Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then how do you explain the Big Bang Theory?

Is your Google broken? The big bang theory only states that a rapid expansionary period took place. And all the evidence supports it. You can still point at it and say, "god did that!", if you like. Which you would swiftly do, were you not beholden to a story in the Bible.

 

[abu afak]

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery


Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly....

Yes, I already posted and More succinctly excerpted the above article on PAGE 1 (#5), and it was quoted throughout.
You owe it to the board to do a little reading of the thread first..
Bye.
`

 

[G.T.]

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery


Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly....

Yes, I already posted and More succinctly excerpted the above article on PAGE 1 (#5), and it was quoted throughout.
You owe it to the board to do a little reading of the thread first..
Bye.
`

I wasn't interested in reading a thread based on a lie - that would just be a waste of time and so I posted the direct notion of God from Michio himself to save everyone the hassle; which, according to you was already posted and folks are still bickering over a false thread conception. I think that means, at the very least, that reading this thread is confirmed a waste of time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery


Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

For example, look at reincarnation. If somebody at a cocktail party says that they are Cleopatra or Julius Caesar, how do you disprove that? How do you falsify that? Well, you ask some simple question and they get it wrong. Then you say, “Ha! I falsified your statement.” And they say, “No, the history books are wrong…How do I know the history books are wrong? Because I am Cleopatra. I am Julius Caesar.”

At that point, the conversation is over. You begin to realize that no matter how you falsify that statement they can come back and say, “No, no, no, the history books are wrong.” And, how do you falsify that? You cannot. So, there are certain statements that are not falsifiable.

Same thing with the existence of God. I don’t think there’s any one experiment that you can create to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, it’s not a falsifiable statement. You cannot create an experiment that disproves the existence of God. Therefore, it’s a non-falsifiable statement.

Personally, I think there’s much wisdom in the God of Einstein. Einstein basically said that there are two types of gods. One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.

The universe is gorgeous. The universe is very simple, and it didn’t have to be that way. The universe could have been random. It could have been ugly. It could have been a random collection of electrons and photons. No life, no vitality, nothing interesting at all. Just a random collection of a mist of electrons and photons. That could have been the universe, but it isn’t. Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant. And you can summarize most of the laws of physics on one sheet of paper. Amazing. In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long. That’s called the unified field theory. We want to summarize all of the laws of physics into one equation that is one inch long.

Now, one version of that is called string field theory, which is a branch of string theory. String field theory allows you to write this equation, this one inch equation. In fact, that’s my equation. I’m a co-founder of string field theory. Now, that’s not the final theory because now there are membranes, and things are more complicated. We have yet to create a one inch equation for strings and membranes. But just for strings we already have a theory that’s only one inch long that allows you to summarize the laws of nature. So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty,[the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.

If you’re an English major, you know that English literary criticism gets more complicated every year. Every time someone writes a PhD thesis on James Joyce or Hemingway, they say, “What did he really mean by that sentence?” Well, it gets more complicated every year! Physics is the opposite. It gets simpler and simpler every year. And ultimately we want to get it down to one inch.

There is a theory about whether or not the universe is a simulation of some sort, like the movie The Matrix. And then the question is how do you prove it? Or how do you disprove it? Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

He certainly is an odd individual sometimes.


His own theory - string theory - produces tens of thousands of parallel universes, each with its own laws of physics. So it seems rather odd to me that Kaku would point at the one we are in and say it shows him intelligent design ("because it's not just a mist of random photons",for instance), when his own pet theory predicts that several such "less beatiful" universes must also exist, and likely in greater numbers than the "orderly" (a completely arbitrary term derived from an egocentric construct) one we live in.

This is the sort of thing that leads to Kaku's name being quickly followed by eyerolls by much of the physics community.

 

[G.T.]

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery


Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

For example, look at reincarnation. If somebody at a cocktail party says that they are Cleopatra or Julius Caesar, how do you disprove that? How do you falsify that? Well, you ask some simple question and they get it wrong. Then you say, “Ha! I falsified your statement.” And they say, “No, the history books are wrong…How do I know the history books are wrong? Because I am Cleopatra. I am Julius Caesar.”

At that point, the conversation is over. You begin to realize that no matter how you falsify that statement they can come back and say, “No, no, no, the history books are wrong.” And, how do you falsify that? You cannot. So, there are certain statements that are not falsifiable.

Same thing with the existence of God. I don’t think there’s any one experiment that you can create to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, it’s not a falsifiable statement. You cannot create an experiment that disproves the existence of God. Therefore, it’s a non-falsifiable statement.

Personally, I think there’s much wisdom in the God of Einstein. Einstein basically said that there are two types of gods. One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.

The universe is gorgeous. The universe is very simple, and it didn’t have to be that way. The universe could have been random. It could have been ugly. It could have been a random collection of electrons and photons. No life, no vitality, nothing interesting at all. Just a random collection of a mist of electrons and photons. That could have been the universe, but it isn’t. Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant. And you can summarize most of the laws of physics on one sheet of paper. Amazing. In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long. That’s called the unified field theory. We want to summarize all of the laws of physics into one equation that is one inch long.

Now, one version of that is called string field theory, which is a branch of string theory. String field theory allows you to write this equation, this one inch equation. In fact, that’s my equation. I’m a co-founder of string field theory. Now, that’s not the final theory because now there are membranes, and things are more complicated. We have yet to create a one inch equation for strings and membranes. But just for strings we already have a theory that’s only one inch long that allows you to summarize the laws of nature. So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty,[the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.

If you’re an English major, you know that English literary criticism gets more complicated every year. Every time someone writes a PhD thesis on James Joyce or Hemingway, they say, “What did he really mean by that sentence?” Well, it gets more complicated every year! Physics is the opposite. It gets simpler and simpler every year. And ultimately we want to get it down to one inch.

There is a theory about whether or not the universe is a simulation of some sort, like the movie The Matrix. And then the question is how do you prove it? Or how do you disprove it? Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

He certainly is an odd individual sometimes.


His own theory - string theory - produces tens of thousands of parallel universes, each with its own laws of physics. So it seems rather odd to me that Kaku would point at the one we are in and say it shows him intelligent design ("because it's not just a mist of random photons",for instance), when his own pet theory predicts that several such "less beatiful" universes must also exist, and likely in greater numbers than the "orderly" (a completely arbitrary term derived from an egocentric construct) one we live in.

This is the sort of thing that leads to Kaku's name being quickly followed by eyerolls by much of the physics community.

It's in the mis-quote that he posits a belief in intelligent design.

Not in his actual quote - his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable. In science, non-falsifiability means that you shouldn't posit the claim in the 1st place.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable

And yet, still, he says:

"“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. "

And...

"“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

Even if he admits this is faith, he still believes it and uses the principle I mentioned to argue it. Which is odd, for the reasons I mentioned. Note that string theory still occupies this same niche....not coincidence...

 

[Votto]

Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear.

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

World-Famous Scientist: God Created the Universe

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

He said the "G" word!

Ban him from Facebook, ban him from Twitter!

The man and his children may as well go on unemployment for the rest of their lives!

 

[G.T.]

his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable

And yet, still, he says:

"“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. "

And...

"“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

Even if he admits this is faith, he still believes it and uses the principle I mentioned to argue it. Which is odd, for the reasons I mentioned. Note that string theory still occupies this same niche....not coincidence...

Where are those quotes from?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable

And yet, still, he says:

"“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. "

And...

"“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

Even if he admits this is faith, he still believes it and uses the principle I mentioned to argue it. Which is odd, for the reasons I mentioned. Note that string theory still occupies this same niche....not coincidence...

Where are those quotes from?

From his CNS interview. And I don't think those quotes contradict anything you posted. I think he is delineating the difference between a personal belief and an evidence-based determination. Well, trying to after the fact, anyway. He seemed to blur those lines in his CNS interview, though. Let nobody accuse Kaku of not knowing how to work a crowd.

 

[G.T.]

his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable

And yet, still, he says:

"“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. "

And...

"“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

Even if he admits this is faith, he still believes it and uses the principle I mentioned to argue it. Which is odd, for the reasons I mentioned. Note that string theory still occupies this same niche....not coincidence...

Where are those quotes from?

From his CNS interview. And I don't think those quotes contradict anything you posted. I think he is delineating the difference between a personal belief and an evidence-based determination. Well, trying to after the fact, anyway. He seemed to blur those lines in his CNS interview, though. Let nobody accuse Kaku of not knowing how to work a crowd.

So long as he doesn't try to blur the lines over what his science tells him and what his faith tells him - I guess it's no biggy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable

And yet, still, he says:

"“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. "

And...

"“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

Even if he admits this is faith, he still believes it and uses the principle I mentioned to argue it. Which is odd, for the reasons I mentioned. Note that string theory still occupies this same niche....not coincidence...

Where are those quotes from?

From his CNS interview. And I don't think those quotes contradict anything you posted. I think he is delineating the difference between a personal belief and an evidence-based determination. Well, trying to after the fact, anyway. He seemed to blur those lines in his CNS interview, though. Let nobody accuse Kaku of not knowing how to work a crowd.

So long as he doesn't try to blur the lines over what his science tells him and what his faith tells him - I guess it's no biggy.

Agreed, but he was very clever to do so anyway in his CNS interview. Like I said, he knows how to work his audience....

 

[Likkmee]

Of course He did. Only animals and communists dont believe in God. And we shouldn't be too quick to assume that animals dont have some kind of dim awareness.

Kaku wasn't talking about the Judeo-Christian God....The use of "God" is in the context of an overall creator.

True. Overall creator. Yeshua was his son that came and explained the rules.....so they killed him

 

[james bond]

Is your Google broken? The big bang theory only states that a rapid expansionary period took place. And all the evidence supports it. You can still point at it and say, "god did that!", if you like. Which you would swiftly do, were you not beholden to a story in the Bible.

My source was Stephen Hawking and he's dead. I hope he's rolling around in his grave knowing evidence of God from Kaku (sounds too hypothetical involving tachyons, strings and multiverses) and evidence of God's creation from spacetime. You can have big bang theory and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. What about the Hawking radiation? I think classic physics stopped him in his tracks. It's just as well. Hawking was a genius, but his atheism made him go down the wrong path.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

knowing evidence of God from Kaku

Kaku presented no evidence. Sorry bond,I am simply not going to engage a dishonest charlatan like you. I will correct your false statements and mock you once in a while, but that's about it.

 

[james bond]

knowing evidence of God from Kaku

Kaku presented no evidence. Sorry bond,I am simply not going to engage a dishonest charlatan like you. I will correct your false statements and mock you once in a while, but that's about it.

Yes, he did. I was referring to abu afak 's 2017 article. After that, I tried to get the evidence for myself and posted the later article where he discusses tachyons, strings and multiverses. It's too theoretical for me, but at least he admitted there was evidence for God in his tachyons.

ETA: Maybe you should see a doctor or take 7th grade again. You are not able to keep up a simple thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

knowing evidence of God from Kaku

Kaku presented no evidence. Sorry bond,I am simply not going to engage a dishonest charlatan like you. I will correct your false statements and mock you once in a while, but that's about it.

Yes, he did. I was referring to abu afak 's 2017 article. After that, I tried to get the evidence for myself and posted the later article where he discusses tachyons, strings and multiverses. It's too theoretical for me, but at least he admitted there was evidence for God in his tachyons.

He passed along no evidence whatsoever. You are lying, and , to compound your dishonesty, you have zero understanding of any of these topics anyway.

 

[james bond]

He passed along no evidence whatsoever.

I already said his evidence was hypothetical. At least, he can conclude the correct interpretation even though his evidence is hypothetical. The only evidence you ever present is the gigantic hole in your head.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I already said his evidence was hypothetical.

Haha, what is "hypothetical evidence"? You're just making shit up, now.

 

[Hollie]

I already said his evidence was hypothetical.

Haha, what is "hypothetical evidence"? You're just making shit up, now.

"hypothetical evidence".

Ok, let me think about that ......


I thought about it. It's such nonsense. I wasted 0.3 seconds of my life thinking about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I already said his evidence was hypothetical.

Haha, what is "hypothetical evidence"? You're just making shit up, now.

"hypothetical evidence".

Ok, let me think about that ......


I thought about it. It's such nonsense. I wasted 0.3 seconds of my life thinking about it.

Bond makes up shit as he goes. Hes practicing for an AM radio show, or something. He can't honestly believe for a second that he is actually fooling anyone here.