Forgive me, but I don't know the source of this. Has anyone heard anything about...
Everyone has been talking about this for weeks now, Mentat. Where have you been? :tongue2:
Oh and the source is from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/16/tech/main630203.shtml
There are at least two active threads on this in General Astronomy...
Bottom line though, he hasn't made his speach yet.
I asked this on "general astronomy" and got no answer. Anyone?
"When Hawking presents his paper with the explanations for what I read here, when and how do we (the public) get to see what he said and read the explanations?
Check it all out here: http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040721.gthawk0721/BNStory/Technology/ [Broken]
Hawking announcement and supporting information
I am perplexed that the announcement has not been followed by the supporting documentation.
The transcript of Hawking's talk at the conference Wednesday has been
circulating. I posted a link to it here at PF the same day
there's been a fair amount of discussion at various blog sites and at sci.physics.research
you might like to look at the comments to Peter Woit's blog about Hawking at the "Not Even Wrong" site
or the comments at Sean Carroll's blog at "Preposterous Universe"
More documentation (perhaps a more detailed paper from Hawking, which might have more satisfactory explanation in it, or might not) is likely to appear with time. But I wouldnt say that there is, even now, a complete absence of documentation. whether one finds it persuasive or not is another matter
I wonder if Professor Hawking is confusing mathematical models with reality?
I think that maybe perhaps he is.
Also, what happened to 'knowing the mind of God' , as promised in Brief History of Time ?
Will Professor Hawking announce next year that we can't really know the mind of God after all ?
Thanks to Marcus, I have retreated the summation of Professor Hawking’s argument regarding his recent announcement. I will be a long time trying to understand his proof for his position and the summation will not be enough for my review. What I find much more intriguing are the possibilities that his conclusion brings.
Where might we find his entire proof?
Separate names with a comma.