[n17r4m]

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 compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, “The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.” What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!

However, 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 the question 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 know the mind of God.

-- Stephen Hawking

[telesilla]

A reminder he stated he was an atheist, so I take his words on god with a grain of salt.

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” (Hawking)

[akvadrako]

To an atheist physicist God probably means the universe or the forces that govern the universe. They share many of the same properties, like being all powerful†, outside of time and space and being creators, not the created.

† within the constraints of some universal logic

[telesilla]

I agree, though to be clear - the difference between religion and science is that religion affords god with cognitive intent. I'd be surprised to hear if Hawking believed that the force that we might describe as god has qualities of compassion and judgement as well as having set forth the rules that govern atomic motion.

[akvadrako]

That's a tougher one, but maybe the universe has such an intent also. Take the principle of least action. It seems like systems take the path from A -> C that's shortest in total even if the chosen A -> B and B -> C are both longer than alternatives.

Maybe there is even a sense of "thinking" ahead to understand which path will be shorter before making the choice.

[jug]

He has later clarified that ”mind of God” was figurative and from an atheist angle more like ”the reason for creation”.

[hobofan]

> Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist.

[cgio]

Causality is an artefact of the universe. From a philosophical standpoint we would need to establish that why is the key question or we are chasing a socks theory of feet. And that is assuming that why is about causality rather than intention. To paraphrase this abstract's ending, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then the mind of God would be knowable.

[snarfy]

If we do come up with a grand unified theory that spawns the existence of everything that's completely self contained and self describing, and it ends up being something like x + y = z, what does that really explain? Why? It's because x + y = z, that's why! Once we boil it down to that why becomes meaningless. Everything ultimately has the same reason why.

[jug]

I have a feeling that the deeper we get, the more physics will be based on “magical numbers”. We have already come across some. But yes, it is extraordinary how the most pure and simple physics with numbers from quantum randomness can create something like this. Very weird to me.

[AstralStorm]

And why does it matter if everything has a root cause or not? Whether the universe is ultimately deterministic and computable, or uncomputable, or not deterministic at all?

It is our imagination that gives facts like math equations meaning.

[cgio]

I think why everything but x+y=z would be x+y=z. But why x+y=z would still be open unless it is self referential.

[EGreg]

Did anyone start reading this comment expecting the usual downvotes and controversy?

And then realized after a few paragraphs that this is Stephen Hawking writing it? Be honest.

I just think there has been such a transition from books to online comments and forums that everything is picked apart and commented by a far larger group of people than in the past.

The man was a legend. His books were inspiring. Can today's blog posts and tweets be the same going forward? Just some thoughts I had while I read that.

RIP Steven Hawking, inspiration to millions!

[gkya]

Reading the first sentences I thought that'd become that weird semi-philosophical speech on death which you hear from some people in funerals. Internet is too big to digest, and in a blog or comment there is not much things which can prove you that the writer has some authority on what he's saying, whereas the name of a known scientist on an actual paper book that costs money to print is authority.

[sixdimensional]

"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/

[bpizzi]

I'm very fond of the way he left religions out of the way when trying to explain that a God-like mind may exists above our universe.

[kulu2002]

Unfortunately these questions will keep haunting mankind ..always ..every time! Golden words by Hawking... May his soul Rest In Peace

[jxramos]

wow, what a 100,000ft view of that timeline. He definitely had rich rich perspective on things. Thanks for sharing.