Hawking: Philosophy is Dead and has been replaced by Physics. God Never existed and now we have M-theory

[Nigel7]

It’s funny that physicists can’t even agree on what the “M” in M-theory stands for (“magic”, “mystery”, “membrane”, etc…), and the theory is chock full of gaping holes, but Hawking’s puts this utterly incomplete and dysfunctional theory forward as an argument against the existence of God.
Hawking’s reduced himself over the past 15 years or so to nothing more than an attention whore.

 

[edwest2]

It’s funny that physicists can’t even agree on what the “M” in M-theory stands for (“magic”, “mystery”, “membrane”, etc…), and the theory is chock full of gaping holes, but Hawking’s puts this utterly incomplete and dysfunctional theory forward as an argument against the existence of God.
Hawking’s reduced himself over the past 15 years or so to nothing more than an attention whore.

A little harsh. Some people bury themselves in some ‘personal reality,’ which I don’t mean as a slight. I have one (actually, several that could be grouped together) and I find myself gaining new knowledge and making adjustments as needed and spending a lot of time there in my reality/thought process, depending on the day.

Ed

 

[adamhovey1988]

I really don’t pay any attention at all to him.

I know he’s a famous physicist and has ALS.

Other than that, I’m baffled as to why he is constantly cited as an authority on Life, the Universe, and Everything.

My father had ALS and I don’t think Stephen Hawking does because he refuses to get a second opinion. I think the problem may be that Hawking is worried about his own mortality so he’s trying to make himself comfortable. Unfortunately he’s doing it the wrong way. I’ve seen plenty of evidence for the existence of God I’ve seen no evidence for the existence of M theory. Of course, we could both be wrong I’m no physicist and talking is no theologian. I mean I could be wrong about M- Theory because I know I’m right about God and he could be wrong about God because well he is; but he can also be wrong about M- theory. Or something like that.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t think it behooves us to criticize Hawking’s drive to money and attention. He needs these, more directly than anybody, for life. Money acquires the attendants and technologies that replace the functions of his atrophied body.

And if he ceased being a world name, it would be harder for his needs to be fulfilled.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tim_D]

And if he ceased being a world name, it would be harder for his needs to be fulfilled.

So, that gives him cause to try and undermine some of our most deeply held beliefs and convictions? Sorry, no sale here.

 

[GEddie]

So, that gives him cause to try and undermine some of our most deeply held beliefs and convictions? Sorry, no sale here.

We are free to ignore him.

Nothing he has said is as damaging as the words of Nietzsche six generations ago, yet life goes on.

ICXC NIKA

 

[mackbrislawn]

Philosophy is dead? Heck, science itself is based upon philosophical assumptions.

 

[DebChris]

I don’t think it behooves us to criticize Hawking’s drive to money and attention. He needs these, more directly than anybody, for life. Money acquires the attendants and technologies that replace the functions of his atrophied body.

And if he ceased being a world name, it would be harder for his needs to be fulfilled.

ICXC NIKA

His intellect has made it possible to acquire money as well as fame and attention. There are other people with the same disabilities who have not been as fortunate. There may likewise be other individuals of similar intellectual ability who have not garnered the same types of international attention for their work as Steven Hawkings has.
Regardless of a person’s intellect, it does take effort to do scientific research, to submit that research to peer review, and then finally to write and publish a book. Are the books written as a person become an “expert” as critically reviewed as when he started? That’s a different question.
I just finished reading the book The Road to Character. It profiles different flawed individuals. One of the points made in the development of these individuals came as they moved from being the center of attention to recognizing that they were part of something larger than themselves, that they were not always in control.

 

[GEddie]

His intellect has made it possible to acquire money as well as fame and attention. There are other people with the same disabilities who have not been as fortunate. There may likewise be other individuals of similar intellectual ability who have not garnered the same types of international attention for their work as Steven Hawkings has.

Indeed.

We are both mind and body; and as deplorable as the disability is in itself, it has led, in part, to his receiving the kind of attention that has made him a world name.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Abba]

I don’t think it behooves us to criticize Hawking’s drive to money and attention. He needs these, more directly than anybody, for life. Money acquires the attendants and technologies that replace the functions of his atrophied body.

And if he ceased being a world name, it would be harder for his needs to be fulfilled.

ICXC NIKA

Hawking held the Chair of Newton at Cambridge for many years and was well taken care of. He was still at Cambridge when he wrote A Brief History of Time and fell in love with the easy money that just kept coming in from book sales. I am sure when he left the Chair he continued to get benefits. Plus, he made millions with the first book, enough to cover his expenses. He may have gotten the machine that allowed him to talk for free from the company as a marketing thing. I think he is well taken care of in the physics community and his condition does not justify his behavior and approach, it is actually kind of childish.

As far as I am concern, he picked it up from Nietzsche. Remember, Nietzsche first became famous because he claimed: God is dead. Probably Hawking thought, well, if I say: Philosophy is dead - I will get a lot of attention thru controversy etc…

No, GEddie, he doesn’t have economic problems. He even has undercover security guards. I remember when I met him, the woman that pushed his wheelchair was also serving as his guard. She looked like a relative of the woman knight in Game of Thrones.

As far as the ‘argumentum ad hominem’ well, he started it.

reuters.com/article/us-science-hawking-cambridge-idUSTRE58T44R20090930

Can someone explain in English what justification there are to promote his theory of multi-verses? The physics calculations look like Greek to me, but, can someone try with language to explain it? Does math really justifies such a theory?

 

[edwest2]

Right now, the multiverse concept is still stuck in comic books and SF. Anyway, I am looking forward to a linking of electricity, magnetism and certain observations about energy in space. A lot doesn’t add up.

At the core of a Black Hole, is it incredibly hot but still contained? How? It should start consuming itself. Or detonate.

Ed

 

[Aloysium]

Right now, the multiverse concept is still stuck in comic books and SF. Anyway, I am looking forward to a linking of electricity, magnetism and certain observations about energy in space. A lot doesn’t add up.
At the core of a Black Hole, is it incredibly hot but still contained? How? It should start consuming itself. Or detonate. Ed

From: bbc.com/earth/story/20160107-these-are-the-discoveries-that-made-stephen-hawking-famous

. . . Because a black hole’s temperature increases as its event horizon’s surface area gets smaller, black holes this tiny would be hot: Hawking described them as “white hot”. They would fizz with Hawking radiation, shedding mass until they eventually disappeared.
And they would not go quietly. A mini-black hole would get hotter as it got smaller, until eventually it would explode with the energy of a million one-megaton hydrogen bombs. . .

 

[edwest2]

From: bbc.com/earth/story/20160107-these-are-the-discoveries-that-made-stephen-hawking-famous

. . . Because a black hole’s temperature increases as its event horizon’s surface area gets smaller, black holes this tiny would be hot: Hawking described them as “white hot”. They would fizz with Hawking radiation, shedding mass until they eventually disappeared.
And they would not go quietly. A mini-black hole would get hotter as it got smaller, until eventually it would explode with the energy of a million one-megaton hydrogen bombs. . .

Thanks for that. Is there any observed evidence of a Black Hole exploding?

Ed

 

[Wesrock]

Hawking is a brilliant physicist whose made major contributions to his field, but that is where his expertise ends. He shows little understanding of philosophy and metaphysics (metaphysics meaning the study of being).

 

[Aloysium]

Thanks for that. Is there any observed evidence of a Black Hole exploding? Ed

Does a burp count?

nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/nasa-s-chandra-finds-supermassive-black-hole-burping-nearby.html

 

[edwest2]

Does a burp count?

nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/nasa-s-chandra-finds-supermassive-black-hole-burping-nearby.html

It doesn’t make sense. This suggests instability. A feature I can’t see occurring in a black hole.

Ed

 

[Abba]

Does a burp count?

nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/nasa-s-chandra-finds-supermassive-black-hole-burping-nearby.html

Speaking of burps and stuff. I just finished watching the presentation linked to in the OP and it seems as though someone farted. It could have been an elderly or was it someone trying to explain in simple terms the big bang theory? That is, that it is not that there was space which was filled in by the bang, but that the bang created its own space and time as Craigmile notes, like blowing a balloon. In Asia people fart without thinking twice about it as it is natural, but, even if everyone in the train car or elevator is suffocating - it’s okay as long as it was a silencer. But, to make noise - that must have been someone with a physical problem or some antisocial scientist trying to make a point.

 

[Abba]

It doesn’t make sense. This suggests instability. A feature I can’t see occurring in a black hole.

Ed

Isn’t Hawking claiming that it is instability that causes the multiverses? What do you think of that instability? I like the point Craigmile makes when he points out that Hawking is using philosophy, specifically metaphysics to make his non-scientific claims.

Creation according to Hawking:
https://i2.wp.com/nunolemos.com.pt/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Bolha-inflaccionária-no-mercado-da-acupuntura-e1458768417973.jpg?fit=404%2C300

 

[Aloysium]

It doesn’t make sense. This suggests instability. A feature I can’t see occurring in a black hole. Ed

Black holes keep swallowing and spewing stuff out. I haven’t considered them to be particularly stable in the time-frame of the universe, but I’m not up to date as to what is confirmed and what is simply theoretical. With respect to his contribution to physics, Hawking seems to be more myth than substance. My not being much of either, i don’t have much to say about the matter.

 

[RCinMT]

Black holes keep swallowing and spewing stuff out. I haven’t considered them to be particularly stable in the time-frame of the universe, but I’m not up to date as to what is confirmed and what is simply theoretical. With respect to his contribution to physics, Hawking seems to be more myth than substance. My not being much of either, i don’t have much to say about the matter.

I want to be very mindful of not embellishing or misrepresenting comments but I believe that a few years back some physicists called a conference to have a discussion with several of their fellow famous colleagues. One of the speakers, a collaborator of Hawkings who is, I believe Australian and a Quaker, had some fairly harsh comments for his friends and colleagues. Namely he chided this generation as wasting a lot of time on theories, several of them unprovable and mathematically impossible, that there had been no relevant discoveries in physics on 60 years–certainly not among the big names in the room–and that all of their theorizing and popularizing was going to redound to their discredit in the future and hurt science in the popular imagination. I believe he specifically commented on allowing misleading information to be put forth by popularizers (I imagine like Dawkins, Nye, de Grasse (although he is a physicist…I guess) that was untrue. Moreover I think he said bludgeoning people with a hammer that doesn’t exist or something.

Whatever the case, it fell on deaf ears clearly. Hawking is by far the most problematic though, because most of the others don’t delve into saying there is no God, they generally just say they don’t personally believe or don’t know.