The Theory Of Everything (2014)
The Theory Of Everything (2014)
seems there was no thread for this one, so here goes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by imdb
A look at the relationship between the famous physicist Stephen Hawking and his wife.
Director: James Marsh
Writers: Anthony McCarten (screenplay), Jane Hawking (book)
Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Tom Prior
Code:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/
*** spoilers ahead ***
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawking, movie quotes
cosmology is a kind of religion for intelligent atheists
so atheists also need something to believe in and they 'intelligently' chose the far & farthest materialistic objects in our universe (like stars and other celestial phenomena)
Quote:
cosmologists worship one single unifying equation that explains everything in the universe
E=mc2 is one of the most popular equations so far, explaining only the (theoretical) relationship between energy & mass of matter traveling at the speed of light - not even close to everything, eh? also, what is able to travel at the speed of light? only light waves, so how does that explain light itself or any other phenomena for that matter?
what about the creationist camp? they have it easy with a simple 'equation' (depending on the language/religion used), called: God
seems these two might use some unification as well... oh wait (omni- already means unified, wholesome, complete)
Quote:
i have a slight problem with the whole Celestial Dictator premise
but not with one Dictating Equation premise?
Quote:
The star, in fact, gets denser as atoms, even subatomic particles get literally crushed into smaller and smaller space.
And at its end point what are we left with?
A space time singularity.
Space and time come to a stop.
...
I wonder what would happen if you applied Penrose's theory about black holes to the entire universe?
a black hole that crushes matter still cannot do anything to space (you cannot reach/touch space, only 'play' with matter within it), it even needs space to be located within it and manifested space cannot be empty (true emptiness = non-manifested or unmanifested)
Quote:
What if I reverse the process all the way back to see
what happened at the beginning of Time itself?
actually, at that point you would have the beginning of the universe, not necessarily the beginning of time too
Quote:
The BLACK holes are NOT, in fact, BLACK at all, but GLOW with heat radiation.
...the steady emission of heat energy causes the black holes to LOSE mass, and EVENTUALLY they DISAPPEAR in a SPECTACULAR explosion.
so...does the black hole explode or does it leak & evaporate?
how come they leak heat, but not (visible) light, both being EM waves? and what about other types of EM waves?
Quote:
From nothing to nothing.
lol, let me fix that for you: from something to something else, but always something, mkay? (or: one internal essence changing external forms)
simple, logical, observable in everyday life
can you find 'nothing' around you? didn't think so
true nothingness = non-manifested or unmanifested - that which doesn't exist to us or any other observer/perceiver - if we can perceive it, it is manifested reality!
Quote:
The big new idea is that Universe has no boundaries, no beginning...and no God
- those boundaries are relative, dependent on or limited to the observer (the universe is as big to you as far you can observe - your abilities are the limiting factor) - so if you use light waves to observe the universe, you will be blind to everything that is beyond the reach of those waves and everything that is beyond the reach of your measuring instruments or observing senses
- the universe had to begin existing at some point in the past and it will have to end its existence at another point in the future, just like all the things you see around yourself do
- it is said that there are many different universes in existence (not the same as the recent 'parallel universes' idea), so each necessarilly has boundaries that separates it from others
- an omnipotent god would be the only one able to reach the absolute boundaries of existence, whatsmore, he would be the one that defines/determines those boundaries in the first place - the 'why' or 'when' or 'where' or 'how' the universe begins, behaves/works, how it ends,...
- just because the universe seems to extend towards infinity doesn't mean it is infinite - a curved trajectory like a circle can also extend 'into infinity' by forever retreading its finite circumference
- when we speak of 'the universe', it ought to be understood as 'our universe', the one we are located in (in a materialistic sense)
Quote:
What one believes is irrelevant in physics
incorrect, you have to believe that it serves a purpose, that you see your work as part of that purpose, that it makes sense to deal with it, that you can achieve something by using it, that its principles are sound, etc. - otherwise, whats the point?
or to put it in another way: you have to believe in physics! well, at least to some extent, as much as it makes sense or feels comfortable to you
Quote:
Stephen is looking for a single theory that explains all the forces in the universe.
...
Therefore, God must die.
lol, but wouldn't such a unifying theory (aka ToE) be a hint that the ONE Universe plays by this ONE general equation/theory/rule, hinting at ONE GoD that established such a rule (GoD's ToE lol) and that keeps it from falling apart into a chaotic mess of coincidences? imagine such a huge will-power to keep all this stuff from falling apart at any moment, since all those individual 'free' wills think they know whats the best thing to do next :P
Quote:
Quantum Theory, the laws that govern the very small particles, electrons and so on
General Relativity, Einstein's theory, the law that governs the very large, planets and such
lets see, there's strings (sounds like an inside joke: 'puppet on a string'), elusive speedy sub-particles (can you make more precise instruments? then you'll find even smaller particles) and lots of unknowns/wild theories (more new questions than answers)
then there's relativity (sounds like an inside joke: 'any theory is relative'), far & farther traveling celestial objects (can you make more precise instruments? then you'll find even farther objects) and lots of unknowns/wild theories (more new questions than answers)
what about the ToE? probably more of the same
conclusion: look too far on the macro or micro level, you'll get lost in the 'clouds' or the 'details' - the solution? look between them and you'll see... yourself (something many of those scientists managed to miss, the most obvious of places to look for answers)
are these theories worthless then? no, we learn from their attempts & conclusions (as in: learn from the history, learn from others, learn from own experience)
Quote:
Einstein said: God doesn't play dice with the universe.
what he probably/possibly meant was: there is no randomness in the universe, everything has its purpose and its order
what you see as a coincidence is actually a logical outcome given the surrounding conditions & circumstances
example: random number generators use an algorithm, no? so the outcome has to be some number determined by the algorithm - it is a deterministic process that only seems random
why do we call it random then? because we're not able to easily guess the outcome, we cannot easily see the pattern within
in other words, probability is misunderstood, randomness is misunderstood, nothingness is misunderstood, mess is misunderstood (see below) and so on and so forth - maybe humans actually specialize in advanced misunderstanding ;) :P
Quote:
If the world were all potatoes, then, easy, you could trace a precise beginning, as Stephen once did,
...
If you incorporate peas, into the menu, It all becomes a Godless mess
stephen traced something to its beginning? :P
if the world were all potatoes, then stephen would be one too, with the intelligence of a potato (meaning: no theorizing or tracing or writing books, only practical potato life)
peas may be a metaphor for humans, since human ignorance makes them think its all a big mess (non-material or immaterial things do not fit the purely materialistic equations, messing up the illusion of their perfection - also, realistic/practical things do not fit conditional/limited theoretical equations, messing up the illusion of their perfection)
mess = human description for something they cannot understand or make sense of (once they do, it magically isn't considered a mess anymore)
btw, we know of a large number of vegetables and they seem to coexist just fine, no?
Quote:
While there is life, there is hope.
to decipher the black hole? which also sounds like an inside joke: 'black whole' (the unknown wholesome essence of all things) or 'dark rabbit hole' (leading to your true self, your current self playing the role of alice from the story)
interestingly, (the movie) hawking is trying so hard to promote atheism, but in the end, the only person that sticks with him throughout the formative years (pre & post disease) is religious! if the movie is accurate in this sense, it looked like he would have lost the will to live way earlier, not being able to do the theoretical work that so many admire - more coincidences for us to ponder
maybe thats another moral of the story, that the (materialistic) world would be incomplete without both theists & atheists, just like any other dualistic couple
as for a unification, they are already unified in their co-existence & interaction, even if with seemingly different views (explainable through different viewpoints), both trying to find ultimate answers (each with the tools & understanding they have), both aiming for the same general destination (reaching the truth, their truth, their destination, their self - some very close, others close enough to the proverbial 'rome' (the center/core/heart/home) as all roads lead there anyways, the only question left is: how close to the very heart will your own destination be? remains to be (consciously) experienced...
