Stephen Hawking citáty

page 2

My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all. (en)
Prisudzované výroky

Prisudzované výroky

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. (en)
Prisudzované výroky
Varianta: Najväčším nepriateľom poznania nie je ignorancia, je ním ilúzia poznania.

en
Varianta: Takže Einstein sa mýlil, keď povedal „Boh nehrá kocky.“ Uvažovanie o čiernych dierach nasvedčuje, že Boh nielenže hrá kocky, ale občas ich hádže aj tam, kde ich nikto nemôže vidieť.

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was able to reason. (en)
Prisudzované výroky

Uvažovanie o čiernych dierach nasvedčuje, že Boh nielenže hrá kocky, ale občas ich hádže aj tam, kde ich nikto nemôže vidieť.
So Einstein was wrong when he said "God does not play dice". Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. (en)
Hawkingova reakcia na Einsteinov výrok „Boh nehrá kocky.“ v Information Loss in Black Holes, Júl 2005
Potvrdené výroky

"Colonies in space may be only hope, says Hawking" by Roger Highfield in Daily Telegraph (16 October 2001).

During the same 1994 exchange with Penrose as the previous quote, transcribed in The Nature of Space and Time (1996) by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, p. 26 http://books.google.com/books?id=LstaQTXP65cC&lpg=PA26&dq=hawking%20%22where%20they%20can't%20be%20seen%22&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q=&f=false and also in "The Nature of Space and Time" (online text) http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409195
Unsourced variants: Not only does God play dice with the Universe; he sometimes casts them where they can't be seen.
Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.
Varianta: So Einstein was wrong when he said "God does not play dice". Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.

Foreword to The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence Krauss (2007), p. xiii http://books.google.com/books?id=NEhSpZFWiBMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PR13#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also quoted in "Stephen Hawking warns over making contact with aliens" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm at BBC News (25 April 2010).
Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking (2010)
Kontext: If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans. … We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet.

From the lecture Life in the Universe http://hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65 (1996)

Zdroj: A Brief History of Time

Zdroj: A Brief History of Time

Zdroj: A Brief History of Time

Zdroj: A Brief History of Time (1988), Ch. 1
Kontext: It has certainly been true in the past that what we call intelligence and scientific discovery have conveyed a survival advantage. It is not so clear that this is still the case: our scientific discoveries may well destroy us all, and even if they don’t, a complete unified theory may not make much difference to our chances of survival. However, provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid also in our search for a complete unified theory, and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions.

Science Watch (September 1994)
Kontext: I don't believe that the ultimate theory will come by steady work along existing lines. We need something new. We can't predict what that will be or when we will find it because if we knew that, we would have found it already! It could come in the next 20 years, but we might never find it.

Zdroj: A Brief History of Time (1988), Ch. 1
Kontext: Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

Zdroj: A Brief History of Time (1988), Ch. 11
Kontext: As I shall describe, the prospects for finding such a theory seem to be much better now because we know so much more about the universe. But we must beware of overconfidence - we have had false dawns before! At the beginning of this century, for example, it was thought that everything could be explained in terms of the properties of continuous matter, such as elasticity and heat conduction. The discovery of atomic structure and the uncertainty principle put an emphatic end to that. Then again, in 1928, physicist and Nobel Prize winner Max Born told a group of visitors to Gottingen University, "Physics, as we know it, will be over in six months." His confidence was based on the recent discovery by Dirac of the equation that governed the electron. It was thought that a similar equation would govern the proton, which was the only other particle known at the time, and that would be the end of theoretical physics. However, the discovery of the neutron and of nuclear forces knocked that one on the head too. Having said this, I still believe there are grounds for cautious optimism that we may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature.

"The Quantum State of the Universe", Nuclear Physics (1984) <!-- B239, p. 258 -->
Kontext: Many people would claim that the boundary conditions are not part of physics but belong to metaphysics or religion. They would claim that nature had complete freedom to start the universe off any way it wanted. That may be so, but it could also have made it evolve in a completely arbitrary and random manner. Yet all the evidence is that it evolves in a regular way according to certain laws. It would therefore seem reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the boundary conditions.

As quoted in "The Science of Second-Guessing", The New York Times (12 December 2004)
Unsourced variant: "When one's expectations are reduced to zero, one really appreciates everything one does have."

Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking (2010)

Interview with Diane Sawyer, as quoted in "Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win'" on ABC World News (7 June 2010) http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164

Zdroj: A Brief History of Time

Zdroj: Sigan Ŭn Hangsang Mirae Ro Hŭrŭnŭnʼga: Hokʻing Paksa Ŭi Chaemi Innŭn Chʻoesin Ujuron

Interview on Israeli television, as quoted in "Happy 65th Birthday to Prof. Stephen Hawking!" at StarTrek.com (8 January 2007) http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/37695.html

Zdroj: The Grand Design

Zdroj: Black Holes and Baby Universes

Zdroj: The Grand Design