Stephen Hawking and the No Boundary Proposal

Ugh - a while ago, since I stopped learning how to apply the Schroedinger's Equation in 2 or more dimensions, since I stopped modeling molecular structures and determining kinetic activities of reactions, since I stopped bothering 3 dimensional mapping of geologic structures and modeling their ancient positions through magnetic and geochemical surveys; I had given up on generally reading any physics entry journal or in this case, article.

The main reason was - and the last article I remember reading - science has simply become another religion. The last article I remember reading was that physicists are now recruiting philosophers to help try and further their theories in quantum temporal studies.

The biggest secret unbeknown to most everyone really is these guys really don't know what they are talking about.

From the discovery of the mathematical equations that provide the possibility we are all 2 dimensional beings in a holographic universe; to the garbage spouted by Hawking (I provided the link above) these for lack of a better word "ASS HATS" will go to incredible lengths to avoid the word "God" in their determinations.

Take for instance the Big Bang theory (which the above article addresses). They cannot figure out how there is a beginning to "time" and the Universe. So what do they come up with this time? No mathematical formulations or equations, but logic (most theoretical physics exists in the world of logic problems which while maybe consists of mathematical equations largely is based on the principles of Geometric theorems) where they state that there is "imaginary time".

Imaginary time is loosely defined as another (not a 4th) dimension of time, more like a second dimension really - perpendicular to our concept of time which in the end just turns into a circle jerk - I mean a circular argument that time is a transformation from one point of existence to another.

Well I'm pretty sure a 5 year old could have thought-up that one...

The difference is that these "great men of science" are simply avoiding the only answer that has been given for the ultimate question "Why the fuck are we here and why the fuck do we die and what the goddamn fuck happens after that?" which has been God - and instead continuously throw out hypotheses which are not similar to engineering hypotheses but rather completely defy all logic all together.

Did you know that scientists determined the Universe is flat? mmhmm it's true - because Triangles have 180 degrees therefore the Universe is flat. Because we all know that the Universe can't just be a 3 dimensional void in which you happened to draw a triangle with 180 degrees...or I can't just bend that said triangle over an object and change the degrees which comprise the three-sided figure.

Engineers produce something real - this is why Geometry was the sacred math. Geometry was used to build the Pyramids, to build great Temples for thousands of years, and it continues to be used in infinite form (Calculus is Trigonometry to the infinite divisions along a curvature instead of a finite number of divisions or sets) to build bridges, skyscrapers and you name it.

So when these people build a building - or create the Nuclear Bomb, or take Humans to the Moon, we think that they ALL must know what they are doing.

But do not be mistaken - men like Stephen Hawking and other Theoretical Physicists particularly are more in fantasy land than their Werner von Braun counter parts.

They produce nothing real. They analyze nothing real. They exist in a mathematical logic system where they attempt to reason the universe through equations.

They say something exists as they perceive it and then another comes along to disprove them with a different equation as is the case of the ongoing battles between Big Bang theorists and String Theorists and the ever elusive Hologram theorists who believe we're all just living in a 3-dimensional representation of a 2-dimensional world.

We have never been to a black hole and none of them have ventured inside one - but we presume to understand them through our infinite imagination and ability to bullshit our way through science with endless math.

I can find another bullshitter - his name was Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or David Koresh take your pick.

Everyone of them are all the same as theoretical physicists in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable through their own forms of logic or forceful proofs and declarations. The end result is if we assume them all to be mere mortal men, none of them have been there, none of them were at the creation of the universe and black holes.

As a Geologist I found a lot more breathing space because we Geologists knew that we didn't know our asses from a hole in the ground. Why did we know this?

Because we could with all our excellent knowledge and studies, our testings and models, our scanning the environment and mapping and modeling the subsurface, still get it wrong.

How could we - men of science, so intelligent and so well studied in our field, fuck up so often?

The simple fact? We don't know our asses from a hole in the ground.

We know enough to get some things right - and open a whole new can of worms of problems.

The sad fact as the case may be is that theoretical physicists believe they are almighty and unbeatable, they know the truth is out there only some math problem away; Einstein called it "Lambda", Hawking calls it "the unified theory", Geologists call it day dreaming.

All their physics still has not enabled us to find Gold in a sure bet, or to hit an oil strike with the first well....

Then why is it these same men are touted as disproving God because they themselves merely refuse to call it like it is.

God created the Universe, for whatever sick pleasure, and here we are because of him whether we're a part of him or not. And the Universe in all its methods is merely the construct of God. Some conscious or unconscious being; and every aspect of the universe we uncover is merely more of the "how" God created us...

And one thing is for certain - science can never answer the why we were created.

Some day science needs to grow up and realize its limitations - the more it destroys society's structural fabric by undermining religious belief through irresponsible statements that man can explain away the need of a God - the more scientists create the conditions for a society without restraint and the very self-absorbing and all consuming beast which we all fear so greatly.

We shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel with movies like Gattica and 2001: A Space Oddessy; we already have a perfectly good moral compass to prevent us from going off the deep end and it's the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the 5 Dharmas and etc.

And to anyone who thinks Religion was brutal.

I postulate that is merely humanity and war and unavoidable in a world of conflict and choice.

But what is avoidable is the heinous and far worse fate that was the Nazi Doctors and other Scientists - whom the good Nazis they were forsake religion in pursuit of raw science.

These butchers of humanity is all we have to look forward to without morals.

ROFLMAO

Once again we have a post that confuses science with philosophical or superstitious beliefs. Science deals with that which is physical and measureable while philosophy deals with speculation about that which is not physical or measurable.

First let me address the "BIG PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS" put forward from a scientific perspective.

Why the fuck are we here? Evolution and natural selection.

Why the fuck do we die? Our bodies stop functioning.

What the goddamn fuck happens after that? Tyically we are buried and decompose enriching the soil.

I know, some people are so insecure that they can't handle the truth but there is no physical or measurable evidence to support any other conclusions.

We see the typical ignorance of a layman as it relates to science when it comes to addressing the theoretical propositions put forward by physicists. It's the old "theory is nothing but a belief" argument which is grossly untrue from the standpoint of scientific methodology.

Before a theory can be proposed all physical and measureable evidence must be considered. Based upon the physical and measureable evidence a hypothesis is proposed. That hypothesis is then tested and if it is not contradicted then and only then it becomes a theory. If a hypothesis is contradicted then it is back to square one because new evidence has been revealed to change the basis for the hypothesis.

Yes, theoretical physicists deal in the unknown but their theories originate with what is known and cannot contradict what is known. Yes, a physicist uses logical deduction expressed in mathmatical expressions (math is based solely upon logical deduction) to support their theory because they are addressing the unknown.

It is somewhat ironic that when someone like Stephen Hawkin proposes a theory then every other physicist sets out to either prove or disprove the theory. All a physicist needs in a single example of a theory not being true to destroy the theory. To disprove the theory all that needs to is to shown is that the logical deduction (mathmatical expression) is in error. With people of Stephen Hawkin's level this is extremely hard to do.

In physics you can have multiple theories that contradict each other and we often see that. This is based upon the scientific tenet that "if something can neither be proven or disproven it can be assumed to be true." That does not make the theory true because that can only come with physical or measureable evidence but it can be assumed to be true. If you can prove a theory then it is no longer a theory but becomes a scientific fact. For example, we used to have a theory that Black Holes existed based upon logical deduction. Since then we have been able to prove they exist by measuring the speed of orbiting stars around them. Black holes are no longer a theory but are a scientific fact. Even though we can't see them we can measure their effects and the effects are exactly as predicted by the original theory.

Of course many theories are disproven over time. At one point we had a theory that the sun rotated around the earth but that was disproven.

When you deal with logical deduction as expressed in mathmatical notation it is a beautiful thing. It opens up all that is possible and based upon what is possible you can explore and eventually find the truth. No all that is possible based upon logical deduction is necessarily the truth but it remains a possibility until proven otherwise.

But science is not a belief. Science is the methodology of logical deduction which takes that which is known to explore the unknown.

Yeah, I'm glad you had a response, because I was speechless. Science = religion? What if you switched it to religion = science? This is absurd.

Shiva, well put:

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

You should be a mathematician. It is brilliant in its simplicity. If science = religion, then religion = science. Any one who thinks religion is science is insane or lying.