressed in terms of time. If there is an end to the physical universe then all that is left is nothing and as there is no time there was no beginning because nothing is the only thing that always was but never was. The question then is how does nothing become something. Maybe it has the power of decision. If it were pure thought decision making might be a property. I haven't seen anyone produce a piece of thought in the form of matter or energy and it could be in any place or any time. The effects of thought are not thought. People have said that an electro-chemical reaction is thought but I wonder who thought that up; or more precisely, what electro-chemical process thought that up. If electro chemical reactions are thought could a rock have a thought? Could we evolve to being a rock? I believe we are on the right track to evolving to becoming a rock if we believe that an electro-chemical reaction is a thought. And sure enough the theories of Kurzweil will make us into inanimate objects complete with electro-chemical processes. It is only a matter of combining the two.

Computers can think you know.

If thoughts only occurred in brains as a result of electro-chemical processes then we could produce a thought by replicating the process. but then how would we know whether or not we had created a thought unless we could develop mental telepathy or some form of communicating with the electro-chemical process. And that presents another conundrum. How does one electro-chemical process communicate with another electro-chemical process? I know - evolution! It builds little cells around it so it can sense things and then eventually goes from one cell to billions of cells.

So the electro-chemical process being the prime mover must have created the electros and chemicals to make itself. But that's impossible. Without creating electros and chemicals it couldn't have created itself. Apparently, the electros and chemicals coming into contact with each other created a big bang that started the universe. I guess the electros and the chemicals were in separate universes prior to the big bang and were inert or something like that.

Wait a sec! The electro-chemical process has to ask the question. I was assuming that the prime mover was something other than the electro-chemical process. If the electro-chemical process is the prime mover then we just have to get the right electro-chemical reaction to get the answer. Why do our electro-chemical reactions not just create the thought we know everything, I guess it has in some people. Those who think they know everything have had that chemical process - obviously. They should have been rocks by now. Sometimes I think they may as well be.

Well, that's enough fun for now. Have a good day!

[Pliny]

Ok - but the point we're arguing is whether there was a 'decision' or not.

Could you make the decision to not be? You would never be able to prove, even to yourself, if you made the decision, that you had successfully made the decision.

The decision to be is then, deductively, the decision to start time.

[Oleg Bach]

The spirit moved along in the void..in the sea of nothingness and said.."let their be light" - form light came all matter....then he said let their be a firmament ( a coating or dome of air..and atmosphere)..and bingo...call it God or nothing or what every you want - The ancients already had the M theory..Hawkings is just a young upstart...we all believe that as we move forward in time..that humanity evolves into a brighter and more advanced human being...Time is not the issue..whether it is forward or backward in time..does not ensure intelligence - we might just be getting more stupid as we march forward?

[Pliny]

The spirit moved along in the void..in the sea of nothingness and said.."let their be light" - form light came all matter....then he said let their be a firmament ( a coating or dome of air..and atmosphere)..and bingo...call it God or nothing or what every you want - The ancients already had the M theory..Hawkings is just a young upstart...we all believe that as we move forward in time..that humanity evolves into a brighter and more advanced human being...Time is not the issue..whether it is forward or backward in time..does not ensure intelligence - we might just be getting more stupid as we march forward?

I have a suspicion we are we are getting more stupid as we march forward.

What "thing" spirit or whatever could say, "let there be light" and then proceed to wish to discover what it was.

[Sir Bandelot]

I have a suspicion we are we are getting more stupid as we march forward.

What "thing" spirit or whatever could say, "let there be light" and then proceed to wish to discover what it was.

That discussion is no less abstract than when a physicist begins talking about theories relating to the origins of the universe. Mathematics is just another form of communication, a description of ideas and relationships between values not unlike the musical notes written down on a page. What it describes is abstracted from the actual "song", let alone ones ability to experience it.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think the physics of the big bang says there was "nothing". There was something, but something had to make it go "boom", or cause it to be unstable.

The physics of the Big Bang is unknown. The most cosmologists and physicists can say with any degree of certainty is the Universe was once incredibly hot and dense, then expanded and cooled. The question of what came before is currently unanswerable, and as Hawking himself said twenty years ago, may in fact be like asking what's north of the North Pole. In other words, "before" may be a completely meaningless concept when talking about the Big Bang.

Before we can even hope to begin to peer beyond the veil of the Planck Epoch we have to have a quantum theory of gravity, and that still seems some way off.

[wyly]

The physics of the Big Bang is unknown. The most cosmologists and physicists can say with any degree of certainty is the Universe was once incredibly hot and dense, then expanded and cooled. The question of what came before is currently unanswerable, and as Hawking himself said twenty years ago, may in fact be like asking what's north of the North Pole. In other words, "before" may be a completely meaningless concept when talking about the Big Bang.

Before we can even hope to begin to peer beyond the veil of the Planck Epoch we have to have a quantum theory of gravity, and that still seems some way off.

I'd be happy if someone could explain gravity...

[Pliny]

The physics of the Big Bang is unknown. The most cosmologists and physicists can say with any degree of certainty is the Universe was once incredibly hot and dense, then expanded and cooled. The question of what came before is currently unanswerable, and as Hawking himself said twenty years ago, may in fact be like asking what's north of the North Pole. In other words, "before" may be a completely meaningless concept when talking about the Big Bang.

Before we can even hope to begin to peer beyond the veil of the Planck Epoch we have to have a quantum theory of gravity, and that still seems some way off.

There is a theory that the universe is atomically expanding at a rate of 9m/sec explaining the inability to detect any evidence of a gravitational force or energy.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I'd be happy if someone could explain gravity...

The peer review process will preclude any chance of you hearing of an explanation in your lifetime.

[Pliny]

That discussion is no less abstract than when a physicist begins talking about theories relating to the origins of the universe. Mathematics is just another form of communication, a description of ideas and relationships between values not unlike the musical notes written down on a page. What it describes is abstracted from the actual "song", let alone ones ability to experience it.

Abstract mathematics will develop abstract concepts. If the mathematics is correct the concept will be discovered to be true.

[Pliny]

That discussion is no less abstract than when a physicist begins talking about theories relating to the origins of the universe. Mathematics is just another form of communication, a description of ideas and relationships between values not unlike the musical notes written down on a page. What it describes is abstracted from the actual "song", let alone ones ability to experience it.

Abstract mathematics will develop abstract concepts. If the mathematics is correct the concept will be discovered to be true.

[ToadBrother]

The peer review process will preclude any chance of you hearing of an explanation in your lifetime.

Care to back that one up? Do you even know what the peer review process is?

[Pliny]

Care to back that one up? Do you even know what the peer review process is?

Well, before you even get there you have to go through ten to twenty years of denial. See the history of heliobactal pylori.