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

Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#51

Post by davrosthedalek »

akvadrako wrote: post #46
davrosthedalek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to prove that math actually maps to reality. I don't think you can do that. With the possibility that it's all a simulation, our universe doesn't even have to be consistent.

Why not just simplify your whole position to "you can never prove anything"?

In Physics, this might be true, at least for generalizations (I can prove to myself that I currently write this text, for suitable definitions of "I, write, text". I might not be able to prove it to you.). In Math, it's not.

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#52

Post by [deleted] »

erric wrote: post #18
russdpale wrote: post #3

Truly amazing. Thank you Professor Hawking! RIP.

This statement is in the same domain as “thoughts and prayers”, which is the same as saying, ”I’m wishing at you really hard”. Rest implies an awaking or movement at some point in the future, but for Hawking, he didn’t believe in that. Maybe it’s just something to say, like acknowledging someone sneezing?

[deleted]

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#53

Post by maxerickson »

cperciva wrote: post #15
amelius wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that if we can interact with (measure) a separate universe, then we should adjust our definition of "universe".

What if you can observe past interactions with it, but it is no longer possible to interact with it? Would you say it's still part of "our universe"?

Who cares. If you had clear proof of the existence it would be useful to describe it. People would argue about the words used and it wouldn't really matter. Pluto didn't get any smaller when they decided it wasn't a planet anymore.

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#54

Post by vectorEQ »

epaga wrote: post #4

Something I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question? If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the r…

If there are seperate planes of existens or universes, the properties thereof are unknown, and it can't be said if they would ever be observable or not untill someone finds out they are. (finding out they arent isn't possible, which up to now does make this very philosophical question i suppose)

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#55

Post by drb91 »

nanofortnight wrote: post #31
jovial_cavalier wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even though that is sub-atomic is a concept that does not make any sense. Can you please explain this? How is sub-atomic nonsensical? It just means "constituent particles of an atom."

That's exactly it. Atom comes from atomos, meaning indivisible; if you take the literal meaning, it has no constituent parts.

An etymological physics argument is new!

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#56

Post by leetcrew »

sgt101 wrote: post #38
nanofortnight wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly it. Atom comes from atomos, meaning indivisible; if you take the literal meaning, it has no constituent parts.

But that's pretty unreasonable as a line of argument; the derivation of a word from a long dead language has no bearing on the semantic in modern discourse. Atoms have been known to be divisible for over 100 years, the consequences of this knowledge are everywhere in our society!

we still use atomic to mean indivisible in the context of concurrent programming, and the broader concept of atomicity is used in the same sense. the physical atom is the real edge case here; it just happens to have captured the attention of the general public.

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#57

Post by [deleted] »

hnarn wrote: post #8
epaga wrote: post #4

Something I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question? If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the r…

>If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not This literally contradicts what the first paragraph of the article. It says that this paper "lays the theoretical groundwork for discovering a parallel universe". If you've discovered it, you've tested and proved that it exists. Furthermore, the article states…

[deleted]

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#58

Post by codeulike »

pegasus wrote: post #49
codeulike wrote: post #40

Quite a lot of people worrying about the definition of the word 'universe' in this thread.

And with good reason. "Discovering a parallel universe" is nonsensical in the common acceptance of those words. Parallel lines never meet and the universe by definition contains all there is. So people are grasping for alternative definitions of the words that might make the statement satisifiable.

Just leave it be. We don't worry about atoms not actually being atomic anymore either.

Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes

#59

Post by rytill »

cperciva wrote: post #15
amelius wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that if we can interact with (measure) a separate universe, then we should adjust our definition of "universe".

What if you can observe past interactions with it, but it is no longer possible to interact with it? Would you say it's still part of "our universe"?

What’s the latency?
Post reply on HN