Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stephen Hawking has died

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 468 posts

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#321

Post by RayVR »

intenseSpec wrote: post #295
drawkbox wrote: post #268

Sometimes the RNG of the Universe creates people with intelligence, innovation and insight that are one in a billion that make the world better than it was before in immense ways, Stephen Hawking is one of those mountain movers. People like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Nikola Tesla and even Elon Musk today, that make us look up, innovate and think way out there, bring us together and remind us we are all on this plan…

Serious question, why is Elon Musk lumped in with Tesla, Hawking, and Sagan? Musk's achievements are assisted by the fact that he has tens of thousands of engineers at his companies and he gets credit for every one of their ideas, all their work, and all the life they give up for his dreams. He didn't found Paypal (his company merged with it), he didn't found Tesla (kicked out one of the original founders), and he di…

Musk is an incredible self-promoter. He talks about how he is going to save the world, critics just don’t understand or just want to see him fail, and his words bounce around an ideological echo chamber where the facts of his claims don’t matter.

IMO, the google founders have had a far larger impact on the world than Elon, however, they don’t promote themselves endlessly.

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#322

Post by davidkuhta »

nbdev wrote: post #302
isostatic wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important part of science is exposing it to the public. Concepts about the big bang aren't really relatable, which means little coverage, little funding, and the next generation of would-be scientists not being enthused by the possibilities. Hawking brought those concepts to the masses, which is a very important goal. Hawking, in a large part due to his success in the face of his disability, attracted media attent…

Someone like Harvey Weinstein has brought much inspiration and joy to the world too. I'm not arguing against the positive so much as just mentioning some of the ugly negatives.

First, dismissing the subjective appropriateness of commenting immediately upon his passing, while your points on Hawking's personal failings may be completely valid, highlighting them without the context of his successes seems misleading.

Second, I believe Hawking's contributions and accomplishments hold greater relevance to the audience of Hacker News (and in my opinion humanity at large) than those of Harvey Weinstein.

Known for: Hawking radiation Penrose–Hawking theorems Bekenstein–Hawking formula Hawking energy Gibbons–Hawking ansatz Gibbons–Hawking effect Gibbons–Hawking space Gibbons–Hawking–York boundary term Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet

Awards: Adams Prize (1966) Eddington Medal (1975) Maxwell Medal and Prize (1976) Heineman Prize (1976) Hughes Medal (1976) Albert Einstein Award (1978) RAS Gold Medal (1985) Dirac Medal (1987) Wolf Prize (1988) Prince of Asturias Award (1989) Andrew Gemant Award (1998) Naylor Prize and Lectureship (1999) Lilienfeld Prize (1999) Albert Medal (Royal Society of Arts) (1999) Copley Medal (2006) Presidential Medal of Freedom (2009) Fundamental Physics Prize (2012) BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award (2015)

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#323

Post by jonbarker »

We owe him, Sagan, Feynman and a few others a debt of gratitude for writing and speaking about their discoveries to the general public. Without their realization that more people should be aware of this stuff, no popular science!

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#324

Post by JackFr »

simonh wrote: post #249
jsolson wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I would like to attribute my desire to live "forever", at least to some extent, to cosmic perspective. One day the universe might make me bored, but today is not that day, and I suspect tomorrow isn't either. I don't ever expect that day to come, but if I thought it was near I'd be very afraid indeed.

I would like to live indefinitely, but I do not want to. The cost to human society and our natural resources of a species of immortals is too much. I want human society to include births, children, growing up, dating, marriage and raising families. I want my children and our species generally to have a dynamic, continuously renewing culture. I just don’t see how those things are compatible with immortality. Just don’…

"When one tries to rise above Nature one is liable to fall below it... Consider, Watson, that the material, the sensual, the worldly would all prolong their worthless lives. The spiritual would not avoid the call to something higher. It would be the survival of the least fit. What sort of cesspool may not our poor world become?" — Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Creeping Man

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImmortalityImmora...

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#325

Post by sethammons »

intenseSpec wrote: post #295
drawkbox wrote: post #268

Sometimes the RNG of the Universe creates people with intelligence, innovation and insight that are one in a billion that make the world better than it was before in immense ways, Stephen Hawking is one of those mountain movers. People like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Nikola Tesla and even Elon Musk today, that make us look up, innovate and think way out there, bring us together and remind us we are all on this plan…

Serious question, why is Elon Musk lumped in with Tesla, Hawking, and Sagan? Musk's achievements are assisted by the fact that he has tens of thousands of engineers at his companies and he gets credit for every one of their ideas, all their work, and all the life they give up for his dreams. He didn't found Paypal (his company merged with it), he didn't found Tesla (kicked out one of the original founders), and he di…

Sounds kinda like Edison.

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#326

Post by eloff »

jsolson wrote: post #162
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was both Professor Hawking and Carl Sagan that tought me how brief and unlikely our lives truly are. It was their cosmic perspective that helped me end my fear of death. While we want more time and see the death of others as tragic, I do feel less afraid of that time coming knowing how fortunate I have been to live.

Interesting. I would like to attribute my desire to live "forever", at least to some extent, to cosmic perspective. One day the universe might make me bored, but today is not that day, and I suspect tomorrow isn't either. I don't ever expect that day to come, but if I thought it was near I'd be very afraid indeed.

Right now the only thing that somewhat limits the accumulation of wealth by the wealthiest in our society is that they eventually die. Even if they pass it on to their offspring, those offspring are often ill-equipped to run their parent's business empire. Eventually the dynastic wealth fades away and others can take their place. If people could live forever there would be no limits on how much wealth individuals could concentrate in their hands. It would be like the meths in Altered Carbon. I don't want to live in a world where Jeff Bezos possesses more wealth than the bottom 90% of the planet.

Our laws and economic system currently lead to extreme inequality. That would have to seriously change to allow for immortality.

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#327

Post by cgriswald »

simonh wrote: post #249
jsolson wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I would like to attribute my desire to live "forever", at least to some extent, to cosmic perspective. One day the universe might make me bored, but today is not that day, and I suspect tomorrow isn't either. I don't ever expect that day to come, but if I thought it was near I'd be very afraid indeed.

I would like to live indefinitely, but I do not want to. The cost to human society and our natural resources of a species of immortals is too much. I want human society to include births, children, growing up, dating, marriage and raising families. I want my children and our species generally to have a dynamic, continuously renewing culture. I just don’t see how those things are compatible with immortality. Just don’…

Our existing lifespans are arbitrary. They are largely based on the length of time needed to procreate and ensure a successful subsequent generation or two; and on our ability to overcome that limitation. Saying, "I would not take immortality treatments if they were available" is different from "I will not accept medical help for my heart condition" only by a matter of scale. Having more humans on the planet and for longer does come with challenges, including resource usage issues, but it also comes with the tools to conquer those challenges and other benefits besides.

The cost of mortality is having Albert Einstein around for a meager 76 years, instead of hundreds or thousands. Multiplied by all the other great minds our species has produced, this is an incredible cost that, in my opinion, vastly outweighs your assumptions about the cost of immortality.

In my opinion, culture can only be threatened by homogeneity, but even print, radio, television, film, and internet haven't managed to kill it. Immortality will necessitate and possibly facilitate cultural change. First, because our culture will have to adapt to accepting immortality. Second, because immortal beings will likely become bored. We really have no indication that culture will stagnate or die. I suspect it will slow, but I suspect most things will slow when we are no longer so bound by time. And, due to resource issues, immortality will likely require (and possibly result in) a great diaspora of humanity. More humans, living in more places, having more experiences, and being more separated, means a more diverse culture, even if a lot of those humans are the same humans.

Finally, immortal humans will likely be far better caretakers of resources. They will have personal incentives to make sure there are enough resources, that those resources are renewed, and that they are used in a way that preserves the planet. Humans have a very difficult time even conceptualizing what the world may be like for their great-great-grandchildren (and modifying their behavior accordingly), but they understand fear for their personal safety far better.

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#328

Post by sixdimensional »

n17r4m wrote: post #73

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so…

"There is certainly a scientific approach to art. In science, endeavors often require as much or more creativity as they do logic. All this stands to reason; art and science are not the same, but both serve to advance us forward, each on their own, and in service to each other." - Unknown [1]

[1] http://www.actinginbalance.com/on-art-and-science/

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#329

Post by PaulHoule »

At risk of being voted down I will say that the time in which Hawking has worked has been a "dark ages" for physics in my mind. (As a physics PhD; and I don't blame Hawking for this, rather the rest of the environment.)

Circa 1970 the number of physics PhD's produced has outstripped the number of permanent jobs in physics, sometimes by a factor of 30:1!

One result of that is that physicists have to make it through a keyhole to get established. Another change that has happened since then has been a profound disconnect between theory and experiment. Back in the day, Einstein could make a prediction about light being bent by the Sun and have it be confirmed in his own lifetime.

The "modern" physics superstar like Hawking or Witten just doesn't do that. When neutron oscillations were finally detected after years, it is almost forgotten who to give credit for for the theory because it is really just a conjecture that some matrix element isn't zero. Even in condensed matter there is the spectacle of seeing theoreticians dogpile on the problem of cuprate oxide superconductivity for 20 years without making any progress until an experimentalist noted stripes in the electron density.

The result of it is that you get ahead by getting the approval of much older physicists, not by understanding the world.

As for Hawking himself, his ideas about information loss in black holes, the wavefunction not being unitary and all that were just plain bad ideas that held back quantum gravity by 30 years or so.

Re: Stephen Hawking has died

#330

Post by Omnus »

eloff wrote: post #326
jsolson wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I would like to attribute my desire to live "forever", at least to some extent, to cosmic perspective. One day the universe might make me bored, but today is not that day, and I suspect tomorrow isn't either. I don't ever expect that day to come, but if I thought it was near I'd be very afraid indeed.

Right now the only thing that somewhat limits the accumulation of wealth by the wealthiest in our society is that they eventually die. Even if they pass it on to their offspring, those offspring are often ill-equipped to run their parent's business empire. Eventually the dynastic wealth fades away and others can take their place. If people could live forever there would be no limits on how much wealth individuals cou…

Sure, but you have to balance the potential bad with the fact that humans have an inborn drive to continue existing, and that death has profoundly negative effects that induce unnecessary suffering. If Jeff Bezos was your son and he was afflicted with a terminal disease, you'd have a very different outlook on his potential death, no matter what views you held at a high level societal perspective.
Post reply on HN