The Grand Design (Hawking/Mlodinow)

[Dapper]

So, anyone read it? What do you think?

 

[Dotini]

Hi there, Dapper! I read one of Hawking earlier pamphlets, A Brief History of Time. I was a bit overawed by it back then, but have since become disenchanted with Hawking's blithe leaps from one extreme position to another. I prefer my science to be based on observation and experiment, and to have some testable connection with experiential reality. So I have no plans to continue with Hawking at the moment. Did you find his latest thinking to be at all persuasive?

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/09/hawking-mlodinow-no-theory-of_30.html

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Dapper]

Hi there, Dapper! I read one of Hawking earlier pamphlets, A Brief History of Time. I was a bit overawed by it back then, but have since become disenchanted with Hawking's blithe leaps from one extreme position to another. I prefer my science to be based on observation and experiment, and to have some testable connection with experiential reality. So I have no plans to continue with Hawking at the moment. Did you find his latest thinking to be at all persuasive?

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/09/hawking-mlodinow-no-theory-of_30.html

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

To answer your question,yes! The link you posted refers to Hawking's sentiments years before my birth, and years before technology proved minute variations in the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) and this is pointed out in the book. Some information they provide was released this year, 2010, by NASA and that has spawned the roots of this book.

Perhaps you could watch Hawking and Mlodinow on Larry King Live via youtube, it was enough to convince me to at least read the book with an open mind.

If you are interested:

 

[Omnis]

Wow, Stephen Hawking looks terrible. Hope he's well.

 

[Dotini]

To answer your question,yes! The link you posted refers to Hawking's sentiments years before my birth, and years before technology proved minute variations in the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) and this is pointed out in the book. Some information they provide was released this year, 2010, by NASA and that has spawned the roots of this book.

Perhaps you could watch Hawking and Mlodinow on Larry King Live via youtube, it was enough to convince me to at least read the book with an open mind.

If you are interested:
(Youtube)

Thanks for that video, Dapper, I watched and enjoyed it. There's is much to admire about Hawking and some of his views. I admire his work ethic and devotion to family, his veneration of Galileo and his aphorism ,"Look at the stars, not at your feet." Also his admonition that we may be destroying ourselves through greed and overcrowding.

However, I do take issue with some of his assertions to Larry King, such as:
1) "Gravity and quantum theory created the universes from nothing."
2) "M-theory is the only possible unified theory"
3) "Humanity must spread in to space."

When we get to portion with Mlodinow, we get to the first crux of the problem. Mlodinow said (in paraphrase):

1) "The universe is finely tuned to allow, in effect, for the existence of man. If only the smallest change were made to the laws of nature, humans could not exist."
2) "This requires that there be multiple universes."

Since there are no observations which in any way validate multiple universes, this is a very shaky foundation stone for any "Grand Design".

Also, I'm curious about your emphasis on the CMBR which it seems you took to be central to his thesis. Since physicists currently debate three competing theories for CMBR, I cannot as yet place reliance on this foundation stone, either.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Zad]

In the process of reading this atm. Will check out the LKL video.

 

[Dapper]

You'll have to excuse my remarks toward CMBR... the timing of the data and book release seems too coincidental.

The book is based upon us using model-dependent realism to explain what happens around us but what we don't see does not correspond with that. M-theory encompasses both worlds, and as the authors say "...but we now have a candidate for the theory of everything, if indeed one exists, called M-theory." The authors say explicitly this is not proven, yet there is no other answer.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

Wow, Stephen Hawking looks terrible. Hope he's well.

He's gone waaaaay past the age he should've officially lived to, so every day for him now is a bonus. I doubt he's got much longer left, which is a real shame.

 

[Danoff]

This really seems like a natural extension of Hawking's line of reasoning all along. I've been of the opinion that the answer can't look any different than Hawking claims it is for some time now (and so have lots of people, Hawking included I'm sure). Nothing else actually makes any sense whatsoever.

I think one of my oldest posts on this website (~6 years ago) claimed that Hawking had paved the way for the universe to be the natural and consequential product of nothing. And that we inhabit that which is inhabitable because it is inhabitable - another fairly longstanding principle.

I wonder how substantial the evidence is for Hawking's claims - but I think this answer is the way the answer has to look.

 

[Dapper]

This really seems like a natural extension of Hawking's line of reasoning all along.

And I would like to point out his thinking is more above the normal human than a normal human is above a mentally retarded human. Thus, it is easy to attribute that discrepancy in intellect to the comprehension of his ideas, or reasonings, in my overwhelmingly humble opinion, of course.

 

[Dotini]

This link provides numerous unfavorable remarks and reviews of Hawking and Mlodinow by their fellow physicists. His science has descended into money-grubbing comedy, according to some of these.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3141

 

[Dapper]

I assure you those quotes were taken out of context and they are misunderstood on a fundamental level. In no way does the first quote indicate "giving up". In fact, it shows the author is suffering from what I pointed out in my last post.