Death of Stephen Hawking

Forums › Off topic › Death of Stephen Hawking

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1978581 16-Mar-2018 12:29

Batman:

in actual fact, any of their hypotheses is as good as "god made the big bang".

I thought we'd agreed to keep religion out of this.
I strongly disagree with use of that "simple theory" requiring no thought - to try to counter complex coherent theories based on science, even if they're not complete.

No - "god made the big bang" isn't a good theory to argue against mainstream cosmology - which doesn't "care" who or what (if anything) made the big bang, as it's not observable, unprovable, provides no evidence that there's been any influence since, and really - it just doesn't matter. If people are making any hypothesis about "before", they're really just making stuff up. Hawking didn't do that (except maybe in jest).

If I've got the wrong end of the stick about what you said - then I apologise. I get frustrated when people argue that because we don't know everything, then a hypothesis based on nothing valid at all has equal merit. That's very common in all areas of pseudoscience vs science, from predicting earthquakes to quack remedies.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1978612 16-Mar-2018 13:21

Fred99:
Batman:

in actual fact, any of their hypotheses is as good as "god made the big bang".

I thought we'd agreed to keep religion out of this.
I strongly disagree with use of that "simple theory" requiring no thought - to try to counter complex coherent theories based on science, even if they're not complete.

No - "god made the big bang" isn't a good theory to argue against mainstream cosmology - which doesn't "care" who or what (if anything) made the big bang, as it's not observable, unprovable, provides no evidence that there's been any influence since, and really - it just doesn't matter. If people are making any hypothesis about "before", they're really just making stuff up. Hawking didn't do that (except maybe in jest).

If I've got the wrong end of the stick about what you said - then I apologise. I get frustrated when people argue that because we don't know everything, then a hypothesis based on nothing valid at all has equal merit. That's very common in all areas of pseudoscience vs science, from predicting earthquakes to quack remedies.

Ok let me rephrase.

The simulation hypothesis, where the beginnings of our universe, the existence of all matter and physical laws within it are just a computer simulation of some beings of higher intelligence, is no less possible than every current hypothesis about the beginnings the universe that exist. The possibilities are endless, where no one theory, however elegant, is more probable than another.

Would anyone apply Occam's Razor here?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1978635 16-Mar-2018 13:50

Batman:
Fred99:

Batman:

in actual fact, any of their hypotheses is as good as "god made the big bang".

I thought we'd agreed to keep religion out of this.
I strongly disagree with use of that "simple theory" requiring no thought - to try to counter complex coherent theories based on science, even if they're not complete.

No - "god made the big bang" isn't a good theory to argue against mainstream cosmology - which doesn't "care" who or what (if anything) made the big bang, as it's not observable, unprovable, provides no evidence that there's been any influence since, and really - it just doesn't matter. If people are making any hypothesis about "before", they're really just making stuff up. Hawking didn't do that (except maybe in jest).

If I've got the wrong end of the stick about what you said - then I apologise. I get frustrated when people argue that because we don't know everything, then a hypothesis based on nothing valid at all has equal merit. That's very common in all areas of pseudoscience vs science, from predicting earthquakes to quack remedies.

Ok let me rephrase.

The simulation hypothesis, where the beginnings of our universe, the existence of all matter and physical laws within it are just a computer simulation of some beings of higher intelligence, is no less possible than every current hypothesis about the beginnings the universe that exist. The possibilities are endless, where no one theory, however elegant, is more probable than another.

Fair enough. If we're talking anthropic principle theory, then here's one based on a comment made by Hawking:

An AI that has been designed rather than evolved can in principle have any drives or goals. However, as emphasized by Steve Omohundro, an extremely intelligent future AI will probably develop a drive to survive and acquire more resources as a step toward accomplishing whatever goal it has, because surviving and having more resources will increase its chances of accomplishing that other goal. This can cause problems for humans whose resources get taken away.

What if we design such an evolving AI (which will evolve very quickly) and set it's goal to find out WTF created the universe or came before, because the answer to that is (probably) not possible to find or so beyond comprehension, the AI we created consumes the entire universe in its quest to find out? It finds the answer, but there's nobody left to tell except the creator, who gives it a banana and a bowl of peanuts.

I don't read much science fiction - I guess that story or similar has already been written.

I think we've got a far greater chance of making the destroyer than of ever finding a creator.

Paul1977

5052 posts

Uber Geek

#1978654 16-Mar-2018 14:16

Fred99:

What if we design such an evolving AI (which will evolve very quickly) and set it's goal to find out WTF created the universe or came before, because the answer to that is (probably) not possible to find or so beyond comprehension, the AI we created consumes the entire universe in its quest to find out? It finds the answer, but there's nobody left to tell except the creator, who gives it a banana and a bowl of peanuts.

I don't read much science fiction - I guess that story or similar has already been written.

Sounds like Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1978663 16-Mar-2018 14:24

Paul1977:

Fred99:

What if we design such an evolving AI (which will evolve very quickly) and set it's goal to find out WTF created the universe or came before, because the answer to that is (probably) not possible to find or so beyond comprehension, the AI we created consumes the entire universe in its quest to find out? It finds the answer, but there's nobody left to tell except the creator, who gives it a banana and a bowl of peanuts.

I don't read much science fiction - I guess that story or similar has already been written.

Sounds like Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Bingo. ~ 40 years ago too! I must try to keep up to date.

Kind of glad to hear it was a bit of a flop - it confirms that I'd have been hopeless as a scifi writer, and would have probably lost the family fortune defending unwinnable copyright lawsuits.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1978682 16-Mar-2018 14:48

Paul1977:

Fred99:

What if we design such an evolving AI (which will evolve very quickly) and set it's goal to find out WTF created the universe or came before, because the answer to that is (probably) not possible to find or so beyond comprehension, the AI we created consumes the entire universe in its quest to find out? It finds the answer, but there's nobody left to tell except the creator, who gives it a banana and a bowl of peanuts.

I don't read much science fiction - I guess that story or similar has already been written.

Sounds like Star Trek: The Motion Picture

That's way too many what ifs to be scientific. We can't even solve Auckland traffic or housing, I don't think there will be any ability to do the said thing above.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1978711 16-Mar-2018 15:03

Batman:

Paul1977:

Fred99:

What if we design such an evolving AI (which will evolve very quickly) and set it's goal to find out WTF created the universe or came before, because the answer to that is (probably) not possible to find or so beyond comprehension, the AI we created consumes the entire universe in its quest to find out? It finds the answer, but there's nobody left to tell except the creator, who gives it a banana and a bowl of peanuts.

I don't read much science fiction - I guess that story or similar has already been written.

Sounds like Star Trek: The Motion Picture

That's way too many what ifs to be scientific. We can't even solve Auckland traffic or housing, I don't think there will be any ability to do the said thing above.

"Science fiction" is an oxymoron. It doesn't need to be "scientific".

Of course we can solve Akl traffic and housing problems, resources are just allocated elsewhere, and many people value their own personal liberty highly enough to reject any imposition/cost to themselves for something that they believe is or should be someone else's problem.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1978852 16-Mar-2018 20:41

Fred99:

Batman:

Paul1977:

Fred99:

What if we design such an evolving AI (which will evolve very quickly) and set it's goal to find out WTF created the universe or came before, because the answer to that is (probably) not possible to find or so beyond comprehension, the AI we created consumes the entire universe in its quest to find out? It finds the answer, but there's nobody left to tell except the creator, who gives it a banana and a bowl of peanuts.

I don't read much science fiction - I guess that story or similar has already been written.

Sounds like Star Trek: The Motion Picture

That's way too many what ifs to be scientific. We can't even solve Auckland traffic or housing, I don't think there will be any ability to do the said thing above.

"Science fiction" is an oxymoron. It doesn't need to be "scientific".

Of course we can solve Akl traffic and housing problems, resources are just allocated elsewhere, and many people value their own personal liberty highly enough to reject any imposition/cost to themselves for something that they believe is or should be someone else's problem.

Seriously, reincarnation is more likely than that!

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1978928 17-Mar-2018 04:21

Batman:
Fred99:

Batman:

in actual fact, any of their hypotheses is as good as "god made the big bang".

I thought we'd agreed to keep religion out of this.
I strongly disagree with use of that "simple theory" requiring no thought - to try to counter complex coherent theories based on science, even if they're not complete.

No - "god made the big bang" isn't a good theory to argue against mainstream cosmology - which doesn't "care" who or what (if anything) made the big bang, as it's not observable, unprovable, provides no evidence that there's been any influence since, and really - it just doesn't matter. If people are making any hypothesis about "before", they're really just making stuff up. Hawking didn't do that (except maybe in jest).

If I've got the wrong end of the stick about what you said - then I apologise. I get frustrated when people argue that because we don't know everything, then a hypothesis based on nothing valid at all has equal merit. That's very common in all areas of pseudoscience vs science, from predicting earthquakes to quack remedies.

Ok let me rephrase.

The simulation hypothesis, where the beginnings of our universe, the existence of all matter and physical laws within it are just a computer simulation of some beings of higher intelligence, is no less possible than every current hypothesis about the beginnings the universe that exist. The possibilities are endless, where no one theory, however elegant, is more probable than another.

Would anyone apply Occam's Razor here?

A problem with that idea is that the 'creators' should also expect to live in that sort of simulation Universe too. i.e. they are simulated too.

If some entity has created/simulated our Universe in some sort of computer, then it is still up to us understand the programming.What if the Universe is infinte? Can that be simulated?

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1978930 17-Mar-2018 05:16

nunz:

i'm sorry he is gone. It is a loss to us all when someone quirky, different, full of curiosity and the strength to be different dies.

I'm doubly sad as i had been reading his essays / speeches and about his life for two days before his death. I have two questions about his work that i would have loved to hear an answer to.

1 - If the universe is still accelerating that would suggest an energy source as acceleration requires constant input of increasing energy. Wouldn't that energy source show the location of the big bang?

2 - If all matter was condensed into a tiny sphere at he beginning, why didn't things like plutonium go critical and destroy everything in its blast radius? Or was everything like hydrogen and become more dense elements over time and if that was the case how do we achieve that today. (would solve a lot of resource issues if you could transmute lead into gold for instance). or was the initial super dense mass a soup of protons, neutrons, electrons and sub atomic particles that when they exploded made themselves into all the different elements?

He claims because the big bang was theoretically outside of time it means it precluded the need for God as if there is no beginning there is no need for a first entity to kick it all off - but that still leaves the issue of how matter formed itself into all sorts of different types and where the laws that govern physics come from. He would have been fascinating to talk to about some of his thoughts on that stuff.

He seemed to be half philosopher and half mathmetician / physicist. Would have made for some quirky conversations.

1) Well sort of.. If you have an energy that is constant overall all space, then as the Universe expands there will be more it. It's the more of it that means the Universe will fall outwards faster and faster.

Remember Einstein.. E=MC^2 Energy and mass are equivalent.

Normally, you would expect things to accelerate inwards to lower Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE). But, if you fill space with energy then the Universe will fall outwards to lower GPE.

(disclaimer: I know a lot of holes can be picked in this explanation - it really needs maths).

- about the location of the Big Bang. It happened everywhere. It wasn't an explosion that happened in a fixed part of space. The oldest and best evidence we have of the Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). It is all over the sky.

2) At the beginning it was way too hot for any atoms. As the Universe expanded and cooled the parts of atoms were able to form. Later Hydrogen then Helium formed. But, the Universe was rapidly expanding and cooling. So the Universe is still mostly made of Hydrogen and Helium in a 3:1 ratio. The trace elements are the rest of us and those were mostly formed in stars after the Big Bang.

I have to add that no one seriously thinks the Universe was ever infinitely hot, dense etc. It is just that the current laws of Physics fall down near that point.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4