Stephen Hawking turns 70

[badger]

Happy birthday to him, even if he doesn't believe in heaven. :)

Link (http://newsok.com/stephen-hawking-to-turn-70-defying-disease/article/feed/332659)

One of my favorite Hawking interviews:


Do you feel that scientists correct themselves as often as they should?

More often than politicians, but not as often as they should.

What is your I.Q.?

I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.

How can we know if you qualify as a genius physicist, as you are invariably described?

The media need superheroes in science just as in every sphere of life, but there is really a continuous range of abilities with no clear dividing line.

Are you saying you are not a genius?

I hope I'm near the upper end of the range.

With all your intense erudition, why do you bother writing pop-science books about the universe, the latest of which is the illustrated version of ''On the Shoulders of Giants''?

I want my books sold on airport bookstalls.

Are you always this cheerful?

Life would be tragic if it weren't funny.

Seriously, how do you keep your spirits up?

My expectations were reduced to zero when I was 21. Everything since then has been a bonus.

Indeed, incurable motor-neuron disease has confined you to a wheelchair and caused you to lose the ability even to speak. Is a computer your only means of communication?

I use an on-screen software keyboard, called E Z KEYS. I access this keyboard via a single button switch that I hold in my hand.

You have long been associated with Cambridge University, in England, and I'm wondering whether you find Americans to be equally knowledegable about science.

I have found far greater enthusiasm for science in America than here in Britain. There is more enthusiasm for everything in America.

How can you say that? Just last month a Gallup poll found that only 35 percent of Americans accept Darwin's theory of evolution, while 45 percent prefer the creationist view.

Maybe it is because people in America have less sense of belonging to a tradition and culture than in Europe, so they turn to fundamental religion.

Do you believe in God?

I don't believe in a personal God.

What do you think of President Bush's plan to get to Mars in 10 years?

Stupid. Robots would do a better job and be much cheaper because you don't have to bring them back.

Do you think people will ever live on a planet besides Earth?

Yes, if we don't self-destruct first.

What do you and your academic friends make of the debate over embryonic-stem-cell research in this country?

In Britain, like most of the developed world, stem-cell research is regarded as a great opportunity. America will be left behind if it doesn't change policy.

Could stem-cell research help you at all?

Like Christopher Reeve, I'm very much in favor, but unlike he did, I don't expect to benefit personally.




Circa 2004 in the New York Times. Linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html)

[SoonerLaw09]

For a guy who has type of ALS, it's remarkable he's lived this long. I'm always amazed that such great minds persist in refusing to acknowledge that God Is, often passing away before they eventually realize it (Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens come to mind).

[starclassic tama]

For a guy who has type of ALS, it's remarkable he's lived this long. I'm always amazed that such great minds persist in refusing to acknowledge that God Is, often passing away before they eventually realize it (Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens come to mind).i think he has probably put a lot more thought into God than you have, so his viewpoints deserve some respect

[KantoSooner]

It's a 'leap of faith' SoonerLaw.

it's not logic based. For those devoted to logic, you simply can't believe in a God. The closest you can get is to say that you can't rule it out.

Which, technically is agnosticism. On the other hand, I've come to feel that calling myself agnostic and living without any reference to a god is a bit dishonest, so I go ahead and call myself atheist.

You'd be surprised how easy it is, particularly in secular countries in Europe and Asia. I've gone months if not years without ever thinking about religion. Very liberating, frankly. And no, no outbreaks of immorality or descents of society into chaos.

[SoonerLaw09]

Perhaps you can show me how such an abstract thing like logic is possible in a universe without God?

[cccasooner2]

Perhaps you can show me how such an abstract thing like logic is possible in a universe without God?

Holy Sh*t, roflmao, you must be serious!

Anyway, happy birthday Stephen.

[Jacie]

Perhaps you can show me how such an abstract thing like logic is possible in a universe without God?

Hijacking an airliner is a federal offense. Sadly, hijacking an internet forum thread is not . . .

[Caboose]

Perhaps you can show me how such an abstract thing like logic is possible in a universe without God?

Maybe you should instead show how it cant since you are the one making the claim.

[SoonerLaw09]

Maybe you should instead show how it cant since you are the one making the claim.

No, I believe Kanto is making the claim. He clearly stated the existence of logic implies that God is not. In logical notation, L ----> ~G. He made the statement. I asked for his proof. And he can't just say that logic is axiomatic, so there. I say that too but I have a reason for it's being axiomatic; order is part of God's nature, and things like logic and mathematics are part of that order. And he did not just say "logic is axiomatic no matter what", he said logic necessarily means that God is not. That's an affirmative assertion of truth; I'm asking him to prove it.

[SoonerLaw09]

Holy Sh*t, roflmao, you must be serious!

Anyway, happy birthday Stephen.

Well indeed I am serious. Think about it. How would a random universe which just popped out of random nothingness with no purpose, produce such an abstract, non-material, orderly thing like logic? What about mathematics? Why is there love? Why is there music?

[KantoSooner]

No, what I am saying is that logic requires proof. Logic can exist in a system that has no God at it's center and in fact probably fits best there since it permits no mystery, requiring faith, to make the whole thing go.
You can say, in a logic based system that you don't know how something works. You can't say it works because 'X' and then refuse to address how 'X' works.

God, is by definition unknowable, I think you would agree. Paraphrasing Spinoza, God is definitionally beyond man's ken. The man who presumes to say more about God than to express his belief or disbelief is a fool.

[Oldnslo]

Hawking has done a pretty good job of explaining that the Universe's existence need not be attributed to God. My disagreement with him on that matter is irrelevant to my wish for him to enjoy a happy birthday. Perhaps he'll live long enough to revisit his conclusions on the topic and change them. Hawking has done that on other matters.

[8timechamps]

Do we really know for sure that Hawking is a genius? I mean we've only heard what the computer voice says....maybe there's a team of people that program that voice?!

Just askin'....


Anyway, HBD Steve-o

[SoonerLaw09]

No, what I am saying is that logic requires proof. Logic can exist in a system that has no God at it's center and in fact probably fits best there since it permits no mystery, requiring faith, to make the whole thing go.
You can say, in a logic based system that you don't know how something works. You can't say it works because 'X' and then refuse to address how 'X' works.

God, is by definition unknowable, I think you would agree. Paraphrasing Spinoza, God is definitionally beyond man's ken. The man who presumes to say more about God than to express his belief or disbelief is a fool.

Nicely sidestepping my request. You continue to assert that logic itself doesn't presuppose God, yet you've never put forth a logical proof of that assertion. Here's my argument:

1. It is not possible for a completely material, completely random universe to produce abstractions.
2. Logic is an abstraction.
3. Therefore, a completely material, completely random universe cannot produce logic.
4. Abstractions are the products of an intelligent mind.
5. Our universe contains abstractions (such as logic, reason, love, music)
6. Therefore, some intelligent mind has created the universe.

Now I can get from there to the God of the Bible, but my point is made.

And Spinoza is wrong. God is knowable. Christianity is based on the idea that God has revealed himself in a) his creation, and b) his Word (both the Bible, and Christ himself).

[KantoSooner]

I disagree with you on that point. And in any civilized society worthy of the name, variety of opinion is not only allowed, but encouraged.

It permits mistaken ideas to be examined and ultimately discarded. (and yes, that last should make you uncomfortable.)

[SoonerLaw09]

I disagree with you on that point. And in any civilized society worthy of the name, variety of opinion is not only allowed, but encouraged.

It permits mistaken ideas to be examined and ultimately discarded. (and yes, that last should make you uncomfortable.)

Sorry, but you've now lost me. I have no idea what you mean. In any case, I'm simply arguing that my worldview is more rational than yours. Not only that, but you have to borrow from my worldview to even argue with me. I'm supposed to be uncomfortable because of that?

[KantoSooner]

What I meant is that we are getting ever closer to the day that the illusion of a world created by and constantly managed by big people who live in the sky (later modified to only one REALLY big guy) can be finally laid on the ash heap of history.

Now, back to attacking your feigned lack of understanding. Logic is simply the process of arriving at conclusions through a series of demonstrable steps. It's really not more complex than that.

Your points 1-6 are apparently what passes for thought in your world. They start nowhere and go nowhere. Rather like the randomness you hate so much.

Your evidence of the nature of God and its desires is frankly insane. They are words, uncorroborated, of people who may or may not have existed, verbally transmitted over hundreds of years.
Stick with what is knowable: you have faith in the existance of God. Fine. Can't argue with that. I can ask you for proof. You can fail to provide it. I can suggest that on the balance, it seems more likely that the allness around us has a rational explanation that will accord with non-motive scientific principles rather than being the handiwork of a cosmic watchmaker who chooses to chat with illiterate wanderers on a frequent basis thousands of years ago but insists now, when we have means of recording these, rather important, commentaries, on remaining occluded.
But that's about the size of it.
Don't pretend more.

[cccasooner2]

.................

Your points 1-6 are apparently what passes for thought in your world. They start nowhere and go nowhere. Rather like the randomness you hate so much.

.......

I'm sure versions 1.X and up will not be an improvement. :)

[SoonerLaw09]

What I meant is that we are getting ever closer to the day that the illusion of a world created by and constantly managed by big people who live in the sky (later modified to only one REALLY big guy) can be finally laid on the ash heap of history.

Now, back to attacking your feigned lack of understanding. Logic is simply the process of arriving at conclusions through a series of demonstrable steps. It's really not more complex than that.

Your points 1-6 are apparently what passes for thought in your world. They start nowhere and go nowhere. Rather like the randomness you hate so much.

Your evidence of the nature of God and its desires is frankly insane. They are words, uncorroborated, of people who may or may not have existed, verbally transmitted over hundreds of years.
Stick with what is knowable: you have faith in the existance of God. Fine. Can't argue with that. I can ask you for proof. You can fail to provide it. I can suggest that on the balance, it seems more likely that the allness around us has a rational explanation that will accord with non-motive scientific principles rather than being the handiwork of a cosmic watchmaker who chooses to chat with illiterate wanderers on a frequent basis thousands of years ago but insists now, when we have means of recording these, rather important, commentaries, on remaining occluded.
But that's about the size of it.
Don't pretend more.

For a guy who says he loves logic, you sure don't know much about it. So far, you have not advanced anything close to resembling an actual argument. So you have faith that human science will eventually figure out the naturalistic explanation for everything. It only "seems more likely" because you have an a priori presupposition against supernatural causes. Which, I might add, is based on nothing except your own opinion. I say that, on balance, it seems more likely that a supreme being created everything, than that it just popped into existence on its own. It's just as likely that, eventually, all mankind will figure this out, one way or the other. Your only basis for stating that your worldview is preferable over mine, is that you don't like mine, because it means you'll eventually be held accountable for your actions. Fine, we can leave it at that. But don't pretend that you're being more rational than me.

Also, because you clearly do not have a clue about how to read ancient documents and the transmission of the Bible, your comments regarding same are frankly insulting. I will assume for the sake of charity that you did not mean it to sound that way. You should do some research. And do you simply assume that people who lived thousands of years ago were just too stupid to think clearly? That's called "chronological snobbery" and there is no basis for it. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that humans were much more intelligent back then than we are. We just have more toys.

[cleller]

1. Hawking really does have a beautiful mind. Incredible the achievements he's made, and his longevity.

2. Just because a person believes that God can be incorporated into a logical scientific theory should not be a reason to devalue his theory. There is no scientific explanation for the existence of the matter from which the universe was created. The creation of matter seems impossible, yet it occurred. One could categorize this phenomena as divine as easily as anything else.

[StoopTroup]

I didn't know that his wheelchair could reach 70 mph or even take a turn at high speed. That Dude is always trying to make history.

http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Steampunk/Steampunk%20Professor%20Xavier%20Wheelchair/Steampunk-Professor-Xavier-Wheelchair.jpg

[GottaHavePride]

Nicely sidestepping my request. You continue to assert that logic itself doesn't presuppose God, yet you've never put forth a logical proof of that assertion. Here's my argument:

1. It is not possible for a completely material, completely random universe to produce abstractions.
2. Logic is an abstraction.


Junk in, junk out.

Prove point #1. You're assuming it's true.
Point #2 is also out. Logic isn't an abstraction. It's a method - a system to be used to deduce new truths from existing information.

Everything past that is irrelevant.

And besides, maybe "logic" was not the best choice by KantoSooner. Try replacing it with "science".

Science is a process of proving hypotheses through experimentation, with results verified by repetition. So, until someone can reproduce God's results by creating ANOTHER universe, God's existence will remain unproven by the scientific method.

With that said, Happy Birthday, Dr. Hawking.

[AlboSooner]

1. Hawking really does have a beautiful mind. Incredible the achievements he's made, and his longevity.

I am not being sarcastic when I ask this, but what has he achieved that makes his deserving of Einstein-like praise?

[cleller]

I am not being sarcastic when I ask this, but what has he achieved that makes his deserving of Einstein-like praise?

Well, I was playing on the "beautiful mind" title, obviously, but what strikes me about Hawking is his ability to examine these complex, theoretical areas of physics, math, etc, and condense them to a form someone like me can appreciate. Not to mention the fact that he has suffered from ALS his whole adult life. I first heard of him when his book "A Brief History of Time" came out 20+ years ago. I got it from the library after hearing how good this book was, and was surprised at how he could write about such scientific ideas, yet keep your attention. I wasn't able to keep up with him as well in "The Universe in a Nutshell", to much math for me.

With his ALS being so severe, I thought "Brief History" would be as far as he could continue to work, but he keeps on going despite the difficulty. He communicates through a very complex computer, that he selects words form, then forms texts, etc that can be synthesized to "talk". Have you heard him on the Pink Floyd Division Bell cd? Can't imagine the patience and concentration that takes.

I don't pretend to understand his material on Black Holes, but know he's been at the forefront of that field for years. It seems like he was also involved in substantiating some of Einstein's work. I guess what impresses me is how far and wide his knowledge runs, and the way he continues to work in his field when most people would be completely caught up in just living each day with the ALS. Like Steve Jobs, he seems to always be in on the good ideas.

[cccasooner2]

..............I guess what impresses me is how far and wide his knowledge runs, and the way he continues to work in his field when most people would be completely caught up in just living each day with the ALS. Like Steve Jobs, he seems to always be in on the good ideas.

True, but that just seems so random and illogical.

[cleller]

True, but that just seems so random and illogical.

Yeah. Like why some people like the Kinks (or the Monkees) instead of the Beatles.

[cccasooner2]

Yeah. Like why some people like the Kinks (or the Monkees) instead of the Beatles.

I hated the Monkeys (or however it's spelled). :)

[cccasooner2]

True, but that just seems so random and illogical.

True, but that just seems so random, illogical, and God-like.

That was what I wanted to post before cleller so rudely quoted me. :)

[cleller]

I hated the Monkeys (or however it's spelled). :)

Bet you've never heard this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpvCxYikRFA

[StoopTroup]

I believe that Mike and Peter did a lot of LSD

Checkout the pic of them together at 0:28 in this one...lol


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8sBm553pA0&feature=related

[cccasooner2]

Bet you've never heard this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpvCxYikRFA

You're right about that. WTF were they trying to say? I couldn't understand a word of the song or was it a poor recording?

[StoopTroup]

My, my the clock in the sky is pounding away
There's so much to say
A face, a voice, an overdub has no choice
And it cannot rejoice

Wanting to be, to hear and to see
Crying to the sky

But the porpoise is laughing good-bye, good-bye
good-bye, good-bye, good-bye

Clicks, clacks
Riding the backs of giraffes for laughs is alright for a while
The ego sings of castles and kings and things
That go with a life of style

Wanting to feel, to know what is real
Living is a lie

But the porpoise is waiting good-bye, good-bye
Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye
Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye
Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye

[cleller]

You're right about that. WTF were they trying to say? I couldn't understand a word of the song or was it a poor recording?

Ah, who knows? Its about a porpoise. The Monkees take a stab at Sgt Pepper's.

[jkjsooner]

Nicely sidestepping my request. You continue to assert that logic itself doesn't presuppose God, yet you've never put forth a logical proof of that assertion. Here's my argument:

1. It is not possible for a completely material, completely random universe to produce abstractions.

Forgetting that your use of the term "random" is hardly appropriate when describing the universe....

Science does a pretty good job of explaining how abstract thought can arise from a material universe.

Our universe is composed of particles that behave in a consistent manner according to the laws of physics. These particles form various different types of atoms. One particular type of atom (carbon and possibly silicon) have properties that allow it to form very complex molecules. These complex molecules formed in such a manner to give rise to very primitive life.

Through the process of mutation and natural selection, life became increasingly complex. Life forms that develop some form of intelligence have a distinct advantage so at some point intelligence arose. Similarly so did abstract thought.


To summarize, abstract thought is just a consequence of the arrangement of organic molecules in the brain. With proper feedback (natural selection) such a system could arise naturally.


I'll leave it up to you to decide whether all of this seems probable. I'm not trying to convince you either way. My point is that scientists would disagree with your initial premise that abstract thought could not arise from a material universe.


I personally believe all of this makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is the assertion that science (as we understand it today) explains the hard problem on consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

But that's a topic for another thread.

[cccasooner2]

My, my the clock in the sky is pounding away (Usually ticking to a rythm or silent but maybe meant pounding off?)
There's so much to say (Can't be too much to say, only 18 lines)
A face, a voice, an overdub has no choice (Is an overdub meant to have a choice? Like yo, I do not want to be overdubbed.)
And it cannot rejoice (So I should expect an overdub to rejoice?)

Wanting to be, to hear and to see (Which is wanting to be: the face, the voice, or the overdub?)
Crying to the sky (I get it now, it must be the face crying, voices and overdubs have no eyes.)

But the porpoise is laughing good-bye, good-bye (I don't blame it one bit, I'm laughing too.)
good-bye, good-bye, good-bye (Bye bye. Who wrote this sh*t? It must have been a stoned monkey.)

Clicks, clacks
Riding the backs of giraffes for laughs is alright for a while
The ego sings of castles and kings and things
That go with a life of style

Wanting to feel, to know what is real
Living is a lie

But the porpoise is waiting good-bye, good-bye
Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye
Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye
Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye
.

[cleller]

Who wrote this sh*t? It must have been a stoned monkey.)

I looked this up, and was surprised to learn that The Porpoise Song was written by none other that Carole King and Gerry Goffin, who wrote so many hits for different acts together in the sixties before their split. Everything from Will You Still Love Me Torrow to Pleasant Valley Sunday.
Carole King, of course went on to even more fame.

[tator]

HB, Stevo!

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/398138_10150479646718182_118784858181_8767145_8911 91401_n.jpg

[SouthFortySooner]

Stevie is just sayin, if you throw a rock in the air a hundred times, it will fall back to the earth everytime. How you get OMG he doesn't believe in God from that amazes me.