Michio Kaku Finds God?

#1
Didn't watch the video yet and article is very short, included below. Thread title is meant to be a little silly, but we'll add this to the growing list of ideas that somehow include "consciousness" as "fundamental".

Does anybody know anything more about his idea? How serious is all this? How would/could this "intelligence" factor into intelligent design (if at all)? What "tests" did he conduct?

And, reverse semi-radius tachyons ..... why didn't I think of that?

(Oh, do these tachyons travel faster than c? How will SR fit into this, if so?)

One of the most respected scientists of today says he has found evidence of the action of a force "that governs everything."

The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world.

To come to his conclusions, the physicist made use of what he calls “primitive semi – radius tachyons “.

Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe.

After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

“To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/
 
#2
Didn't watch the video yet and article is very short, included below. Thread title is meant to be a little silly, but we'll add this to the growing list of ideas that somehow include "consciousness" as "fundamental".

Does anybody know anything more about his idea? How serious is all this? How would/could this "intelligence" factor into intelligent design (if at all)? What "tests" did he conduct?

And, reverse semi-radius tachyons ..... why didn't I think of that?

(Oh, do these tachyons travel faster than c? How will SR fit into this, if so?)



http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/
It's far too early to comment one way or another. Wait for the peer reviews.
 
Last edited:
#3
Just finished a web search. His idea was mentioned back in 2013; that's been enough time for peer review. It's the first mention I could find. It seems no one with the chops has so there is likely nothing worth being reviewed. More time will tell though.

As for primitive semi – radius tachyons no matter what label you give or just regular ol' tachyons, there's absolutely no experimental evidence confirming either one's existence.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard Feynman
Mr. Kaku needs to find an experimentalist.
 
Last edited:
#4
Do you have a reference for where Kaku actually said these things? I don't really care for the guy, but the text you quoted sounds like newage gobbledygook. In the video that's on that page, he doesn't say anything like that at all.

Those quoted words to me sound like satire. I'd be willing to place a bet that Kaku never said anything similar to that.
 
#6
Half tongue-in-cheek, half not ;-)

I also thought the statements seemed a bit much for Kaku, even though he does go pretty far out on a limb at times. I was hoping some folks might know more about this.

The main reason for interest was this statement (supposedly from Kaku):


"Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore"

Aharanov, Tollaksen, Penrose, etc have all floated ideas about how time symmetry in quantum mechanics coupled with the free will loophole are what's behind the appearance of "chance" in quantum theory. Is this what Kaku is getting at? Aharanov/Tollaksen are supposed to be releasing a paper one day that shows (in a time symmetric framework) the only way the three mutually exclusive principles of free will, retrocausality and standard causation can simultaneously exist together is if nature appears probabilistic, as it does in QM. I've been watching for this paper for some time .. it's a long time coming. Anyhow, if Kaku has another view that backs this up, that would be quite interesting, especially via some mechanism (the reverse semi-radius tachyons?). Whatever Aharanov, et al. come up with, will still be mathematically equivalent to standard QM and therefore not as compelling to most, so a boost from Kaku would be great.

Then again, the article is so brief, the descriptions/statements so vague, it might mean something else altogether .... or, maybe Kaku never even said any of it. I can't find a reputable source on this anywhere. Maybe I will just email the man himself and ask :)
 
#7
Ive watched & read plenty of stuff from Kaku. He already once or twice talked about god, the afterlife and so on. He was always rather vague about it. Kinda doubtful to me that this passage that you linked there is really from him. He strikes me as way too smart to actually state stuff like that without a really good theory (Although he really likes to ramble about the most weird stuff, that is true). Theres also no evidence out there that he ever published any papers about this. Every reference on the internet seems to be from the very website that you linked Ethan.
Hes involved in string theory though, maybe the whole thing is coming from there. Who knows.
 
#8
That's pretty much exactly what I found searching around. The few things I've heard Kaku mention about God also don't really jive up with the quotes in the article from what I remember.

The String Theory thing was another weird part of this for me. From what I recall from the little String Theory I did study, I thought tachyons only show up in bosonic string theory (one of the earlier versions), which was abandoned and not considered to be a physically realizable model. (The tachyons were a result of instabilities in the theory, IIRC) So, if he is playing with tachyons, I'm not sure it would even be within a String theory framework.
 
#9
(Oh, do these tachyons travel faster than c? How will SR fit into this, if so?)
Well Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] will become imaginary, so if they have real mass at speed they have imaginary rest mass. Alternatively, the whole theory is imaginary, like I suspect about a lot of other modern theoretical physics!

David
 
#10
The main reason for interest was this statement (supposedly from Kaku):
I seriously doubt that Kaku said anything like that.


Aharanov/Tollaksen are supposed to be releasing a paper one day that shows (in a time symmetric framework) the only way the three mutually exclusive principles of free will, retrocausality and standard causation can simultaneously exist together is if nature appears probabilistic, as it does in QM.
I wonder how they'll define "free will," since the typical libertarian idea of it is incoherent.
 
#12
I seriously doubt that Kaku said anything like that.
I wouldn't find it surprising at all for him to talk about this in some fashion. One of the bigger mysteries any physicist would like to solve is why does nature appear probabilistic. That statement I quoted pretty much reflects the mindset of many physicists who were hoping for local hidden variable theories before Bell's theorem ruled them out. Einstein didn't think "chance" in physics made any sense at all and was hoping it would be an illusion due to our lack of knowledge, in an analogous fashion to the same epistemic problems seen in statistical mechanics.

The problem has never gone away, just tackled from different directions in a more modern fashion. Aharanov, Tollaksen et al, seem to be making the most progress on this issue today, as far as I can tell. I'm sure Kaku gives it some thought now and then ...

What I doubt is that Kaku actually came up with a theory that settles these issues in any definitive fashion, as the tone of that article makes it sound.


I wonder how they'll define "free will," since the typical libertarian idea of it is incoherent.
Exactly how it is always talked about in these situations ... being able to freely choose what you measure as a scientist, i.e. your choice in what to measure is not tied to, or effected by, any prior causal chain of events. Without this, not only would we not really be conducting science, our science could be full of crap and we would never even know it.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#13
I wouldn't find it surprising at all for him to talk about this in some fashion. One of the bigger mysteries any physicist would like to solve is why does nature appear probabilistic. That statement I quoted pretty much reflects the mindset of many physicists who were hoping for local hidden variable theories before Bell's theorem ruled them out. Einstein didn't think "chance" in physics made any sense at all and was hoping it would be an illusion due to our lack of knowledge, in an analogous fashion to the same epistemic problems seen in statistical mechanics.
Isn't it always acausal in some sense? Even if you went back to the Big Bang, you'd have some amount of constants that are simply arbitrary.

And if the "laws of physics" don't change, then every moment they don't is also arbitrary on some level?
 
#14
How so?

I know compatibilism is logically nonsense but I'm curious how free will - the real thing - is incoherent.
Isn't it always acausal in some sense? Even if you went back to the Big Bang, you'd have some amount of constants that are simply arbitrary.
Any event can either be caused by something, or it can randomly happen. Those are all the possibilities, and neither one is acausal (libertarian) free will. Even if you say that there is this immaterial consciousness out there somewhere, those statements would also apply to it.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#15
Any event can either be caused by something, or it can randomly happen. Those are all the possibilities, and neither one is acausal (libertarian) free will. Even if you say that there is this immaterial consciousness out there somewhere, those statements would also apply to it.
Ah, that old random/determinism canard. Already discussed.

Really compatibilism is incoherent, free will - the real kind - is definitely possible.
 
#16
Kaku has already discussed a universal consciousness in the past (when discussing how the observer effect works), something this -albeit a hyperbole- isn't that far. But, I do think that he values his job too much to come clean with any conclusions.
 
#17
Any event can either be caused by something, or it can randomly happen. Those are all the possibilities,
I have reviewed a lot of chemical processes over the years - and all had aspects of both deterministic and random variables. The basic idea of multiple chemical relations coming to a state of equilibrium - which can be dynamically balanced having potential for a tipping point in either direction - blows your thinking away. Choices happen where reality presents multiple but real-world probable situations. Mental simulations can map logical behavior and guide action all day long. Your idea of a clean clear reality is washed away - with a good look at empirical reality.
 
#18
I have seen Kaku speak in person, as he gave a Keynote address to a technical conference I regularly attend. He was a wonderfully clear in his logical lay-out of ideas. He is clearly brilliant, but as an outsider to our field his attempt at futurist predictions didn't impress many. He is very formal in his thinking and I wouldn't take anything he says about God in a context of any thing but "Einstein's mind of god".

One particular evening in 1929, the year he turned 50, captures Einstein’s middle-age deistic faith. He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition. Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.

At this point the host tried to silence him by invoking the fact that even Einstein harbored religious beliefs.

“It isn’t possible!” the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious.

“Yes, you can call it that,” Einstein replied calmly. “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.”
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/04/27/einstein-and-the-mind-of-god/3763
 
#20
I have seen Kaku speak in person, as he gave a Keynote address to a technical conference I regularly attend. He was a wonderfully clear in his logical lay-out of ideas. He is clearly brilliant, but as an outsider to our field his attempt at futurist predictions didn't impress many. He is very formal in his thinking and I wouldn't take anything he says about God in a context of any thing but "Einstein's mind of god".


http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/04/27/einstein-and-the-mind-of-god/3763
I read somewhere that Einstein actually didnt like the notion of a personal god. He was all for an universal, pantheistic god - that we are within god so to speak. The text that you posted there is pretty much going in the same direction.
 
Top