If you recall nothing else from Stephen Hawking's 1988 blockbuster "A Brief History of Time," you are likely to remember the inspiring final passage: "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would truly know the mind of God." This is perhaps the most eloquent statement ever voiced of the fundamental credo of physics: that there exists an elegant final theory which, properly understood, would explain every aspect of physical reality. That final theory, physicists like to dream, would be not only elegant but unique -- no possible variation in its formulae would be conceivable. This mythical beast -- the perfect and beautiful ultimate theory -- has proven as elusive as a unicorn.

For the last several decades the quest to uncover a final theory has been dominated by string theorists, who are attempting to reconcile relativity (which provides a superb description of nature at macroscopic scales) with quantum physics (which offers an uncannily accurate explanation of the behavior of matter at the smallest scales).

View: Full Article | Source: Oregon Live

I figured the theory along time ago the meaning to life is 45674 - 45632 in other words 42

42 may be the right answer but i doubt you did your part in discovering it...

What the hell does 42 have to do with anything? O_o

The best friend of Einstein in his old age was Kurt Goedel. They both worked at the Advanced Institute in Princeton, and walked to and from work together, comfortable in their native German. But no one knows what they talked about. We only know that Kurt Goedel proved several famous theorems about logical systems such as Quantum Mechanics. One is that if a logical system contains a logical impossibility, anything can be proved from it, such as 1=2. Indeed, as a kid, we played a kind of mathematical prank which proved that 1=2. It involved a non-obvious divide by zero.

The Standard Model of physics is full of logical impossibilities, ever since the 5th Solvay Conference in 1927, attended by Einstein, de Broglie, Heisenberg, and all the early great figures in physics, such as Schroedinger. That was when they decided to incorporate a logical impossibility into the Standard Model of physics. They decided that a thing could be both a wave and a particle. It got worse. Even though Heisenberg's theory of virtual particles implied an infinite energy for the vacuum, a reductio ad absurdum if I ever saw one, Feynman and followers accepted it anyway. Similarly, the Big Bang, a Black Hole, and the theory of an electron all require singularities, which are logically impossible.

Physics is no longer a science. It is something like medieval scholasticism, sophistry disguised in mathematics, and divorced from experiment. Meanwhile, lots of puzzling data are simply ignored. If you want more, read my book, [b]UFOs, PSI and Spiritual Evolution[i].

~~Cebrakon

You know, I HAVE noticed that alot of awesome data from quantum physics gets ignored sometimes. It doesn't seem like people care for some reason... Only a select few.

It's true the Particle Model for Physics does contain these logical impossibilities such as singularities etc. This is why theoretical physicists postulated the String Theory for Physics. Later to evolve into the Superstring Theory and now evolving further into the M-Theory (there are other theories as well - too many to mention).

These theories attempt to do away with singularities and infinities by setting limits at the sub-atomic level as to how small elementary particles can be. The various string theories are still very much a work in progress.

It is true that the experimentation we can carry out to provide evidence for these theories is limited given our current level of technology. However it is hoped the very large particle accelerators being built in Europe and the US will provide this evidence by testing particle interactions at very high energy levels.

While it no doubt provoked controversy and boosted the sale of his book, Hawking's comment on 'knowing the mind of God' is just fanciful imagination (imo).

Of course you think it's fanciful imagination, it talks about God. I think you're biased against it, eh?

No, I'm not biased against the existence of God at all. My comment was to point out that it's fanciful imagination to think we might know the MIND of God i.e. Gods intent or plan. Just as I don't know your mind, how could I possibly know the mind of an omniscient, omnipotent being (if that's what you believe God is)?

While it no doubt provoked controversy and boosted the sale of his book, Hawking's comment on 'knowing the mind of God' is just fanciful imagination (imo).
[/quote]


Can we prove anything exists outside of imagination??? The subconscious mind does not know the difference between what it sees and what it imagines??? Both what we see and imagine are thoughts and we only know thoughts exist because of consciousness. Can we prove anything exists as it is minus subjectivity????

Are you able to tell the difference between your dreams (as in sleep or day-dreaming) and what you experience when you are awake?

BTW that's a direct question, not a philosophical, rhetorical question.

As a matter of fact sometimes no. Let me answer this directly. Sometimes when I dream it seems so real that I take it for waking life, I get sacred like I do in real life, I learn as I do in real life, have sexual experiences as I do in "real" life. Also Where I view the waking life and the dream life is in the same place(visual anyway) the visual cortex. The only difference why I call one "real" and one "dream" is because of thought and belief. It is only (conditioned)belief and thought that makes me think one is real and the other imaginary. If this thought were not rooted in and conditioned where would the distinction be??? Seeing a lounge in your living room is an much as idea as thinking of a fantasy. In day dreams also I can get highly absorbed and find I lose myself and forget one reality for the other. Even the brain in which we percieve things with the 5 senses is nothing but an idea and this idea can only be known through awareness which is perception/consciousness. How can we prove that one state of mind is more real than the other??? How can we prove anything unless we are aware and conscious of the situation in order to theorize about it??? If let's say I took the faculty of consciousness away from you, do you think you'd be able to write an essay on atoms??? The whole world isn't percieved with the eyes but inthe visual cortex of the brain only afew cubic centimetres of volume of the brain.We need consciousness to know we have a brain where we percieve it in. So How does the infinite universe and all the miles and miles of sky andland around you fit in the brain???
Here are some clever writings about what I mean
R.L.Gregory:
We are so familiar with seeing, that it takes a leap of imagination to realise that there are problems to be solved. But consider it. We are given tiny distorted upside-down images in the eyes, and we see separate objects in surrounding space. From the patterns of simulation on the retinas we percieve the world of objects, and this is nothing short of a miracle.

B.Russel and L. Wittgeinstein: For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned or investigated. A lemon consists merely of a taste sensed by the tongue, and odor sensed by the nose, a colour and shape sensed by the eye; and onlythese features can it be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world.

R.L.Gregory: There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce pictures in the brain. A picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind of internal eye to see it-but this would need a further eye to see its picture....and so on in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd.

LEONARDO YOU'LL LOVE THIS ONE

Since the Greeks, philosophers have been thinking about the "ghost in the machine", "the small man within the small man" etc WHERE is "I", the person who uses his brain? Who is it that realises the act of knowing?[b] As Saint Francis of Assisi said "What we search for is the one that sees."
-------Karl Pibram(very famous scientist )

Sorry dude I get carried away, but i love a stimualting debate.

Was does god have to do with physics

God is everything, what hasn't it got to do with it???