Hawking: God unnecessary to explain existance.

Post Reply New Topic

No, it doesn't however, it doesn't say its impossible, and several of the first physicists/philosophers that considered M-theory seriously have considered possible beings that are 11th dimensional.

@Asp-Z Well, techincally its not possible for you to have a million pounds in front of you if you don't right now, however it is possible for their to be a 11th dimensional being if you are unable to prove there isn't.

Having an 11th dimensional being also would help explain the origin of the universe, since no current theory that depends on physical reaction alone is mathematically correct, or has proven to be mathematically correct (Including the big bang and earlier string/M-theory theories that stated it was universes colliding which would output an extraordinary amount of energy).

There is no logical answer. Maybe the cosmos always existed and was not created. Or maybe there is an uncreated god who did the creating. Or maybe the cosmos popped out of Nothing. This latter is philosophically unsatisfying, but Nature is under no obligation to satisfy us philosophically. Since the question cannot be resolved empirically I have little interest in pursuing the answer.

ruveyn

It is possible. In fact, you can't prove that I'm not sitting on a pile of money as I type this right now. Where's your evidence I'm not?

But with this, as with the god thing, there's also no evidence I am. So we should assume that I'm not unless there's reason to assume otherwise, right?

Of course, you could speculate (just as the theory you referenced does) about how things could happen, but that's mere speculation. There are no solid facts to back it.

Anyway, there's just as much likelihood of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being real as there is with any religion's gods.

[img][800:900]http://www.starbase1.co.uk/flying-spaghetti-monster/dawn-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-1440x900.jpg[/img]

You misread my post, I based the logic on a local variable that only you could determine, making it so it will always return the true result. Besides that, my point was, an 11th dimensional being is more probable than the big bang, or other current theories on how the universe was created, since the other theories have been proven to be mathematically incorrect, where as there being an 11th dimensional being has not been proven to be mathematically incorrect.

There is actual scientific proof of the big bang theory, though... There isn't for an 11th dimensional being, merely speculation.

I've never heard of physicists considering 11-dimensional beings, even from the major ones promoting M-theory, such as Ed Witten. Have you got any sources.

Actually, there is no proof for the big bang. The only 'proof' is generally the expanding universe, however, mathematically, the big bang just does not work in that scenario.

There was a nova documentary on String/M-theory, although I am not remembering the exact names (and don't feel like re-watching it to find out). Ed Witten hasn't shared his opinion on this subject to my knowledge.

The later modifications to the "big bang" (which is a misnomer) including early expansion proposed by Guth and later expansion by way of (so-called) Dark Energy seems to fit the currently know facts better than any other theory. I assume when we get more data the "big bang" inherited from Lemaittre will have to be scrapped in favor of something else.

We know the steady state hypothesis is a looser since it cannot account for the cosmic background radiation.

Perhaps the ekpyrotic hypothesis of Steinhardt and Turok will fill the bill.

ruveyn

The Big Bang Theory has a great amount of supporting evidence.

The Nova documentary you are talking about is called The Elegant Universe, named after the book it's based on. They didn't talk about beings in 11-dimensions, though they did mention the Epkirotic Model which says that the universe started from the collision of two branes.

Yes, that is correct. While they didn't focus on it, I recall them talking about it extremely briefly (no more than admitting its a possibility). I could have heard it somewhere else on the same day though, and got confused.

I also recall there being some inherit problems with the Epikrotic Model as well though.

There is a set of laws behind the universe.

That's why a horseshoe magnet works.

That's why there is a difference between pure water and polluted water.

So what is behind the laws?

a) a God/a Goddess?

b) Nothing (no Cause/cause) as Hawking suggests?

Where was Hawking 250 years ago?

Where will Hawking be 250 years from now?

Other

---

I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

- Rudyard Kipling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws

Other

The documentary did not say anything about 11-dimensional beings. You may be referring to a scene where it is mentioned that gravity could be used to communicate with intelligent life on other branes .i.e other universes. This is not a suggestion of the possibility of 11-dimensional beings creating the universe, but rather a point that gravitons would be able to escape our brane because they are closed strings according to string theory.

Couldn't have been that, since possible communication with gravitons would be most likely with other 3rd dimensional universes, or 4th dimensional beings. If I find the source, I'll post it.

Couldn't have been that, since possible communication with gravitons would be most likely with other 3rd dimensional universes, or 4th dimensional beings. If I find the source, I'll post it.

First find a graviton. No one has yet.

ruveyn