March 6, 1998 www.amazon.com Watch the full program: thefilmarchived.blogspot.com On 19 December 2007, a statue of Hawking by renowned late artist Ian Walters was unveiled at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge. In May 2008 the statue of Hawking was unveiled at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cape Town. The Stephen W. Hawking Science Museum in San Salvador, El Salvador is named in honour of Stephen Hawking, citing his scientific distinction and perseverance in dealing with adversity. Stephen Hawking Building in Cambridge, opened on 17 April 2007. The building belongs to Gonville and Caius College and is used as an undergraduate accommodation and conference facility. Hawking’s belief that the lay person should have access to his work led him to write a series of popular science books in addition to his academic work. The first of these, A Brief History of Time, was published on 1 April 1988 by Hawking, his family and friends, and some leading physicists. It surprisingly became a best-seller and was followed by The Universe in a Nutshell (2001). Both books have remained highly popular all over the world. A collection of essays titled Black Holes and Baby Universes (1993) was also popular. His most recent book, A Briefer History of Time (2005), co-written by Leonard Mlodinow, aims to update his earlier works and make them accessible to an even wider audience. He and his daughter, Lucy Hawking, have recently published a children’s …
Stephen Hawking on Science in the 21st Century – Part 6 (1998)
Written by admin on September 8th, 2010 in Science.
Tags: 1998, 21st, Century, Hawking, part, Science, Stephen
@8shotbarrel i skim through the vid and i know he cant talk i mean the lil machine he have im sorry i dont pay that much attention in science class
@RuinSonic
Well, in terms of a multiverse, one must ask what is the originator of that hierarchical structure. Ultimately, the conclusions (excluding a higher intelligence) are drawn to only two possibilities, that 1) The multiverse simply always existed, or 2) it all came from nothing. In either case, the law of causality is ignored or violated, as neither explains what caused the multiverse to occur in the first place. In light of that, I side with the “nothing” argument as the most logical
Some people say the sky’s the limit, no, god is the limit, if there is no god there is no limit, humans have unlimited potential and we all should embrace this fact. Now who’s with me.
@RuinSonic Well, we could but that would severely violate occams razor. There must be a source to a bunch of universes. Maybe there isn’t a bunch of universes but it seems strange that the only thing that exists is something that has constants that allow for any formations such as planets or life or whatever when it is tons more likely that it had not. Not to say the TOE is out of the question as a good explanation. But I don’t want this issue to distract what we were talking about.
@AndrewDeLong I might otherwise agree that your position is possible or could be true other than the fact that you word it in an illogical way. If what you mean by the universe came from nothing is that it is all that exists and is eternal with a finite past than fine. If your saying there was nothing and there was this universe springing into action then no. I talk about causality in the sense that if we have a multiverse there can’t be independent universes that just are.
@AndrewDeLong Laws of logic apply nomatter what universe exists or doesn’t exist. Second, we didn’t observe or can scientifically talk about the universe actually coming into existence. We can talk about it’s formation over time. Hume would strongly object to your claim about causality. How does observing things in relation to eachother scientifically show that causality occurs? You assume causality before you do science. Also our current universe state began to exist not existence itself.
@RuinSonic
Well, as much as I like to engage in thought experiments like that, I simply, in all serious cases, must abide by the logic of this universe. That logic says that all observable laws ONLY came into effect when the universe began, and not before that point. Causality is one of these laws. If this is the case, then it, nor any other law, existed before the universe did, and thus it is allowable and reasonable to say that we can get something from nothing.
@AndrewDeLong No i meant double negative. Something cannot come from nothing. That’s illogical. Causality isn’t necessarily a scientific concept either. It is a metaphysical idea. Don’t confuse all of non supernatural existence, the universe, with our universe that came into be. We could be a bubble that came from a foam. You can’t say that just because time exists within our universe that our universe is independent of any other existence.
@RuinSonic
Never didn’t exist? Either you intended to use a double negative, or meant to say “never existed.” I’ll assume the latter, and answer as best I can.
Something can come from nothing, simply put, because it can. There need not be a reason or cause. If the laws of the universe didn’t exist prior to it forming, then that also bodes true for the law of causality (that all things need a cause). Basically, if the universe didn’t exist, then causality didn’t either, & no laws are broken.
@AndrewDeLong I can address it. Something always existed and matter came to be from this existence. Could be sort of like god as a first cause or some kind of energy or whatever. No poof out of nothing or out of nothing required. The difficulty for me is how can something exist or change from something that always existed or never didn’t exist.
@worrowindXVI
The same is assumed from the religious side as well, that everything came from nothing (well, from God, but then rules of causality set in and one has to ask where God came from, which ultimately is nothing).
In terms of logic, as you so quaintly said, neither side can address it at the core.
@YoungJackassStar1 then you wasted like 3 minutes of your life. and youre a fucking idiot, he CANT talk.
i only watch this cause i wanted to hear him talk?!!
@StraightUppJeff
both sides have their issues with logic. God who loves us should not allow evil, but the scientific explanation for everything is that it was spontaneous creation. in other words, it happened cause it just happened. how illogical does that get after all our search for laws and reason?
2:06
(God, Im so bored…. Oh yeah, this hawking guys doesnt beleive in God, lol. Man, I can barely keep my eyes open right now. Monica just kept demanding more and more crazy shit from me last night. ‘say this to me’. ‘ooooh so good, do it again’. ‘stick THIS thing up my butt now.’ I wonder if Stephen here ever had good romps in the sack-) *Schnicker* (Man that thought was so funny i almost cracked up on live TV. Ah, Who gives a shit? Noone watches C Span anyway. Wait, whats he sayin?)
lol god wanted us to evolve into careless violent human beings that have no sense of self preservation, hence the violence?
yeah no im not buy that whole god wanted to us to evolve like this line..
nope.
2:11 he looks like an asshole to me for some reason.
Who are these boring people talking about their God? I WANNA HEAR DR. HAWKING!
3:58 OMG! Awesomesauce! He’s so smart!
can someone slap the first retard for me thx n hugs
trollface.jpg
lol at the first guy…god wants a lot doesn’t he? omg
utter BS