Thursday, September 02, 2010


In his new book, Hawking has rejected Sir Issac Newton's theory that God set the universe in motion.

Explaining his stand on God, Hawking said in an interview that he did not believe in a personal God. "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

IMO: But how can he know that even such a God as he imagines could not be asked questions? It is a big assumption that simple equations can give an adequate description of science anyway. If the 'laws of science' include all the needed addenda or information, they could easily wind up as a large computing engine, for all we know.  I think the whole matter is a large one, and quick 'easy' answers are not relevant. For that matter, I think Newton and Leibniz 'got it wrong' as well. To describe the matter in simple terms, Voltaire's "Dr. Pangloss" impression for Leibniz was a pretty good try. Newton and Leibniz's problem seems to have been not in their immediate religious faith, right or wrong, but perhaps in its locally anthropomorphic setting if anything, a few more details at this URL.

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]