17

This Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies article claims that Michio Kaku, a renowned theoretical physicist and science populariser, has found definitive proof that God exists.

It claims Kaku has developed a theory using "primitive semi-radius tachyons" to prove that we live in a "Matrix".

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.”

The article links to this Big Think video, where he doesn't make these claims (but talks about the "Mind of God", presumably as a metaphor.)

Did Michio Kaku claim this? Has he published a paper? Does he have definitive proof God exists?

Community
  • 1
RK.
  • 279
  • 2
  • 8
  • This still has the problem that "proof of God's existence" may be interpreted in a way contrary to Kaku's use of "God", if he used that term. – called2voyage Jun 08 '16 at 16:59
  • One statement of Kaku on "God": "...But you see, all this is pure mathematics, and so the final resolution could be that God...is a mathematician. And, when you read the mind of God, we actually have a candidate for the mind of God. The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings, resonating through eleven-dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God." – called2voyage Jun 08 '16 at 17:07
  • And also: "The Universe would be a symphony of these vibrating strings and the mind of God that Einstein wrote about at length would be cosmic music resonating through this nirvana… through this 11 dimensional hyperspace—that would be the mind of God. We physicists are the only scientists who can say the word “God” and not blush. " – called2voyage Jun 08 '16 at 17:08
  • 3
    What is this "mind of God" of Einstein's that Kaku refers to? From Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 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." – called2voyage Jun 08 '16 at 17:09
  • @called2voyage So are you saying, he does use the word "God" as a label for the mathematical underpinnings of physics, but doesn't attempt to argue or prove the existence of any god in the sense of a theological creator being and moral arbiter? If so that based on those quotes sounds like an answer – user56reinstatemonica8 Jun 08 '16 at 17:12
  • @user568458 It would, but it also seems that the OP wants to know if the alleged tests that Kaku conducted were actually conducted. It may be that they were, and that Kaku claims they did have positive results, but it would still not be "proof of God" *per se*. – called2voyage Jun 08 '16 at 17:14
  • 5
    We have a discrepancy between the claims made in the video (about the "Mind of God", which presumably in the sense that Einstein used such terms as a euphemism for the laws of nature) and the claims made in the article text (about "Matrix" and an intelligent creator). The first goal should be to figure if Kaku ever made the claims ascribed to him. – Oddthinking Jun 08 '16 at 17:20
  • 2
    No mention on [his Twitter account](https://twitter.com/michiokaku) or [his personal site](http://mkaku.org/) that I can see. – Oddthinking Jun 08 '16 at 17:21
  • @Oddthinking Note: Even the quote in the OP doesn't directly say a world created by an intelligence, but a world created by rules created by an intelligence. Given that Kaku is also investigating theories of consciousness, it is possible that he is inclined to believe in a form of panpsychism--that is an intelligence emerging from the sum of the Universe--very different from the traditional creator God. – called2voyage Jun 08 '16 at 17:26
  • 2
    Or given the Matrix reference, perhaps he believes in a group of programmers who designed a simulation that produced our world as it is today. Also different from the traditional creator God. – called2voyage Jun 08 '16 at 17:28
  • Earliest post on this I could find (2013) is https://mysticablog.wordpress.com/tag/theoretical-physics/ ... its source is a link to bubblews, no longer on-line. – GEdgar Jun 08 '16 at 17:29
  • 8
    He analysed tachyons? How? They're not known to exist and are only theoretically possible due to a loophole in relativity (it doesn't say it's impossible for a particle to be travelling faster than light at the moment of its creation). If he's discovered tachyons and can prove it then that alone is nobel prize material. – GordonM Jun 09 '16 at 13:41
  • 1
    Exactly. The claim sounds outrageously dubious at best. – RK. Jun 09 '16 at 15:21
  • @GEdgar Google says that the AGEAC page linked to in the OP is from the same date as that blog post: December 20, 2013. The bubblews link is from the same date as well. It seems this claim all goes back to that date when the AGEAC first made the claim. Seems like they just made it up. – called2voyage Jun 09 '16 at 21:43
  • Here is the original post from BubbleNews: http://web.archive.org/web/20131216044300/http://www.bubblews.com/news/1721703-scientist-finds-evidence-of-the-existence-of-god It was posted by Franck Parra: http://web.archive.org/web/20131209110407/http://www.bubblews.com/account/112823-franckparra I can't find any substantiation of the quotes attributed to Michio Kaku: the only hits for them are based on this post. It is of course possible that the quotes aren't exact (the writer's English isn't great). – stevek_mcc Jun 10 '16 at 00:06
  • Here is a collection of sites mentioning it. Not one of them has any reference except that video. I did find a forum, and none of them could find anything. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/michio-kaku-finds-god.3275/ Essentially everyone says "from http://ageac.org" - and they just have that video. – Tim Jun 10 '16 at 01:57
  • Here's something to try- Google "semi-radius" in quotes. You will find this claim and some door things. Not a mathematical term. – PointlessSpike Jun 10 '16 at 08:13
  • Hey all. This discussion about the merits of the purported proof should be in [chat], if anywhere. The question is *whether* Mr. Kaku claims he has found proof of God. –  Jun 10 '16 at 14:18
  • It's going to be hard to get an answer to this that can be objectively accepted by everyone, but [here is a recent video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBB2qHgZvLY) where Kaku explains his opinions on God (and Einstein's opinions, from his perspective). Given what he says here about "God" being a way to see the elegance of the universe, it doesn't sound to me like something coming from a guy who thinks he has proved the existence of God. However, the views he states in the video are not directly in conflict with the quoted information in the OP. It seems only Kaku could tell us for sure. – called2voyage Jun 10 '16 at 21:12
  • @called2voyage I would not say a 5 year old video is "recent". – Tim Jun 12 '16 at 04:12
  • @called2voyage Hu? The article was published 2012 wasn't it? – Tim Jun 12 '16 at 15:13
  • The Australian News Network has posted an article about this 11 hours ago: http://www.australianetworknews.com/scientist-michio-kaku-finally-proves-god-exist/ However, it cites the AGEAC article this question is about. – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 14:54
  • I've found a reference on Quora from 2015: https://www.quora.com/Michio-Kaku-arguably-one-of-the-smartest-people-alive-has-publicly-stated-that-he-believes-in-a-God-who-created-the-universe-What-do-others-think-of-this-mans-statement – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 15:25
  • This ultimately boils down to Michio Kaku's equation from string field theory as linked in my answer below. The answer is far from being settled because there exists no evidence for string theory, not to mention the fact that we do not possess the technology to verify or test any of the claims made in string theory, as of now. – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 15:32
  • No, it doesn't. We're disputing the claim that Michio Kaku has found evidence of God, has used "primitive semi-radius tachyons" to do so, proved that we live in a "Matrix", etc. – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 15:46
  • @RK. The Quora asker does not state where they heard it from--it could be from the same source. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 16:08
  • @RK: Michio Kaku stated in the video linked in your OP as well as in many others many sources linked here regarding the mind of God, which (as Oddthinking) correctly pointed out is the euphemism for nature's laws or the law of Harmony (or God of Spinoza) as he stated explicitly in one of his videos. I am pretty sure this "primitive semi-radius tachyons" is from a fringe source. – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 17:13
  • @called2voyage Yes, but the thread proves the claim has existed before June 8th, which is when most references seem to have appeared. – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 17:32
  • 1
    I have done my masters in physics, I have read many physics books and papers. Nowhere did I encounter any term even closely resembling "primitive semi-radius tachyons". Tachyons were proposed by George E. Sudarshan. Here is a [semi-technical paper](http://pages.erau.edu/~reynodb2/hon250/Sudarshan_Tachyons_PT1969.pdf) on the same from Physics Today. – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 17:33
  • @JanusBoffin We're not talking about the "mind of God" metaphor as explained by Kaku in the BigThink video, we're talking about whether he has found evidence of God, no metaphors included. – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 17:34
  • @RK.: I understand that well enough. He has not. He has published no paper in this regard and neither has he said anything of this sort anywhere. He is another [source](http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14864). – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 17:37
  • In that case, can you please revise your answer to include a veritable proof of that (preferably without speculation). It's impossible that the source of the claim is the Catholic Online article you cited, because there are many articles made before it about this topic. – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 17:42
  • I found an older article: https://mysticablog.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/scientist-finds-evidence-of-the-existence-of-god/ citing bubblews: http://web.archive.org/web/20140419050310/http://www.bubblews.com/news/1721703-scientist-finds-evidence-of-the-existence-of-god Whose article was made in April 2014. – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 17:42
  • What I meant by [this comment of mine](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/34234/does-michio-kaku-claim-he-has-found-proof-of-gods-existence#comment128212_34234) is that AGEAC and Catholic Online and others (or whoever conjured this dubious claim saying Michio Kaku said so) took Kaku's claim of "mind of God" aka "Spinoza's God", "String theory", "one inch long equation" and all other statements of Kaku, mashed them up and came with a sensationalist headline and spurious article to get attention. – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 17:44
  • I think so too, and I just found this blog post: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14864 citing this article in Spanish: http://www.eliax.com/index.cfm?post_id=10851 which when translated (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eliax.com%2Findex.cfm%3Fpost_id%3D10851) does not cite any sources, but claims it is a hoax. – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 17:49

1 Answers1

1

It claims Kaku has developed a theory using "primitive semi-radius tachyons" to prove that we live in a "Matrix".

The source of the claim is this news article from Catholic Online where, surprisingly, the author failed to cite any tenable source to the claims made by Michio Kaku as per the news article. Not to mention that the article is spurious. What Kaku meant/referred to in the Big Think video linked above in the OP as well as one of the comments, refers to the equation in this video. An explanation can be found at this link from Quora.

I think what Kaku meant by the "Matrix" and simulation argument (provided he did say and/or meant so), can be traced back to the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate held at American Museum of Natural History where Neil deGrasse Tyson was the moderator. It featured many distinguished physicists, for example, Lisa Randall and Max Tegmark. A report on the same can be found at this article from Scientific American. Many physicists do not believe in the simulation argument, for example; Sabine Hossenfelder and Luboš Motl.

Edit: Here are few more sources of the same claim that Michio Kaku has a proof that God exists:

  1. Christian Today -- (Author of this article explicitly stated that; "The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician," Kaku said in a YouTube video. "The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.")
  2. Christian Headlines -- (Links back to the article from Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies)

Here are links to some articles and statements which debunks the claim of "Proof of God":

  1. Article from Jay L. Wile's Blog who earned his Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry from the University of Rochester.
  2. A statement from a notable criticizer of String Theory, Peter Woit, regarding "primitive semi-radius tachyons". He is a Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia University and also the author of the blog. The article linked in his comment links back to the same thoughts and URLs expressed in my answer regarding the simulation argument.
Janus Boffin
  • 517
  • 4
  • 9
  • 1
    That article was posted on June 8th, and the AGEAC article existed before or including June 8th, so at best the articles were made on the same day. Otherwise, if anything, the Catholic Online article can be traced back to the AGEAC article! – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 14:22
  • @RK. Which still means that they have no source for their claim. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 14:50
  • The nature of Skeptics.SE forces us to accept that the onus of proof is on the answerer. This is a reversal of the normal situation, and makes some questions effectively unanswerable, but if the original claimant provided high-quality evidence for their claims there would be no need for this site. – Oddthinking Jun 14 '16 at 15:12
  • @Oddthinking: That is exactly why I cited all the aforementioned URLs in my answer. I found no evidence from Michio Kaku's personal page, website, twitter account that he claimed anything of the sort as stated in the OP except for the AGEAC site and Catholic Online website. – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 15:17
  • http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/34234/does-michio-kaku-claim-he-has-found-proof-of-gods-existence/34293?noredirect=1#comment128189_34234 – RK. Jun 14 '16 at 15:25
  • @JanusBoffin: While I suspect you are right, showing that there is no evidence for a claim [e.g. that Kaku said something] is tricky here. Just because *you* couldn't find it isn't enough. One solution for this conundrum we have used in the past is to quote an expert in the field who has looked and found no evidence. It is an appeal to authority, which is limited in power, but it is the best we can do to prove he never said something. – Oddthinking Jun 14 '16 at 16:18
  • Although, a simple denial from him would do wonders. I found a Reddit AMA by him a few years ago, and thought surely someone has asked him about it, but alas no. – Oddthinking Jun 14 '16 at 16:19
  • @Oddthinking From my observation, Kaku is very careful not to say anything explicitly affirming/denying religion. When asked about God he talks about God in the terms I quoted in my comments on the question. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 16:21
  • 1
    @Oddthinking However, it would help if we could at least get Kaku to say something like "primitive semi-radius tachyons...what are those?" – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 16:22
  • @called2voyage: I don't expect him to say "There is no God," but a simple "No, I never said I had proved that God existed, mathematically nor physically." – Oddthinking Jun 14 '16 at 16:32
  • 2
    @Oddthinking Then what do you do if Kaku responds with "Maybe 'proved' is a strong word." It doesn't answer one way or the other. That is the type of response I am saying that he tends to give to these things. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 16:33
  • @Oddthinking: I presume you are familiar with Russell's teapot. However, if you sincerely believe that Michio Kaku has said anything of this order and if the onus at Skeptics.SE comes to us, then sure. I found no paper from him at arXiv.org where he made any claim of this sort. However, if you think of my claim as an anecdotal evidence, you or anybody from this forum are free to check the papers of his at arXiv and many other scientific journals. The mind of god here, as stated in the linked sources, are simulation argument which is akin to the brain in a vat argument. – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 17:17
  • Also, here is a same question (of sorts) at Physics.SE: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262329/36574 – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 17:22
  • Here is the Google Scholar [result](https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&q=primitive+semi-radius+tachyons&btnG=) of "primitive semi-radius tachyon" – Janus Boffin Jun 14 '16 at 17:26