The Theory of Everything

[Alatar]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict a Best Actor nomination for Eddie Redmayne based on trailers alone. This looks absolutely stunning.



And he also gets the stamp of approval from the most important man of all.

“I thought Eddie Redmayne portrayed me very well”, “at times, I thought he was me.”

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/watch-step ... 44887.html

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's a pretty impressive endorsement!

[Primula Baggins]

This is on my must-see list.

And from what I've seen of various Oscar nomination predictions, Eddie Redmayne is first on the list, essentially certain to be nominated.

[Inanna]

He also said to Hawking (the one and only time he met him) - both of us are capricorns. To which Hawking, painstakingly, taking 8 minutes replied - I am an astronomer, not an astrologer.

Personally, I would like to slap Redmayne for that remark.


---------------
Sent with elvish telepathic powers with a dashed line above to make Jude happy.

[Alatar]

Personally, I wouldn't be so hard on him. What do you say to one of the greatest minds of our time? Anything is inane. I'm sure Redmayne was perfectly aware of the difference between an astronomer and an astrologer. He was just making conversation. Which of us hasn't blurted out something stupid under pressure?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I very much agree with Al. In all likelihood, Redmayne was trying to make a joke, or just awkward small talk. Obviously he knows the difference between astrology and astronomy. I would very much guess (though I don't know) that that exchange took place before Hawking saw a screening of the film, and I suspect he might regret being quite so harsh with him.

[JewelSong]

It's possible that Hawking was also making a joke. He apparently has quite a sense of humor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tru dat.

[Inanna]

And maybe hawking really was annoyed, and does not regret saying it at all.

It is not a reflection of how well Redmayne acted in his role as Hawking - where the challenges are not to depict stephen's opinion of astrologers and the dissemination of science amongst the public but his physical condition. So Redmayne could easily not dig science, but play Stephen very well.
.
We don't want to believe that though. Hence the defense of his actions on


---------------
Sent with elvish telepathic powers with a dashed line above to make Jude happy.

[Inanna]

And maybe hawking really was annoyed, and does not regret saying it at all.

It is not a reflection of how well Redmayne acted in his role as Hawking - where the challenges are not to depict stephen's opinion of astrologers and the dissemination of science amongst the public but his physical condition. So Redmayne could easily not dig science, but play Stephen very well.
.
We don't want to believe that though. Hence the defense of his actions on


---------------
Sent with elvish telepathic powers with a dashed line above to make Jude happy.

[Frelga]

I thought it was more of a defense of Hawking's rudeness.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Sounds like a harmless little joke from Redmayne (and Hawking may have well been joking as well).

In any event, the universe may contain more dimensions than we are aware of (if theoretical frameworks like string theory pan out) and even far more than one universe. If the big bang was actually the creation of a hyper-advanced civilization in another universe, who's to say they didn't have a sense of humor as well - programming some absurd properties into the experiment that included an odd correlation between the future orbits and spin of planets, and the characteristics of future life forms on those planets?

[Primula Baggins]

Gahhhh! Not falsifiable, and therefore irrelevant.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Some astrological claims can actually be falsified. And a few scholars have attempted to do so. And so far, the claims that have been tested have turned out to be generally false. So astrology has already failed some scientific scrutiny.

And of course, my scenario above was not particularly serious. Hence the smiley. But I will say that the non-falsifiability of something does not make it generally irrelevant. It simply makes it not subject to scientific scrutiny at the moment, and therefore only irrelevant to the scientific method for the time being.

But of course, there have been a number of hypotheses and theories throughout history that were once non-falsifiable (due to the limitations of knowledge and technology), but through the further development of knowledge and technology, eventually became falsifiable (such as, say, the existence of atoms). So in that sense, a hypothesis that is non-falsifiable at the moment is not irrelevant to science in general. In fact, such hypotheses can spur a plethora of prerequisite studies and technological developments (just as the science fiction of the past has spurred researchers to discover, test and develop, as will the science fiction of today).

My insane hypothesis, of course, requires a whole host of prerequisite discoveries. First, scientists have not yet been able to peer into the time before the big bang (and human scientists may indeed never be able to do so). But there are legions of physicists, etc. who want to do so, and that desire alone may drive us toward doing so. Second, dimensions beyond the 4th (and the existence of a multi-verse) are still just mathematical possibilities, and not observed realities. But there are experimental physicists who are driven by a desire to observe those realities (many of whom are associated with CERN or Fermilab). Third, the nature of our universe is still an open question, and will be until we reconcile quantum physics and relativity. It may be impossible to determine what, or who, is responsible for the creation of the universe until we fully understand what it is. And lastly, we have of course found no evidence to suggest that there's a statistically-significant correlation between the month and day of a human being's birth, and their psychological profile. So choosing this area of study right now is probably not a promising career move.

But the point is that science fiction, and non-falsifiable hypotheses, are not irrelevant at all (provided that they don't contradict already-established laws of physics). They are the imaginative core that drives scientific inquiry. To dismiss it is to dismiss the fuel that drives the engine of that inquiry. The method of science, both experimental and theoretical, is not all science is. Science is a human endeavor bound up with the imagination, and the method is just our way of testing whether or not we're on the right track. It's a tool, not the whole project.

Frankly, I've found there to be a very frustrating dynamic between experimental and theoretical scientists. The former, in particular, seem to often be unable to lift their heads from the underbrush in order to appreciate the driving force that theory (and even mere speculation) has on the scientific process. While the latter can sometimes be too willing to ignore experimental results for as long as possible, if it seems that those experiments are poking holes in their pet theories. However, I feel that the experimentalists can often be the more closed-minded of the two groups (often, not always, as there are a large number of exceptions on both sides).

In that context, the most I can say to experimentalists (and some theorists) who sniff at anything that cannot yet be tested is that the seemingly wild speculation of the past has, on some occasions, become the accepted reality of the present. Because of that, try to keep your mind open to the many rays of reality that may, or may not, be true. Including the possibility that the big bang was the result of an extra-universal experiment by some bored extra-universal experimental scientists!

[Alatar]

It is not a reflection of how well Redmayne acted in his role as Hawking - where the challenges are not to depict stephen's opinion of astrologers and the dissemination of science amongst the public but his physical condition. So Redmayne could easily not dig science, but play Stephen very well.

There's far more challenge in playing Stephen Hawking than replicating his physical condition. He need to get inside his head, understand his frustrations, his beliefs, his ambition. It would be impossible to do that without appreciating Hawkings love of astrophysics. Redmayne doesn't have to "dig science" to play Hawking, but he has to understand the mind that does in order to get under the skin and really inhabit the role.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that Redmayne doesn't "dig science." If we ourselves "dig science," then we should need far more than one quote of his (particularly one that seems humorous) to determine, with certainty, that he doesn't "dig" it.

[Inanna]

It is not a reflection of how well Redmayne acted in his role as Hawking - where the challenges are not to depict stephen's opinion of astrologers and the dissemination of science amongst the public but his physical condition. So Redmayne could easily not dig science, but play Stephen very well.

There's far more challenge in playing Stephen Hawking than replicating his physical condition. He need to get inside his head, understand his frustrations, his beliefs, his ambition. It would be impossible to do that without appreciating Hawkings love of astrophysics. Redmayne doesn't have to "dig science" to play Hawking, but he has to understand the mind that does in order to get under the skin and really inhabit the role.

That was my perception definitely. Which is why I think I was so taken aback with the Capricorn quote. The prevalence of astrology vs science in American society is something scientists like Hawking, Carl Sagan have been very vocal about - negatively.

Shrug. It's hardly a big deal. Just got into my skin. Who am I to judge anyone on their beliefs? I hold enough contradictory beliefs as it is.


---------------
Sent with elvish telepathic powers with a dashed line above to make Jude happy.

[Alatar]

I see where you're coming from, but both Redmayne and Hawking are English, and the Astrology thing isn't really taken seriously over here.

ETA: I decided to look up the story. Sounds like a mountain out of a molehill. Comedy banter and small talk.

Eddie Redmayne Recalls Meeting Stephen Hawking, Telling Him, "We're Both Capricorns"—Check Out His Reply
by Corinne Heller Thu., Sep. 18, 2014 10:19 AM PDT

Eddie Redmayne had what sounds like a rather awkward first meeting with Stephen Hawking, who he plays in the new film The Theory of Everything.

The 32-year-old British actor recalled in an interview with M magazine, which features him on the cover of its Fall 2014 issue, trying to find something to discuss with the 72-year-old world-renowned physicist, who suffers from a motor neuron disease, is confined to a wheelchair and communicates with a voice box. The topics of conversation included, well, Hawking.

"Here I was, filling the air, telling him about himself," Redmayne said. "I was a nervous wreck. He was laughing a lot. I couldn't tell if it was with me or at me. Probably a bit of both."

And then the actor began to talk about something very far away from science.

"He makes a big point in his books that he was born on the eighth of January, which is the date of Galileo's death," Redmayne told M. "I said, ‘You're the eighth, and I was actually born on the sixth of January, so we're both Capricorns.' Long pause, and then the famous computerized voice: 'I'm an astronomer, not an astrologer,' Hawking said."

"I thought, 'Holy s--t. Stephen Hawking thinks the actor who's playing him thinks he's Mystic Meg or Shelley von Strunckel," he said, naming two astrologers.

The actor also told M he was "riddled with fear" about playing the "extraordinary man" and "living icon" in The Theory of Everything. He said he spent several months visiting a motor neuron disease clinic to prepare for his role.

"And then you feel a responsibility to the science and a need to find the emotional truth of what happened between these people," he said. "All of these things were pretty challenging, and I was fueled with fear from the word go."

[Impenitent]

As you say, Alatar, mountain out of a molehill. I figured it for nervous banter. Better than being struck dumb (which would have been me!)

[Inanna]

Hey, where did my post from tapatalk go?

I was agreeing with Al too. Now I can just agree with Impish.