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?

Improve this question
35
  • 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 8, 2016 at 17:09
  • 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 8, 2016 at 17:20
  • 2
    No mention on his Twitter account or his personal site that I can see.
    – Oddthinking ♦
    Jun 8, 2016 at 17:21
  • 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 8, 2016 at 17:28
  • 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 9, 2016 at 13:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
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.
Improve this answer
14
  • 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, 2016 at 14:22
  • @RK. Which still means that they have no source for their claim.
    – called2voyage
    Jun 14, 2016 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, 2016 at 15:12
  • 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, 2016 at 16:22
  • 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, 2016 at 16:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .