تعليق زميل عالكتاب :



Hello All,

Did you see the Larry King show where he interviewed Stephen Hawking on his recent book, "The Grand Design", backed up by a panel discussion consisting of co-author Leonard Mlodinow, Jesuit priest Robert J. Spitzer, and that old snake oil salesman, Deepak Chopra?

I haven't read "The Grand Design" but from the description it sounds remarkably like Leonard Susskind's 2005 book, "The Cosmic Landscape". In Hawking's words... "We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything."

It all sounds familiar, buts there seems to be a fuss about it now because Hawking has chosen to write about it and the mostly uniformed public, like Larry King, think it is something new.

Of course Hawking stirs up the pot a bit by declaring God is an unnecessary hypothesis, science doesn't need Him, and seems to substitute M-theory for God.
This gets Larry all excited and he steers the panel into a discussion about the existence and non-existence of God. Mlodinow comes on strong as a Hawking apologist, and Deepak takes credit for it all with, "This is exactly what I have been saying for many many years". Yes you old phony. The only person who came off looking good was the Jesuit priest.

No one on the panel seemed to realize that science cannot, for the time being and perhaps forever, say anything about the veracity of M-theory just as science cannot say anything about the existence of God. Thus Hawking is substituting one non-verifiable assumption for another and saw that it was good. Both hypotheses are presently and perhaps permanently in the realm of the Metaphysical and both hypotheses are not completely understood.

M-theory can at least be accessible to mathematical probing and seems presentlyto be in harmony with verifiable science. Thus something can be learned. God is a hypothesis of infinite parameters and as a consequence nothing can be learned.

However we cannot trust unverifiable theories. When I was at Caltech, Feynman stated that in the case of the weak interaction, theorists got it wrong every step of the way and didn't get it right until the experimentalists shoved their noses into it.

Well, Hawking at least gets science some publicity even though what he says is not new.

Cheers,
Pat



----------------------

هيدا الفيديو يللي عم يحكي عنو Pat بالإيميل (في لسة جزئين)



بأول الفيديو، بجاوب هوكينغ عن سؤال إذا كان مؤمن بوجود الله:
الله ممكن الوجود، لكن العلم يستطيع تفسير الكون دون الحاجة إلى الخالق

تعليقين عالسريع :
- من رد Pat (و غير ردود) منعرف إنو إدعاء البعض إنو الوسط العلمي يقدس بعض الأشخاص هو عار عن الصحة
- الكتاب بشكل عام جيد جداً، الكلام عن وجود الخالق في الكتاب كان فقط للإستهلاك الإعلامي الدعائي
- لا مكان لليقين في العلم.

عسى أن يكون للنقاش تتمة ...