Stephan Hawkins' "Theory of Everything" supports I

Centurian99 · Post by **Centurian99** » 2006-02-23 12:01am

Someone I know made that claim. Is he full of it?

I suppose I should go read it, but I just don't have the time to do that right now.

B

Centurian99 · Post by **Centurian99** » 2006-02-23 12:02am

The thread title was supposed to be "Stephan Hawkins' Theory of Everything" supports ID?"

Sorry.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2006-02-23 12:12am

Um, yeah, I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking didn't come up with a theory of everything, it would have been bigger news. And anyone who thinks that they understand Dr Hawking's theories to the extent that they could make judgements about whether or not ID corrolates with it is almost certainly full of bovine feces of the highest calibur.

AK_Jedi · Post by **AK_Jedi** » 2006-02-23 12:19am

A "theory of everything" describes a theory that would be able to unite the two major fields in physics. Quantum mechanics, and relativity. Similar in principle to Maxwell's equations which unite all of electro-magnetics into 4 simple equations. The theory of everything has been the physics holy grail of most of the 20th century.

As it stands right now, quantum theory explains very small systems well, but breaks down when it tries to describe particularly massive objects, or larger systems. Relativity works well when describing large systems, but cannot describe small systems. The two fields come into conflict in blackholes, and looking at the first moments after the big bang, where huge amounts of mass are compressed in very small spaces.

I suppose that an ID person would say that a theory of everything suggests God designed an elegant system that controls all of physics. Personally, ID is no more or less credible with a theory of everything.

The big name theory right now is string theory. Is this the one that Stephan Hawkings supports?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-23 12:38am

Is "the theory of everything" a different term than a "Grand Unified Theory (G.U.T)"? Because I was under the impression that the latter was a theory that would link the four fundamental forces - gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism.

Superboy · Post by **Superboy** » 2006-02-23 12:39am

As it stands right now, quantum theory explains very small systems well, but breaks down when it tries to describe particularly massive objects, or larger systems. Relativity works well when describing large systems, but cannot describe small systems. The two fields come into conflict in blackholes, and looking at the first moments after the big bang, where huge amounts of mass are compressed in very small spaces.

Been reading Brian Greene lately?

As for the OP, many people will claim that any theory which suggests the universe is organized supports ID. Whether or not the TOE would actually suggest this is up for debate.

Also, a TOE has never been successfully devised by Stephan Hawkins, or anyone else for that matter

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-02-23 01:25am

wolveraptor wrote:Is "the theory of everything" a different term than a "Grand Unified Theory (G.U.T)"? Because I was under the impression that the latter was a theory that would link the four fundamental forces - gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism.

Yes, they are different. GUT is a bit of overstatement - The GUT does unify electromagnetism and the nuclear forces, but not gravity, if I remember my "A Brief History of Time". The TOE, when/if it is ever found, will unify everything, by finally combining gravity with quantum mechanics.

Also, there is no single "string theory", there are several competing string theories, and physists are confident that one (or more!) of them, when fully worked out, will be the GUT, but work is still ongoing.

And coming back to the OP: As has been pointed out, this statement is pure BS, in several levels. They're just trying to rope in the most famous name in physics into their little games, and they're being blatantly dishonest about it. But then, it seems that God recently decided that lieing is no longer a sin...

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-02-23 01:55am

WyrdNyrd wrote:Also, there is no single "string theory", there are several competing string theories, and physists are confident that one (or more!) of them, when fully worked out, will be the GUT, but work is still ongoing.

I think you mean that one of them will be the TOE.

WyrdNyrd wrote:And coming back to the OP: As has been pointed out, this statement is pure BS, in several levels. They're just trying to rope in the most famous name in physics into their little games, and they're being blatantly dishonest about it. But then, it seems that God recently decided that lieing is no longer a sin...

Since this damages his professional reputation it borders on libel.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-02-23 03:52am

Lord Zentei wrote:
WyrdNyrd wrote:Also, there is no single "string theory", there are several competing string theories, and physists are confident that one (or more!) of them, when fully worked out, will be the GUT, but work is still ongoing.
I think you mean that one of them will be the TOE.

D'oh! I dumb! Thanks for the correction.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-02-23 08:29am

Who is Stephan Hawkins?

Anyway, I'm sure the IDiots got their silly ideas this time from Hawking's infamous wagers and the Cosmic Censor idea. Of course, it's all misunderstandings from them, as usual. It's like how they conclude that since Einstein once said "God doesn't play dice", all smart people must believe in God (their) and creationism must be scientific...

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-02-23 08:42am

It's STEPHEN Hawkings, damn it!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-23 09:46am

kheegan wrote:It's STEPHEN Hawkings, damn it!

It's Stephen Hawking, actually. How people keep saying "Hawkings" instead, I don't know.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-23 11:30am

You have to understand that IDers think everything supports ID. They can't give a rational or truthful explanation why, but that doesn't stop them from saying it.

I've heard IDers saying that E=mc^2 supports ID. You have to understand that these people don't know jack shit about science; they literally buy books and then just skim through them looking for cool words or phrases they can throw at people to make it seem as if they know what they're talking about.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-02-23 12:13pm

Indeed, a lot of their thinking boils down to an incredulous examination of the anthropic principle on the sloppy premise that because various forces and balances in the universe are conducive to life, life must be an intended result of an artificially assigned load of variables. Therefore everything, including e=mc^2, quantum physics, etc are a result of this design and are "perfect" comparable to the alternatives, relative to us. It's pure cart before the horse, fucking silly, and is riddled with problems.

Even if you accept the unfounded idea that it was artificially assigned, it runs into problems regarding anthropocentric assumptions.

I mean, life could be an exhaust effect of a rocky designer that made the universe with rocks in mind, after all, there's a lot more lifeless rock in the universe than life. We shall call this "the lithic principle." Just as justifiable as the anthropic principle, so-called "anthropic coincidences."

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2006-02-23 12:16pm

I can't even begin to see how a unified theory of physics is supposed to support intelligent design. The notion never struck me until I read this thread. So what's the logic, or rather, illogical rationale behind it?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-02-23 12:18pm

Fire Fly wrote:I can't even begin to see how a unified theory of physics is supposed to support intelligent design. The notion never struck me until I read this thread. So what's the logic, or rather, illogical rationale behind it?

They think it'll show that the universe is complicated, therefore God magically wrote it that way.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-02-23 06:03pm

As the IDers would say, it's just a theory.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2006-02-23 06:13pm

I have ot admit, haing not spent a lot of time looking into quantum research, all the attempts to tie the kookiest of the kooky to it, has made me have a negative opinion of it. It has gotten to the point I almost see it as a pseudosciecne. That is unfair of course. And only can happen due to my being so uninformed.

But it burns me how the field is being used so casually (and blindly eaten up in the media) to back cracked ideas.

Oh, ghosts are PROVEN, if you look at Quantum Theory...
Oh, psychic powers are real, based on the newest work in Quantum Theory...
Oh, acupuncture work, if you consider Quantum Theory...
Oh, a hand phaser could destroy the Death Star, if you know Quantum Theory...

And on and on. People who watch the news and the media are going to come away after awhile with the idea that Quantum Theory explains the truth of magic, and shows that Gods, ID, and the rest is proveable and supportable.

Friends don't let friends believe this guff.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-02-23 07:20pm

Perhaps it would be best to get Stephen Hawking's own opinion on the matter:

[quote=Stephan W. Hawking]We shouldn't be surprised that conditions in the universe are suitable for life, but this is not evidence that the universe was designed to allow for life.[/quote]

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-02-23 07:21pm

Shoot, quote didn't work.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-02-23 09:44pm

Fire Fly wrote:I can't even begin to see how a unified theory of physics is supposed to support intelligent design. The notion never struck me until I read this thread. So what's the logic, or rather, illogical rationale behind it?

There's only one thing more reliable and convincing than 'ancient wisdom', and that's 'the latest scientific discoveries'. Whackos are always fantasizing about vindication and the humbling of the naysayers, so if those nasty arrogant scientists suddenly find out that we've been right all along, huzzah! Our belief in the true knowledge of ancient cultures is now justified, hence all our rhetoric about us being more enlightened/intelligent/open-minded/moral/etc is also justified. Kneel before us, ye inferior labcoated monkeys!

Note that this applies just as well to New Age stuff as it does to religious fundamentalism.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-02-24 12:27am

Winston Blake hit it on the head. Culturally, there's some sort of satisfaction that people get from squaring modern scientific knowledge with what ancient cultures believed. That's why you've got people trying to say that the Bible's creation story is actually an allegory for Big Bang cosmology, when anyone who knows anything about that field would know that's a total crock of shit.

You'll also get similar idiocy from other people with hard-ons for other ancient cultures. Oh yeah, the American Indians were really predecessors to modern physicists.

Or this culture's creation story begins with a big flash of light! THEY KNEW ABOUT THE BIG BANG BEFORE SCIENTIST DID!!

I think it's a part of the modern anti-intellectualist movement. People like to trivialize scientific discovery because more often than not, it's simply beyond their understanding. So they say stupid things like "Oh well that's what the Bible's been saying all along!", only without all those fancy equations and predictions.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-24 03:53am

Part of the problem is that they don't realize just how complicated real scientific theories are. I've lost track of the number of imbeciles who truly, sincerely believe that they have a good understanding of thermodynamics because they read roughly one paragraph covering each law of thermodynamics, in a creationist website.

Think about that: a subject which real people have to sweat and toil in university to learn, and these idiots honestly believe they've got it pretty much down pat after one paragraph per law.

Small wonder they think they can reconcile ancient beliefs with modern science: their idea of modern science is so fucking stupid that it really doesn't look that much different from ancient beliefs.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-24 04:21pm

WyrdNyrd wrote:Also, there is no single "string theory", there are several competing string theories, and physists are confident that one (or more!) of them, when fully worked out, will be the GUT, but work is still ongoing.

There is no consensus that the set of String Theories contains the ToE. Indeed, I have known string theorists who aren't confident that any string theory will turn out to be the ToE.

Why is there so much work on it, then? Mainly, that if you want to work on a ToE and aren't smart enough to think of a whole new approach, then it's going to be String Theory or Quantum Loop Gravity, and QLG isn't as sexy.
Why QLG is unfavored I'm not sure. I've only seen sympathetic expositions of it, not critiques.

From where I'm standing, it looks like most non-String-Theory physicists are not taking a position on the subject.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-02-24 04:25pm

Also, a TOE has never been successfully devised by Stephan Hawkins, or anyone else for that matter

Hawking has, however, written a book called The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe. Perhaps this is what the OP refers to.