Slashdot Mirror
Prof. Stephen Hawking: Great Scientist, Bad Gambler
astroengine writes "World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has announced that he was likely wrong about his view that the Higgs boson doesn't exist — an outcome he doesn't find very exciting — conceding that he lost a $100 wager. Speaking at the Beckman Auditorium in Caltech, Pasadena, Calif., on Tuesday (April 16), the British physicist gave a public lecture on 'The Origins of the Universe,' summarizing new revelations in modern astrophysics and cosmology. After the lecture, Caltech physicist and colleague John Preskill commented on Hawking's fondness for placing bets when faced with conflicts of physics ideas. Hawking lost a famous wager to Preskill in 2004 in a debate over whether or not black holes destroy information (theory suggests they do not, opposing Hawking's argument). 'To love Stephen Hawking is to not always agree with Stephen Hawking,' Preskill quipped. 'He's usually right, but he's not always right. Sometimes we haven't been able to resolve our differences and we've resorted to making bets it's sad to say that although Stephen Hawking is without doubt a great scientist, he's a bad gambler.'"
As long as it goes to science advancements!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
The Higgs boson was also wrong in its view that Stephen Hawkings doesn't exist.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is what I don't understand about these intelligent people. They answer why there is something rather than nothing by talking about how quantum fluctuations work. The existence of quantum fluctuations results from energy existing in the first place. So we have a rather circular argument being made. Essentially it boils down to "there is something because there was something".
There are only two possibilities: 1) there has always been something 2) there wasn't always something. Neither can be true, ergo we don't exist.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
He backed his scientific hypothesis with money and his hypothesis was wrong. How does that make him a great scientist or a poor gambler?
Hawking tends to bet on the more controversial side of a scientific debate, and thus the less likely side. He does not play it safe. Of course, statistically he's going to lose. But when he wins ( Hawking Radiation ) he gets stuff named after him.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
He isn't offering the money as a token to indicate how strongly he believes in an idea. $100 isn't going to break the bank for him.
What is he really doing is offering the chance to boast "I won a bet against Stephen Hawking" (You know... The guy who is regarded by most people to be the smartest person in the world) as the prize for some very extreme research.
He is giving the encouragement to push the boundaries of what we know about science in the quest of knowledge, and this is exactly what science is about.
So even when he "loses" the bet, he wins, because he has helped science go further by challenging everything that we know, instead of just following what the "smartest" people think,
It'd suck having to put up with trash talk from Stephen Hawking after he won a bet with you.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
He's a better gambler than two other famous physicists and an AI from the 24th century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg8_cKxJZJY
Right, all you need is for something to exist in the first place, which can then be organized into other things... So, where does the photon come from?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In the beginning, God said "let there be light," and there was light.
Happy?
http://xkcd.com/955/
Your reasoning is based on several presuppositions:
1. That you know what omnibenevolence actually is, from a universal, absolute perspective. We humans have such limited perspectives. What may seem benevolent to us might actually be harmful in ways we aren't aware of or can't comprehend. Helping one person with a problem might end up hurting many more people.
2. That you know what is actually good for anyone. This is not the same as the previous item. We humans often think we know what we need, what is good for us, but quite often we are wrong, and we do things that are not good for us. How could we make this judgment for others if we can't even make it for ourselves?
3. That you know what it would be like to be omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Frankly, this is absurd. It's easy to say, "I'd know everything and could do everything!" But you've no idea what knowing everything would actually be like. To see how every single minute particle is connected, how the tiniest action leads to another and another, to see and understand time, to understand at once the enormity of the universe and the smallest subatomic particle, to see inside people's hearts and minds... To actually understand what that would be like is incomprehensible to us, because we are markedly finite. Therefore, to say what you would do if you were any of these things is equally absurd.
You think you're being logical, but your logic is founded on unprovable assumptions. While you criticize others for making God in their image, you are doing the same thing, constructing a God that you can comprehend. This is exactly why people throughout history have made idols and worshipped them: it's easier to comprehend something you can see and touch, something made by human hands. But in so doing, one is simply worshipping an artificial construct, which is by definition more limited than the one who created it, i.e. even lower than humans. And any God that is wholly comprehensible by humans is by definition not God. There is a fundamental arrogance in believing that nothing is beyond one's own understanding, but this is precisely what people do when they delineate God's boundaries according to their limited perceptions. In the end, this results in idol worship in the form of self-worship, believing that we can reason our way to all truth, while in reality many things are simply beyond our reach.
Truth is truth whether or not we believe it, understand it, or agree with it. If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we think, feel, or believe about him.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."