Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 4

300 IQ
The article is locked - can someone fix the 300 IQ nonsense at the bottom of the page? AFAIK, his has been *estimated* at 160, but without an explicit test, even this does not really belong on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.41.143 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 300 IQ? That's merely impossible! Where'd that come from? &mdash; Coasterge ekperson 04 ' s talk @Apr/05/09 05:50
 * From... sparta? Sorry, had to say it. --190.226.86.202 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment
And probably improper, but I can't help wondering why the heck he does not have a Nobel yet!! Mysterious to me 134.4.61.136 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nobel Committee requires a person's theories to be proved prior to winning the Nobel Prize. Luckily CERN could prove most of Hawking's theories true by the end of the year, so who knows perhaps 2009 will be his year. --99.254.176.37 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No disrepect to Hawking, but as Bill Bryson notes, longevity is pretty much a requisite for getting a Nobel Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) he is also know to communitcate very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.208.188 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth date signifigance
Excuse me, I do not have a Wikipedia acount and this page is locked, so I can not put this in myself. Can anyone who has an acount put this in for me? (this information comes from the Stephen Hawking website, www.hawking.org.uk)

Stephan hawking was born on the 300th aniversary of the death of the great astronomer, Galileo.

Thank You

--66.190.75.77 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done--Andy mci (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Most recent computer
I think that this section should not contain the "Most recent computer was recieved in 2007". It seems pointless as it becomes out of date every 8 - 12 months. SeanJA (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded --62.243.111.166 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

American Accent?
In the section 'Illness', the statement is made: The voice synthesizer, which has an American accent (...) In the section below, 'Computer', the statement is made: '''His computer was created by an American engineer. He once joked that his computer "had an American accent."'''

Is this the same issue that has been misunderstood one of the places? Is it a joke or not? Even if it is two different scenarios that just coincidentally mix up, it should be clarified somehow since it is a little disturbing to the sense of the text as a whole - I thought it clearly had the accent of a Thai hooker. --62.243.111.166 (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic/Atheist
I think that this two thinks isn't same.--Vojvodaeist 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An atheist and an agnostic are not the same. An atheist is someone who believes God doesn't exist, or they deny the existence of God. An agnostic is someone who believes the question of whether or not God exists to be unanswerable, or they personally do not have sufficient knowledge (or they believe there isn't sufficient knowledge) to come to a conclusion. Stephen Hawking wrote this regarding the big bang in his book A Briefer History of Time: "In the hot big bang model there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Moreover, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be close to the critical rate needed to avoid collapse. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us" (73). Does that sound like an atheist to you? 71.234.79.94 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, they are not the same. I will just give quick examples of possible things each would say:

Atheist: "There is no God". Agnostic: "I don't think anyone can say for sure whether there is a God or not, I don't know either way." Atheist agnostic/agnostic atheist: "I don't think it can be proved either way but personally I don't blelieve there is a God."

Hawking is a nothing, you could argue he was one thing or a multitude of things but they would always be biased conclusions until the day he says 'I dont/do believe in God', 'I am a Hindu', 'I am an agnostic' or w/e.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. If we dont have some kind of personal statement we cant make any conclusions about it. --Vojvodaeist 20:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. I wish more people on here would remember that. Othersider (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with the 3 previous editors. Until yer man actually comes out with it, can we get consensus on keeping the religion blank in the infobox, and making sure it is kept blank. I can't see any reason why a subsection of the article, with its corresponding inline citations (as per Wikipedia guidelines) shouldn't mention the different interpretations of his words and the resulting polemic, but that's not the same as a categorical claim in the infobox... Here's to consensus and common sense!--Technopat (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Whine
Just a random whining comment. Why the h--- has he not gotten a Nobel Prize in Physics yet? Look at the recent winners. You've GOT to be kidding me. They don't generally do posthumous Nobels, so time is running out. Just whining. Thanks for listening. Bigmac31 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Retirement
I was going to leave in the following:

and new applicants are being invited for 1st October 2009

But I was concerned it read to much like an ad, but if someone can word it better, feel free! GTMusashi (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Who the HELL is Joshua Adamson?
I met the name Joshua Adamson in the bio, and also two other bios, Tom Hanks and John Donne. Well, who the hell is that vampire, who was the life-long friend of men both in the 17. and in the 20. century, and about whom they wrote with the same sentence in each article?

I suggest it is a media hack. There is a Joshua Adamson, he edits the Urban Dictionary.com site. Also there is a science student Joshua, etc. Or maybe there is a bored teenager Joshua. Don't you think it is a very stupid way to advertise a name?

DJS (81.183.126.6 (talk)), 2008. 11. 29. —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

chump —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.53.219.20 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse claims
Why is there nothing in this article pertaining to the accusations that his second wife "emotionally and physically" abused him? I would have thought that was quite important? Thisnamestaken (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Discovery channel commercial
A citation for his apearance in a discovery channel commerical. http://www.splendad.com/ads/show/2145-Discovery-Channel-I-Love-the-World

209.89.222.58 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking Museum at El Salvador
this is the site of The Stephen Hawking Museum at El Salvador

http://www.museodecienciaselsalvador.org/museo/index.php

Please, anybody could add this to the article, Thanks a Lot

Slinbader (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC) L. Herrera

Verdict on God?
This article makes no mention about whether or not Stephen Hawking believes in a god. He concludes in his book A Brief History of Time that there is the possibility of a non-interventionist god that created the initial conditions and no longer intervenes in the universe. There should at least be a subsection that notes this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.12.217 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the answer to God and Hawking, relation to his concept of time-space constriction. He believed in rare intelligent life out there. At a George Washington University lecture in honour of NASA's 50th anniversary, Prof. Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life: "Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare." So this is his E=mc2 best quote, ever. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking wrote m this regarding the big bang in his book A Briefer History of Time: "In the hot big bang model there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Moreover, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be close to the critical rate needed to avoid collapse. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us" (73). Does that sound like an atheist to you? I'm not suggesting that he's a theist, but he's certainly no atheist. 71.234.79.94 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He is a atheist. In a South African interview when asked the question if he beliefed in an afterlife, he then replied that with a no and said he thinks that death is much like switching off a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.58.40 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to call you on this assertion. One) Proof-read your text. Two) I don't see a source. Three) Not everyone who believes in God also believes in an afterlife. Do some research on Deism.


 * Quite frankly, I don't think he has said he is either theistic or atheistic. Popular thought is that he is agnostic, but I've never seen anything official about his religious views. I also don’t see why it is such a huge deal with people. --75.106.177.22 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because he's very intelligent, and people like to identify with others like themselves. If he wants the world to know his specific theological stance, I'm sure he'll be able to get the word out.  Heh.  Othersider (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In "God, the Universe, & Everything Else", in the response to the question "Now 'God' of course means many things to many people. What sort of God are we talking about?", Stephen Hawking said "I use 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did." And Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, denying a personal God and saying "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." 80.235.56.123 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy wikipedia:verifiability with respect to living persons states "'Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles ... I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons'."


 * calling someone an atheist is not a negative thing, if anything it's positive 210.56.88.40 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In view of this I am removing the "religious stance: believer" which lacks an adequate citation and is in any respect far too vague.83.105.29.229 (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No source proves he's Atheist. From his own writings, it sounds like he's an Agnostic who, if there is a God, would believe in a Deist God. Armyrifle (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * People a person can only be a theist or an atheist for a given definition of God, it is a true dichotomy, if you make a positive claim or believe that there is a god then you are a theist for all other cases you are an atheist. That includes not knowing if there is or is not a god/s (weak Atheism) or making a positive claim or believing that there is no god/s (strong or explicit Atheism). An agnostic is a person who believes it is impossible to gain any knowledge to verify or disprove the existence of god/s. Therefore it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist ie. if you don't know if there is a god/s and believe that it is impossible to find out (agnostic weak atheist) or if you believe there is no god/s but also believe it is impossible to find out (agnostic strong atheist) - look up atheist in wikipedia.


 * Considering that Hawking has stated that he does not believe in a personal God he is a strong atheist (well closer to than weak atheism) to a personal god. however he may be a theist to a "God" that is defined as nature or the universe (ie. a pantheist, which is a type of theist just in case anyone was going to claim a violation to the true dichotomy). Considering that he stated that a deistic God may exist he is a weak atheist to a deistic God (because he does not make the positive claim or hold a positive belief that a deistic god exists)


 * Since Hawking has made statements that show his stance on all three positions it can be added to this article ie.
 * 1. Hawking is an atheist in respect to a personal god
 * 2. Hawking is a possible pantheist (or considering that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God and Hawking's eluded to believing in Einstein's God, we can safely say that Hawkins may believe in Spinoza's God)
 * 3. he is a weak atheist in respect to a deistic God


 * Supporting evidence (sourced from Wikiquote unless stated)


 * "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary". (doesn't really prove anything but is insightful)


 * "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" (possible theist or pantheist).


 * "We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There's not much personal about the laws of physics" (probable atheist to a personal God).


 * "With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator" (possible atheist, weak evidence though) - http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/stephen_hawking_god_religion.html.


 * "I use 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did." And Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, denying a personal God and saying "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - God, the Universe, & Everything Else (suggests pantheism and definitely an atheist to a personal God) (unverified by me sourced from above).


 * "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science,The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." (weak atheist to a deistic god) - http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE49U6E220081031?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews


 * I will not make any amendments to the article until there is some consensus, however i feel there is enough supporting evidence to state that he is an atheist to a personal god, a possible pantheist and a weak atheist to a deistic god.


 * feel free to add to or refute the quotes above, please consider context when adding quotes 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

In the book [Stephen Hawking by Kristine Larsen], it is stated that he is an atheist. The relevant paragraphs can be seen using Google books: [] [] --Robin (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science, The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." = How is this stating that he is a weak atheist? This looks VERY deist or some kind of theist/pantheist. I can't see an atheist saying "yeah, there's a God, just not one who interferes with people." Atheism is the lack of belief in God; as we can tell, he believes in some sort of diety, just not in the since of traditional religion. He has not stated that he does not believe in any God at all, rather, that his beliefs are more akin to Einstein's God. The Biography shown isn't really helpful, since Hawking himself has really told us nothing other than giving us a few subtle hints. The Biographer assumes that he is an atheist, as do quite a few, though many consider him agnostic and most would probably consider him a deist of sorts.98.198.83.12 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a tidbit, Hawking was asked by Sue Lawely if he believed in God, he stated "But you still have the question, why does the universe bother to exist?"(God, time and Stephen Hawking By David Wilkinson) http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html states that he denies atheism (while not stating that he is or is not just a theist), "Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism. One of the most famous and quoted statements in the book is, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"(pp. 140- 1)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.12 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think that classifying him as anything kind of defeats the purpose, since he himself has left it ambiguous. I think he'd prefer people to focus on his advances and scientific thought rather than "OH man, what/how does he believe/view God?" Really, I think adding any classification might be OR because of this ambiguity or some crazed troll will pop in here and shout NPOV violations. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This article can be organized better
This article can surely be organized better. There aren't that many sections right now, but it's a little bit too much for what relatively little information there is in this article. Does anyone want to give a stab at it? Gary King ( talk ) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'll give a stab at it myself as I've looked through the archives and found a few interesting ideas. Feel free to clean it up a bit further. Gary King  ( talk ) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Maynard
Superscript text Bold textItalic textjesse is hecos malecos if u do not like him he will be sad. give him money and you will feel iner peace. x   x   x    x   x    x

x        xSuperscript text xx    xx  xxxxxxx

if a book was written about a simple subject ect. a brick  wouldn't the information about the subject become as material as its subject? a 10 pound book full of information "data" of the 3 pound brick... the more data ,the heavier the book? the actual brick of course,remains its weight or size but the details of its material ,,,fill pages that multiply in mass,,in comparison to the subject itself  ect.the brick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.28.25 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

stephen hawking
this is a story on Stephen hawking, Stephen has lived the longest with moto neuron diseases and is still living today thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.243.114 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Zero-G
File:Physicist Stephen Hawking in Zero Gravity NASA.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.145.187 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I converted this fairly large image into a link to the image instead. Gary King  ( talk ) 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Laflamme listed twice
I am as big a fan of quantum computing as anybody, but Laflamme probably isn't twice as important as the rest of Hawking's students. His second entry in the "Doctoral Students" section should be removed.--Adam Wolbach (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Drieux 07:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drieux (talk • contribs)

Dead?
It has been reported on the BBC website that Stephen is "very ill" in hospital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8008767.stm

In no way has this said he is dead but, the Wiki page seems to suggest that he dies tomorrow. Do the writers know something that we don't? The page has been changed already, was a mistake made or do they really know the future? I managed to get a screen shot of the page as proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.223.1 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Like yourself, perhaps, spotted the news item about Hawking's illness and took a look at the article, only to find a date of death inserted for tomorrow. Is this some sort of edit-in-waiting? Poor taste, if it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.217.253 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just vandalism (reverted now), ignore it. Rror (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheist
Someone changed it to unknown despite both references explicitly saying atheist. I can't see any discussion of this change here - I would revert myself but lost password and page is protected atm. 77.102.173.23 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit as the notes indeed do point out atheism, "his steadfast atheism". Though there are other points as well but that should be covered in the main text..--Pudeo' 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove religious stance from infobox
... and describe any religious stances reported by various people in the article text? This would save the good faith edit-warring within the infobox. For example, in A, SH wrote X. In B, AB wrote that CD said IJK. And so on. 84user (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I second the motion. --Technopat (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

NS&I Advert
He's mentioned as being in other (much more menial, in my opinion, hence my commenting on this) television roles, but here in the UK he has been in an NS&I advert (www.nsandi.com I think) with a number of other people who "wouldn't sell themselves out to the highest bidder" and assumedly are doing the advert because they truly believe what they are saying (Germaine Greer for one). Should this be mentioned? 78.86.230.62 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection Level Appropriate?
Why has this article been protected since Jan? Looking back before that doesn't seem to indicate a level of ongoing vandalism that would require permanent protection. 134.131.125.49 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please update
"Professor Hawking is being kept in for observation at Addenbrooke's hospital this morning. He is comfortable and his family is looking forward to him making a full recovery." http://www.hawking.org.uk/ And in secondary sources: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=at8jpglxL_Og or http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/21/Physicist-Hawking-expected-to-recover/UPI-36131240326016/--212.129.82.74 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous longevity
"While only 5% of people with ALS survive for more than 10 years, Stephen has lived with the condition for over 40 decades." He has lived over 40 years, or over 4 decades, but not over 40 decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.23.104 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lmao! --91.105.109.179 (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)