From the present to the past [Stephen Hawking]

PhysicsWeb ^ | 30 June 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Hawking is always newsworthy. I added the bold font and underlining.

Happy 4th to all.

[PatrickHenry]

SciencePing

An elite subset of the Evolution list. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[Son Of The Godfather]

I already had all of this solved the last universe we were all in, but somehow, the info keeps getting lost. ;)

[CrazyIvan]

"There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I'd read that book by that wheelchair guy." Homer Simpson

[mission9]

"anthropic principle" hmmmm.. So the universe is uniquely oriented to allow life. (In addition to he cosmological constant, there are over ten constant numbers, for which a small change in any of them, would preclude life). Anthropomorphism is the poet's license to apply human qualities to a moon, a stream, an animal or tree. Seems to be a humanistic, secular bias here, I guess Hawking wants to be published as much as anybody else. If had called it the "genesis principle," even Mr. Hawking would be ostracized.
On the seventh day he rested, and it was good.

[Louis Foxwell]

Hawking is not troubled by the Genesis principle. That is where his line of reasoning leads. At creation God dismissed all alternative realities except this one.
Hawking has always brilliantly argued for Creation by Design and not by blind chance.
This, once again, puts the nail in the coffin of that old mummy, Darwin. Now to dismantle anti-theistic evolution as "scientific."

[ASA Vet]

Hope Radio Astronomer shows up soon to explain what all that meant.
A couple of SNs have already found the thread.
They really must check your "in forum." You should be flattered.

[hosepipe]

Gobble!, Gobble!......

[Strategerist]

You're on some serious drugs if you think Stephen Hawking is a Creationist.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

And it's pointless to point this out yet again, but Darwin wrote "Origin of Species" not "Origin of Life" or "Origin of the Universe."

[Strategerist]

The various anthropic principles are a pretty complicated subject, Hawking discusses them somewhat in the link I posted; Wikipedia has something better, probably.

One thing to keep in mind is that if there are billions of different universes with different constants and physical laws (which is a very real possibility) there would be several with the correct "settings" for life, basically randomly. However, those would be the only universes with intelligent life that could contemplate the unique settings of their universe, and they'd all incorrectly perceive that their universe was specially "set up" for them.

[Louis Foxwell]

You're on some serious drugs if you think Stephen Hawking is a Creationist.
_________________

Have you read Hawking? His writings are informed by constant references to God. Or do you think this is merely literary rhetoric?

[Louis Foxwell]

And it's pointless to point this out yet again, but Darwin wrote "Origin of Species" not "Origin of Life" or "Origin of the Universe."
____

So... it is ok with Darwiniacs if God is involved in creation up to but not including the "Origins of Life?"

[carumba]

Bizarro world strikes again.

[js1138]

Have you read Hawking? His writings are informed by constant references to God. Or do you think this is merely literary rhetoric?

You are very generous in attributing theism to people of differing worldviews. Some folks I have run into one these threads would say anyone not attending their church is an atheist.

[Savage Beast]

So the current universe must have "chosen" the histories that led to the "correct" value and the precise conditions that brought life into existence??? I meant to say the Current Universe. But now we're back where we started. Anybody who tries to teach this in the public schools is in for trouble from the ACLU and the rest of the atheistic Left.

[VadeRetro]

So the current universe must have "chosen" the histories that led to the "correct" value and the precise conditions that brought life into existence???

Not "must have" in the sense that the universe absolutely had to do what it did, or that it's an anthropomorphic being making a choice based on foreknowledge. Rather, a deduction about the past is being made. It is only "must have" in the sense that, if conditions in the universe didn't fall out as liveable, nothing would be alive therein.

[Bratch]

[RightWhale]

Hawking and Hertog also say their model could be tested

Any mechanical model could be tested. That doesn't add anything to the possibility that they are finally tuned into ultimate reality.

[Just mythoughts]

Ah redesigning the design, some are better at it than others. There will need be a retraining seminar to lay out the "fences" for the grant givers.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!