More crappy science reporting
I just heard a "story" on NPR, which is apparently a popular science story today, that reads basically "Stephen Hawking claims god not required for creation of the universe in new book" or something to that effect. The only "news" here is, perhaps, that Stephen Hawking has a new book out, and it makes this point.
After hearing the story though, there's nothing newsworthy or original about the claim itself. Basically, he just points out that, prior to Plank time after the Big Bang, there is no distinct time dimension, and thus our anthropocentric notions of causality, as well as the question of the cause of the Universe, are meaningless. Physicists have been making this point for years.
And then of course they have to bring in the Anglican or whatever to point out "Well, this doesn't tell us anything about the meaning of the universe." Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. This question of the "meaning" of the universe is purely anthropic and is irrelevant to the discussion. I think it's an interesting question, and I can't say I haven't been kept awake by it at night. But it has nothing to do with the "how" of the universe.
And really, if you're going to ask "Why is there nothing instead of nothing?" I really can't accept WIZARDS MUST'VE DONE IT as a satisfying answer. It has no explanatory power whatsoever, and is just pulled out of thin air. It only leads one to ask "WELL WHY ARE THERE WIZARDS INSTEAD OF NO WIZARDS?" It's turtles all the way down... Some claim that this wizard exists completely outside our notions of logic. That maybe on some plane of existence a != a. Well that's all good and fine--I can make up arbitrary logic systems too and have fun with them all day in a sandbox. But show me that such a system can say anything about reality and then maybe you'll be worth listening to. Otherwise please just return to your mountain top and stay there until you've come up with something better.
After hearing the story though, there's nothing newsworthy or original about the claim itself. Basically, he just points out that, prior to Plank time after the Big Bang, there is no distinct time dimension, and thus our anthropocentric notions of causality, as well as the question of the cause of the Universe, are meaningless. Physicists have been making this point for years.
And then of course they have to bring in the Anglican or whatever to point out "Well, this doesn't tell us anything about the meaning of the universe." Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. This question of the "meaning" of the universe is purely anthropic and is irrelevant to the discussion. I think it's an interesting question, and I can't say I haven't been kept awake by it at night. But it has nothing to do with the "how" of the universe.
And really, if you're going to ask "Why is there nothing instead of nothing?" I really can't accept WIZARDS MUST'VE DONE IT as a satisfying answer. It has no explanatory power whatsoever, and is just pulled out of thin air. It only leads one to ask "WELL WHY ARE THERE WIZARDS INSTEAD OF NO WIZARDS?" It's turtles all the way down... Some claim that this wizard exists completely outside our notions of logic. That maybe on some plane of existence a != a. Well that's all good and fine--I can make up arbitrary logic systems too and have fun with them all day in a sandbox. But show me that such a system can say anything about reality and then maybe you'll be worth listening to. Otherwise please just return to your mountain top and stay there until you've come up with something better.