On the Hawking mission

On the Hawking Mission
　
　
From Science Daily: Jan 2010;
"Our lives here on Earth -- in fact, everything we see and know about the universe around us -- depend on a precise set of conditions that makes us possible," (Alejandro) Jenkins said. "For example, if the fundamental forces that shape matter in our universe were altered even slightly, it's conceivable that atoms never would have formed, or that the element carbon, which is considered a basic building block of life as we know it, wouldn't exist. So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From "Multiverse" - Wikipedia Article:

The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes, which were finely tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
From The Bible:
Luk 19:39-40 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. (40) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.


The worst part of the new Stephen Hawking (with Leonard Mlodinow) book, The Grand Design, is how the media has focused on its implications regarding God creating (or not creating) the universe. The book is about far more than that and although this misdirection may have served to stimulate sales, it has also generated a vicious breed of responses that attack the man for his (apparent) lack of belief. This in spite of the fact that Stephen Hawking has not denied the existence of God. Yet. What follows is a brief discussion of the background science to put the book in context and prepare for a later review once I finish it. I would advise anyone undertaking a read of The Grand Design to familiarize yourself with the language of quantum analysis before and during the read. A simple internet search of related topics would help. As technical as this work is, Mr. Hawking goes a long way to make it readable. However, it does get difficult as he gets closer to the main topic.
　
The book is well written and follows the course of science from the work of Thales (c. 500 b.c.e) all the way to that of quantum physicists of today. Hawking prepares us for his drawn conclusions by reviewing the progress of scientific thinking re. The Universe and explaining as best as he can, the unexplainable science of quantum mechanics which does breach the border of communicability. I can't say that I understand it, but it is certainly not the work of one man. The contributing scientists mostly concur, but offer variations on existing themes. This is real science, not speculated inference; not an attack on religion, not peripheral enough to be ignored by the scientific community.

It would be great if people simply try to read the book instead of pre-establishing mental blocks raised by the focus of the media on what is one very small aspect of this work. Science has ALWAYS changed the course of religion, so it should come as no surprise that established religious concepts are being unearthed and overturned by this new direction in scientific thinking. To be fair, Hinduism, Islam, and even the Bible have referred to other worlds, successive levels of heavens, and other universes which could indicate an ancient speculation regarding the nature of that which is NOT seen. Mysticism would have no issue with multiple universes as long as there remains a place for the supernatural element. Religions are not without their trends and tendencies to look beyond the dogmas that entrap the freedom of consciousness to explore without restraint. As free as these forays may seem, they still remain tethered to the supremacy of a singular supernatural being and prove that no matter what happens in science, religion will find a way to rescue the deity even if it means changing the dogma.
　
Science, unlike religion, is not "answer driven". In this case, the idea of a universe of values seemingly fine-tuned for life got a lot of attention from the Intelligent Design sector. They took this information and flew with it, thinking it had confirmed the answer that corresponds with faith. Science, being impersonal, continued to investigate the idea of fine-tuning while some scientists, being human, drew conclusions. Multiverse theory is coming into its own as the cutting edge of Quantum Physics. The short story is that there could be universes with different measurements that either forbid life, or allow for a different kind of life. This idea is based on observations and the quality of measurement involved. Remember... we are now probing into the area of quantum dynamics where anything is possible. It is a world of discovery; of exploration.

Consider this analogy: The sailors from the Old World sought a passage to the east by sailing west. They discovered the new world (the Americas) but guided by ANSWER-driven thinking, they drew conclusions and named the people of the new world "Indians", thinking they had discovered India. Fortunately, the science continued and the Pacific Ocean was discovered years later, indicating that the New World was just that. A New World. As long as scientists, who are human, are apt to jump to conclusions, the progress of science is slowed, but not stopped. Where Stephen Hawking is going with this new direction is towards a kind of thinking, based on quantum observation as opposed to Newtonian specifications that describe static states. Quantum measurements describe probabilities and treat all of them as validly existing. Again, this is based on observation such as the split-screen experiment which demonstrates the validity of all states of a quantum system even though only one state appears when measured.
　
This is very new and highly counter-intuitive at the moment. So too, was the transition from flat earth thinking to round; from earth at the center of the universe to earth revolving around the sun; from the sun being at the center to the sun being located at the edge of a large galaxy of 400,000,000,000 stars in a universe of over 100,000,000,000 such galaxies; from the universe existing as a steady state to a universe evolving from a small point of energy. The transitions brought by scientific investigation are profound. They are not based on religious ideation or hasty conclusions. They are Just observations and models/theories that explain those observations. As hard as it is now to conceive these new ideas, just think of people 5,000 years ago trying to conceive the simple idea of a round earth. Eventually the science does break through into the religious realm and change happens.
　
Right now, religion is scoffing at Hawking and others who are suggesting that not only could there be as much as (10 to the power of 500) universes "out there" but that a supernatural creator would not be necessary to create them. This thinking either takes God out of the equation OR finds a newer and far more profound area where God might be more significant than any theologian has yet to consider. Being itself could be the ultimate reality with physical universes being simply a consequence of energy which is impersonal. Our life within this existence may be an unfolding of BEING, which, for the religious, could have meaning beyond the scope of "creation". What all this really means is that the Hawking mission does not have to stand in opposition to the existence of God, just in opposition to antiquated concepts of reality.
　
10^500 is a HUGE number! That’s a 1 with 500 zeros after it. It's virtually infinite. UNIVERSES we're talking. Not stars. Not galaxies... UNIVERSES; All originating out of NOTHING. Self-generated; Some with life, Perhaps many without life. What theists will do, as theism resists any change that will render it obsolete, is find a God that fits that picture. See... God cannot be disproved because God did not come empirical observations... just speculations based on the unknown. These speculations found their way into the literary category of mythology where they found life as religion.

As long as it's ok for speculations based on the unknown to count for answers, God will persist in the mind of humanity. It has been said that science at this profoundly theoretical level is just as vague if not more so, as religion. BUT, the key difference is OBSERVATION. Basic unbiased observing leading to models which explain the results. These models have to explain the past/present and predict the future before a wide range of scientists accepts them. From that point on, there is no need to cut heads off or ostracize, threaten or ply with guilt trips to keep these theories in play. All that is necessary is for ONE MODEL to present a result not supported by a current theory.

So... in the spirit of ongoing discovery, I have selected part of an article from Science Daily by Alejandro Jenkins regarding the Multiverse theory. Multiverse explains a mystery regarding the nature of measurement on the quantum level and is the result of the kind of thinking and experimentation that has been going on throughout the late 19th throughout 20th century. Hawking is just reporting on the accumulated wisdom of scientists-physicists like Richard Feynman, Gell-Mann, Heisenberg, Einstein, et. al. as they have articulated what is a very new and radical area of science... the quantum. It's about what happens at very small levels where Newtonian physics breaks down. It takes an open mind to deal with it.

Religious minds have value, but impede the progress of science by prioritizing the significance of religion.. Despite the obvious fact that religion has NEVER gotten it right about the nature of the universe, it continues to try to "guide" science... to limit the scope of science. Religion continues to try to artificially establish itself as primary in the area of knowledge about our experience here. Religion uses pseudoscience to de-mystify creation mythology, and succeeds because so many people in the world do not understand the raw, unbiased simplicity of real science. Religion has better business to attend to than opposing the work of science just because it casts doubt on dogma. Religion would be well advised to attend to uplifting dampened spirits, restoring hope, rescuing lost souls, promoting unconditional love and giving people quality options with which to manage their weekends.
　
　
Across the Multiverse: Physicist Considers the Big Picture

Science Daily (Jan. 13, 2010) — Is there anybody out there? In Alejandro Jenkins' case, the question refers not to whether life exists elsewhere in the universe, but whether it exists in other universes outside of our own.

The theory of "cosmic inflation," which was developed in the 1980s in order to solve certain puzzles about the structure of our universe, predicts that ours is just one of countless universes to emerge from the same primordial vacuum. We have no way of seeing those other universes, although many of the other predictions of cosmic inflation have recently been corroborated by astrophysical measurements.
Given some of science's current ideas about high-energy physics, it is plausible that those other universes might each have different physical interactions. So perhaps it's no mystery that we would happen to occupy the rare universe in which conditions are just right to make life possible. This is analogous to how, out of the many planets in our universe, we occupy the rare one where conditions are right for organic evolution.
"What theorists like Dr. Perez and I do is tweak the calculations of the fundamental forces in order to predict the resulting effects on possible, alternative universes," Jenkins said. "Some of these results are easy to predict; for example, if there was no electromagnetic force, there would be no atoms and no chemical bonds. And without gravity, matter wouldn't coalesce into planets, stars and galaxies.
"What is surprising about our results is that we found conditions that, while very different from those of our own universe, nevertheless might allow -- again, at least hypothetically -- for the existence of life. (What that life would look like is another story entirely.) This actually brings into question the usefulness of the anthropic principle when applied to particle physics, and might force us to think more carefully about what the multiverse would actually contain."


So while people who are dedicated to remaining true to God, cling to religious constructs, even manipulating the scientific method to support unsupportable notions, science itself, cold and impersonal, moves on. Where it goes, eventually religion will have to follow just as it has followed from day one. Truth is self-evident. You just can't wish it away.
　
　
　
I am "only" 50% into Hawking's, The Grand Design. Comments I have received from friends regarding his physical condition contributing to the rebellious attitude of his thinking would not apply to the many concurring scientists who are physically able and healthy. They not only agree with him, but have provided much of the preparatory thinking even before Hawking was born.

The tendency to speculate on his physical condition in an attempt to discredit him is typical of religious defensiveness and the main reason why I continue to reprimand those who would stifle intellectual growth in the name of preserving tradition. Silence one voice for reasons irrelevant... Silence them all maybe, but in the end, the stones themselves cry out....

Robert W. Hamilton
9-18-2010

Tiger Woods: Who Cares?

Tiger Woods’ performance on National TV “apologizing” for his errant behavior off tee was pathetic, self-serving, morally indulgent and a sad failure to mirror the mastery of African-American oratory. With his wealth and fame, you would think he could at least have gotten a coaching session from Barack Obama. It’s hard to watch the psychological meltdown of a great American athlete who should be using his golfing skills to restore his right to the living rooms of human beings across the nation and around the world. I wish Tiger Woods would leave his senseless guilt purging to a confession booth and get back to playing the game that made us care about him in the first place.

The absence of his wife at his side made the entire performance insincere from the start. “Fake” as Steven A. Smith put it. A man confessing his sins before a sinful public is now prime-time TV? Entertainment? Get real Tiger! Now what do we expect? A complete revision of his moral worth so that we can watch him play golf without fearing a strike of lightening that could endanger the lives of his followers and playing partners? Just because Barack Obama talked himself into being elected president doesn’t mean Tiger Woods is going to talk himself into being the moral angel we all thought he was, who just happens to have a good golf game.

What a tragic waste of quality TV time. What a sad display of self-righteous theater bent on renewing an image forever tarnished by acts of human nature that offend many who still believe in the sanctity of marriage but again, has nothing to do with whether or not he can win a Golf Major. Tiger Woods needs to just grow up and get over what he did and did with intention and great pleasure. He fooled around. He didn’t kill anyone. He certainly didn’t offend MY moral sensitivities, nor should I be a party to what should be a personal interaction within his family and whatever spiritual center he professes to believe in. Tiger Woods asks for all to leave his family alone and this unsolicited exposure to his inner being is the way to go about it?

I am left to believe the only thing Tiger Woods’ is interested in is his bank account. This tearless tirade of pathos was intended only to rescue an image of purity that has made him billions of dollars. He’s already lost significant sponsorship in a commercial world that markets anything of value to anyone who can pay yet has the audacity to demand moral perfection of the Tiger Woods’ Michael Jacksons and Kobe Bryants that help advertise their products. Afraid he may sink into the economic quagmire of garden variety millionaire-hood, Tiger is on a ridiculously ill-advised mission to save his billions and remain the man his trophy wife married. Perhaps he’s making sure her legal savvy won’t suddenly improve in the coming days and months to where she could take a more mercenary view of his multiple counts of adultery.

Instead of concentrating on a golf hole a few inches in depth, Tiger Woods is opening a hole large enough to build a bomb shelter in. Just like Pinocchio’s nose, the hole gets bigger the more he stands before the cameras of global TV and preaches his absolution. Where are his high-paid lawyers right now? Where is the chorus of “SHUT UP, TIGER??”. Where are his golf clubs? Did Elin break every single one of them trying to knock some sense into his head? I should hope I won’t need therapy to erase this emasculated image of self – pity from my head as I wait endlessly for Tiger Woods to return to the TEE. That is the only platform upon which world opinion is going to take shape; the only venue upon which the global corporate world is going to make endorsement contract decisions.

Hopefully, before the end of the world in 2012, the re-runs of Tiger’s regretful performance will cease. Perhaps eventually we can get back to the real world of professional athletics where flawed personal lives are eclipsed by the skills of the game. What truly matters in a world that eye-winks moralism is the intrigue of larger-than-life athletic heroes who receive their just reward in money, not absolution of sin. Let’s withhold any further judgment of Tiger’s marital offenses and pray for the day he returns to the TEE. A true performance by a great golfer is one that we shouldn’t want to change the channel on. It’s too bad the Supreme Court can’t put a gag order on any TV station to prevent re-airing this pitiful episode of poor judgment. Instead it’s going to play and play and play until those still watching will wonder who is Tiger Woods and why does anyone care?

Robert Hamilton 2-20-2010