Has Stephen Hawking got his sums right? 0 =1??

Centre of Milky Way Galaxy; Image from Hubble Site

Professor Stephen Hawking has decided that there is no need for God to explain the Universe. Although it is clearly dodgy to debate his argument without reading the book, the nature of his argument, according to condensed reports, does open itself to thought.

He is quoted  as saying:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," says Hawking. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going".

So far, so good. He has demolished the Pyrotechnnologist God, the idea of a BigPerson outside of the universe who initiates the causal chain that sets the Big Bang going; the idea of a Creator who exists for eternity, but suddenly, possibly out of  boredom, decides to create a cosmos out of nothing, just to have something to watch. Bit like switching on daytime TV. The dismissal of that conception is not a problem, except for religious fundamentalists, but they have problems with the thinking of the man sitting next to them, so that is not a problem.

The problem I, and many others have, is the idea that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing."  Spontaneously.

Nothing is nothing. No-thing. It means no energy, no matter, no branes, no strings, no dimensions,  no laws of physics, nothing. It is zero. To assert that something can come from nothing is to assert that zero is equal to one, 0=1, which would overturn mathematics, the most  positive of all our mental disciplines. Not to mention causing all computers to malfunction. This is a big problem.

Let's go from what we actually know. We know for certain that the universe is expanding. As we go forward in time, it gets bigger. Indeed, it is not an expansion of matter within space and time, it is an expansion of space and time.


So if we run the arrow of time backwards, the universe gets "smaller" until it reaches a point of origin in space and time. In our imagination, this point is small, but that is an illusion, because what we are looking at is all that is, which is...how to express it...a big lot of very big bigness.

Now physicists have been studying the state of affairs in the few milliseconds after the Big Bang. They can work out conditions and interactions of particles and things. Hawking appears to have concluded that we now have a full understanding of all the laws that obtained then. He may or may not be right. The point is, as they work their way back, there comes a point where distinctions are no longer possible. Existence is just that, existence. A Singularity.

Now although the conditions that obtain within a Singularity are by definition beyond the reach of science, I personally cannot imagine that the Singularity is anything but totally undifferentiated. It is beyond space and time, and differentiation can only exist withing space and time. The singularity is also infinitely massive, and infinitely energetic, since it is destined to become the Universe. There is nothing outside of the Singularity, (see above) so it must be infinitely extensive. It is beyond time, so it is eternal and unchanging.

What intrigues me is that this description of the Singularity, which is the result of rigorous use of the scientific, analytical function of our brain, is that it is remarkably close to the description of the Infinite given by mystics, who arrive at the Infinite through the rigorous use of the synthetic function of the brain. Synthetic in the sense of refusing to let the mind wander from one point to another, a refusal to look at distinctions.

The only difference is that the mystics view their Singularity with an overwhelming sense of positive awe. They describe merging with the One as a state of total undifferentiation.

It is very clear that some may choose to regard these two singularities as totally different things, one real and one imaginary. More on this later, because this was a bit of a diversion.

The key point is that the Singularity Exists. That there is being, rather than non-being.

Again, there are two possible views on this. One is to regard it as completely inconsequential: if there were no being, we would not be here to wonder. We are here, so there is no cause for wonderment.

The other view is to contemplate the Mystery of Being - both in its singular state, and its differentiated state, as viewed by us in the matrix of life that sustains us. To me, being is the ultimate mystery - a question completely beyond the bounds of science, since it is untestable. The only thought we can bring to it is that Being manifests a tiny portion of Itself to us every time we use our senses. The trees, grass, flowers, sky, sun, stars are all an exposure of an infinitesimal fragment of the Immensity that was once a Singularity and is now a differentiated unfolding universe in its many levels - matter, energy (both visible and dark) stars, planets, life, consciousness with all the infinite complexities that occur within human consciousness, right down to events like #MetGate.

In encountering the natural world and other human beings (and by encountering I mean authentically experiencing them, not just registering their form in our perceptions in an automatic, habit driven way), we are experiencing a part of the Mystery that is Being.

Think of the cosmos as a hologram, where each part contains an image that is most accurately seen in its totality.

One of the most important encounters is with other people. There are two main options here: to experience them as objects, or reflexively as sentient beings. The former can result in killing; the latter can result in loving.

The highest response it to give a loving response to those that are trying to kill us, metaphorically or physically. To love our enemies, not just our friends.

Behaviour authenticates or refutes belief. It is useless to entertain high thoughts and behave like a complete bastard. The loveless fundamentalist is a walking advertisement of the falsity of his belief system.

Somebody said, "If you cannot find God in the next person you meet, it is pointless looking any further".

That is how Quakers think. "There is that of God within everyone".


I'm just saying. I'm not trying to start an argument.

PS Stephen Hawking is a genius, but not infallible.

PPS Does unconfirmable M-theory plus the anthropic tautology represents the end to the quest to solve the  riddle of existence?