3 ms·

I'm also confused by this article. It looks like the last three paragraphs are the ones that support the title, but there's no explanation of why Hawking think

I'm also confused by this article. It looks like the last three paragraphs are the ones that support the title, but there's no explanation of why Hawking thinks the last three paragraphs are true. It asserts that universes can occur spontaneously out of nothing, and that the multiverse exists, without providing evidence for either proposition. If it's just the way the universe works, I'm okay with that. But I'd at least like to know why the author thinks it's just the way the universe works.

mkr-hn 16y ago
The trouble with science is that the further we go, the more you need before you can understand the next step. It's my understanding that the science and math behind this is so complex that you'd need a decade or two of study just for the basics. The alternative is to just not write the article, and that's not a good way to get young people interested enough to go through decades of study. Science in popular media is about recruiting the next generation of scientists, even if that goal isn't explicit.
- danielford 16y ago
  I'm reaching the point in my intellectual development where arguments from authority are less and less useful. I think a lot of people on hacker news are in a similar position. I need more from an article than, "Distinguished scientist believes X", especially in cases when distinguished scientists start going outside of their field and attempt to deal with philosophical questions. If it involves a bunch of complicated math and physics, then at least show me the crap I can't understand. If I have time I'll work on it, and if not at least I have a better idea of how someone got from point A to B.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    The wiki on the Big Bang is probably a good place to start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang It seems fairly well-developed with lots of interesting references.

mkr-hn 16y ago

The trouble with science is that the further we go, the more you need before you can understand the next step. It's my understanding that the science and math behind this is so complex that you'd need a decade or two of study just for the basics. The alternative is to just not write the article, and that's not a good way to get young people interested enough to go through decades of study. Science in popular media is about recruiting the next generation of scientists, even if that goal isn't explicit.

danielford 16y ago
I'm reaching the point in my intellectual development where arguments from authority are less and less useful. I think a lot of people on hacker news are in a similar position. I need more from an article than, "Distinguished scientist believes X", especially in cases when distinguished scientists start going outside of their field and attempt to deal with philosophical questions. If it involves a bunch of complicated math and physics, then at least show me the crap I can't understand. If I have time I'll work on it, and if not at least I have a better idea of how someone got from point A to B.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  The wiki on the Big Bang is probably a good place to start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang It seems fairly well-developed with lots of interesting references.