Just came out recently, he was a student and then collaborator of Steven Hawking and talks about how Hawking changed his mind about several issues he had written about earlier.
It is a tour de force of cosmology and a proponent of "top down cosmology'' which goes backwards to the present day thinking about cosmology and quantum mechanics by looking at the far distance to the earliest galaxies and such working backwards in time to the big bang analyzing the time when there was no such thing as time because time and space and such had not undergone the phase change from the time when what would be our universe had not formed but there was a huge temperature of what stuff was there, so high a temperature that it induced a situation where time and space could not exist like looking at the phase change from ice to water when water exceeded 32 degress F or zero degrees C, going from water which has pretty much no form to ice which has a definite form, that concept would show a 'time' when there was no time because time itself was a part of our present day universe that had no meaning in the 'era' before which time and space could not exist.
So then time and space froze out as the BB cooled to a balmy billion degrees or so and here we are a few billion years later, and dissects the reasons our universe is so fine tuned for life and blowing out the idea that Goddidit.
@sonhouse saidExactly what do you think started time, space, and matter simply speaking how something may react doesn't address the question of how it got here, only how it reacts under specific conditions. If it started, it wasn't before the start, so no time to put anything that also wasn't there, and no time to do it either, until, what?
Just came out recently, he was a student and then collaborator of Steven Hawking and talks about how Hawking changed his mind about several issues he had written about earlier.
It is a tour de force of cosmology and a proponent of "top down cosmology'' which goes backwards to the present day thinking about cosmology and quantum mechanics by looking at the far distance to th ...[text shortened]... dissects the reasons our universe is so fine tuned for life and blowing out the idea that Goddidit.
@KellyJay
The gist of that theory is time is a dimension like space and both were unable to be realized till the big bang cooled down some like the shift between liquid water at some temp above zero C to ice when it got to say minus 1 C.
My personal thinking would say time was there but another dimension of time which allowed stuff to progress from a ridiculously high temperature to what they said was when time froze out when the BB went under one billion degrees, balmy compared to the temperature before that epoch.
You should get the book, it is filled with Steve Hawking's life by his former student and then collaborator as well as the work Steve did on cosmology, they called it 'top down cosmology' which meant they started analyzing how our universe got here so obviously primed to be supportive of life but without invoking a deity, by looking at the earliest stars and galaxies and working out why instead of the way cosmologists work today by going from the moment of the big bang forwards in time, instead they looked at the universe as it is today and working back to the big bang.
If the constants we measure today were just slightly different there may have not been galaxies at all but a featureless universe with only photons or some such instead of the universe allowing stuff like carbon, which is basic to our form of life on Earth.
You can get a free copy of a narrated version at Audible.com, which is under the umbrella of Amazon. I think as a deal to start the regular membership like a come on but you pay the next month if you don't stop it.
Steven Hawking was a towering figure in cosmology and this book is a revision of the Brief History of Time which Hawking now thinks was not correct.
@sonhouse saidIt is still having something reacting to something, but no explanation as to where all of those come from to start the reactions. From material, dimensions, energy, and time they started, from some catalyst that would have nothing to do with material, dimensions, energy, and time, a prime reality, an uncaused cause, unless you have some other idea. Pushing all that off in a multiverse doesn't answer anything, because there is still no answer to how all of that would have started.
@KellyJay
The gist of that theory is time is a dimension like space and both were unable to be realized till the big bang cooled down some like the shift between liquid water at some temp above zero C to ice when it got to say minus 1 C.
My personal thinking would say time was there but another dimension of time which allowed stuff to progress from a ridiculously high t ...[text shortened]... y and this book is a revision of the Brief History of Time which Hawking now thinks was not correct.
@KellyJay
Well we are not superman with super intelligence, we are just humans where the best of us has a lot more brain power than the rest and that is all we have for now.
However, that said, technology grows by the week and new telescopes like the James Webb scope a million miles from Earth is the latest in that regard, so powerful it sees galaxies from the earliest time we can see stuff so far and that scope will be superceded by something even more powerful but of course even if we got a telescope with a mirror a hundred miles across we will not be able to see any further into the past because the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light so if anything, astronomers have a better view of the universe than they will in the future.
We have to figure out what dark matter is and there are theories about that but nothing definite yet, dark energy too.
It is an ongoing journey as to what we will know in the future so stay tuned.
One theory says our whole universe came from a black hole in a parent universe and our universe is doing the same, black holes becoming new universes.
And of course as of right now, that is just another theory.
We are still trying to force relativity and quantum physics into one overall theory and the grandson of string theory has been started by Wheeler, another genius which morphed into M theory, a concoction that combines 6 separate forms of string theory into one overall theory but even that is not the full TOE.
@sonhouse saidWell when you realize that without the beginning the best anyone could come up with is an explanation discussing only some of the questions, without the beginning, it is impossible to understand the current state as well.
@KellyJay
Well we are not superman with super intelligence, we are just humans where the best of us has a lot more brain power than the rest and that is all we have for now.
However, that said, technology grows by the week and new telescopes like the James Webb scope a million miles from Earth is the latest in that regard, so powerful it sees galaxies from the earliest tim ...[text shortened]... ombines 6 separate forms of string theory into one overall theory but even that is not the full TOE.
@kellyjay said"God" is an "uncaused cause."
It is still having something reacting to something, but no explanation as to where all of those come from to start the reactions. From material, dimensions, energy, and time they started, from some catalyst that would have nothing to do with material, dimensions, energy, and time, a prime reality, an uncaused cause, unless you have some other idea. Pushing all that off in ...[text shortened]... rse doesn't answer anything, because there is still no answer to how all of that would have started.
I say, if you're going to have an "uncaused cause," keep it simple. Let simple energy be uncaused, or ever-present, or balanced by some kind of "negative" energy to sum everything to zero.
Or take a cue from those neo-panpsychists who subscribe to a philosophy of mind in which the idea of consciousness is generalized to form a continuous spectrum down to the quantum level, perhaps employing the integrated information theory originated by Giulio Tononi a couple decades ago.
Whatever choice one makes for an uncaused cause, the worst I think is to have it take the form of a fully developed, exquisitely organized, hyperintelligent and omniscient entity that immediately feels the urge to create others to worship it, complete with a rule book that ensures it wins all the arguments by default.
@soothfast saidPerhaps this is the wrong forum for this sort of debate but I'll just say this:-
"God" is an "uncaused cause."
I say, if you're going to have an "uncaused cause," keep it simple. Let simple energy be uncaused, or ever-present, or balanced by some kind of "negative" energy to sum everything to zero.
Or take a cue from those neo-panpsychists who subscribe to a philosophy of mind in which the idea of consciousness is generalized to form a continuo ...[text shortened]... e others to worship it, complete with a rule book that ensures it wins all the arguments by default.
I have no problem with anyone believing in some divine entity.That's their prerogative
What i do have issue with is the human race using the argument of a "god" to promote their own cause.
One example of this is George W Bush -"God told me to invade Iraq"
It's a pity he didn't tell him to throw himself in the Potomac.
@soothfast saidWhy would energy be simpler, in order for energy to be used productively it needs to be channeled, if all there was, was energy only so what?
"God" is an "uncaused cause."
I say, if you're going to have an "uncaused cause," keep it simple. Let simple energy be uncaused, or ever-present, or balanced by some kind of "negative" energy to sum everything to zero.
Or take a cue from those neo-panpsychists who subscribe to a philosophy of mind in which the idea of consciousness is generalized to form a continuo ...[text shortened]... e others to worship it, complete with a rule book that ensures it wins all the arguments by default.
@venda
Maybe that was his rationale for attacking Iraq but it seemed to me he just wanted to finish the job daddy started and who knew he did not have the moral certitude to keep attacking further after the tactical objective was won.
Junior did not have that and we are living with that consequence today. It was stupid on so many levels, getting rid of an active enemy of Iran.
@sonhouse saidAnd Tony Blair hung on to his coat tails on the promise of lucrative rebuilding contracts after the destruction.
@venda
Maybe that was his rationale for attacking Iraq but it seemed to me he just wanted to finish the job daddy started and who knew he did not have the moral certitude to keep attacking further after the tactical objective was won.
Junior did not have that and we are living with that consequence today. It was stupid on so many levels, getting rid of an active enemy of Iran.
Enough of this in the science forum