While most children are studying algebra and defeating video game bosses, 11-year-old William Maillisis is shooting for something much grander: disputing the theory of Stephen Hawking.
It seems improbable, perhaps even farcical, but this young wunderkind is not merely another gifted youngster with grand ambitions.
He’s the real deal, an intellect with an increasing reputation among experts and pedagogues for the power of understanding concepts beyond the comprehension of most adults. And what this kid is doing now may spark one of the most interesting disputes of the modern scientific era.
Central to the question is the uncomplicated but audacious question: Could Stephen Hawking have been mistaken concerning God?
The Boy Who Defied a Legend
The prodigy became enthralled by the secrets of the universe whenever he was able to read. When the rest of the children of his caliber were memorizing the multiplication charts, he was reading works on quantum physics, black holes, and the beginning of life.
His parents, both scientists, quickly realized they weren’t raising an ordinary child.
“He would ask questions about time and gravity that made us pause,” one family friend reportedly said. “Then he’d come back with his own answers that sounded like something straight out of a university lecture.”
By 14, the teenage boy had already gobbled up Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design, the book where Hawking famously pronounced God unnecessary to the job of unlocking the mysteries of how the universe came to be.
Instead, Hawking theorized, the laws of physics were equal to the job of describing creation. The universe, in short, was capable of summoning itself into being “from nothing.”
But rather than embrace that conclusion, the boy started to speculate, what if Hawking’s “nothingness” was nothing of the kind? What if, among those laws of physics, there was something… or someone?
Returning to Hawking’s Picture of an Atheist Universe
Stephen Hawking’s thoughts revolutionized cosmology and the nature of life. His groundbreaking works on black holes, the Big Bang, and the mysteries of quantum gravity earned him legendary acclaim among the world of scientists.
By far his most contentious of the big ideas, though, wasn’t tied to stars or singularities, but the nature of the Almighty.
Bleeding the word “God,” Hawking wrote in The Grand Design that because gravity exists, the universe can and will bring itself into existence out of nothing.
For Hawking, spontaneous creation is the explanation proposed by modern cosmology for the origin of the universe. For Hawking, it wasn’t necessary to invoke God; the laws of physics could speak for themselves.
It was an elegant, rational case, and for most, profoundly disturbing.
Since the universe doesn’t have to have a creator, what does this reveal about all the religious systems founded upon the concept of one?
The debate Hawking ignited raged for years. Scientists applauded the elegance of his reasoning, while theologians accused him of reducing life to numbers and formulas. Yet through it all, his core message stood firm: science alone is enough.
Until now.
The 11-Year-Old’s Counter-Theory
The challenge of the boy prodigy isn’t built upon sentiment or blind faith; it’s built upon physics, reason, and in between. His theory postulates that the laws of the universe and the concept of divine intelligence aren’t incompatible. They actually might be the same.
As far as he goes, Hawking was correct on this point: the laws of physics reign supreme over the universe. However, those laws did not spring into existence on their own, but are the result of something higher.
That “something” may be the power of the divine, which people have always felt, even though they were unable to define it.
In his own terms (spoken during a science fair presentation which sent the judges into shock), if physics describes the way the universe behaves, then consciousness answers the question of why. The universe doesn’t obey laws; it reacts to them.
It suggests an imaginative alternative where the deity isn’t some far-off “creator” looking on from beyond but an intelligent consciousness inherent within the universe, constructing and sustaining it from within. It’s a bold concept.
But somehow it’s compatible, too, with new lines of thought in quantum physics, particularly those probing the role of consciousness in creating reality.
Where Science Meets Spirituality
Science and Spirit have long been awkward neighbors. One demands evidence, the other, faith. But as the technology gets better and the understanding gets greater, the line between the two has come to blur.
Quantum mechanics, for instance, has already revealed observation, the mere act of awareness, to have the power to influence the results of physical experiments.
Stranger yet, the peculiar fact has caused some scientists to speculate upon the question of whether consciousness itself has a role to play in the nature of reality. It’s just the type of territory the theory of the boy covers.
He posits the universe as not just a cold, mechanical system but as a living, responsive organism, subject to physics, yes, but to an underlying intelligence too.
He doesn’t say this intelligence works towards any religious idea of God, but believes it serves the same purpose: an ordering principle, a conscious will behind the equations.
Technically, his theory posits the inherent intertwining of science and the spiritual. Science tells us how the universe works. Spirituality wonders why. Both, he says, are incomplete without the other.
New Views on an Old Controversy
The clash between religion and science has been around since Galileo was brave enough to aim his telescope at the heavens and challenge church doctrine. But the 21st century has given it a new shape that has little to do with confrontation and much to do with inclusiveness.
Boy’s thesis isn’t seeking to topple science. He does embrace it. He merely doesn’t believe the solution to every question on the mind is offered by science. Consciousness, morality, emotion, and creativity are all pointers to something outside the equation.
It mirrors an opinion once shared by a few of the most renowned physicists, namely, Albert Einstein, i.e., “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
That balance, between reason and wonder, the youthful prodigy seeks to bring back.
The Scientific Community Reacts
Although the vast majority of experienced scientists are cautious (and rightly so), the hypothesis of the boy has attracted discreet attention among certain academic circles.
Teachers who have reviewed his work estimate it as “remarkably well structured for his age” and “unexpectedly coherent.”
Of course, nobody wants to make him the next Einstein, just yet. His thoughts are yet to be tested rigorously, and much of his thinking remains speculative.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that this kid, so young, is engaging in this intricate debate, which has left educators flabbergasted.
“He’s not guessing,” said one of the instructors of physics, looking through his papers. “He’s properly applying the precepts of quantum mechanics and making philosophical theses upon them. That most graduate students cannot do.”
What makes this method particularly fascinating is the fact that it does not dismiss Hawking’s physics; it builds upon it.
Rather than declare Hawking entirely incorrect, the boy proposes the idea of Hawking having come just one step too short. Laws of the universe, he thinks, could well be self-supporting, but self-support could well be the divine principle.
I.e., Physics and God may be the same, but they are seen through different lenses.
Is This a Turning Point?
If there’s any substance to the boy’s theory, or even just prompts new discussions, it could be the turning point of how science deals with questions of existence.
The scientific method, for so long, has operated on the premise: all of this can be explained and doesn’t require an appeal to the supernatural. That mantra has propelled us towards progress and discovery. Suppose the “supernatural” isn’t external, though?
Suppose it’s of the natural kind, inherent in math, energy, and laws?
It’s the possibility the boy’s writing alludes to. It’s not so much contradicting Hawking as restating the question. Instead of posing the question of whether God exists beyond the universe, he posits the question of whether God exists as the universe.
The stakes are profound. Again, this theory would not only reassess cosmology but philosophy, theology, and even our present understanding of consciousness.
A New Generation of Thinkers
Most interesting here isn’t the theory itself, but what the theory represents. We are entering the era of fresh thinkers, of thinkers who are willing to cross boundaries once deemed imperishable.
Their minds are inquiring and alive. They question everything. The nature of intelligence, of time, of reality, of life. They are not constrained by the same prejudices that separated earlier generations of scientists and theologians.
For this 11-year-old, the agenda isn’t fame promotion or mythbusting. It’s the pursuit of truth, and where it leads. As he once explained to the paper of his Lawrence, Kan., hometown,
“I don’t think science and God are enemies. I think they’re just different languages saying the same story.”
Such reasoning, though historic, might just be what the planet needs.
The Bigger Picture
Only time will tell if this boy’s hypothesis will become the stuff of the ages. Someday, it may be relegated to the annals of clever but flawed concepts, but it may grow and become a legitimate theory that redefines the way we understand reality.
Whatever the case, this much is certain: people are buzzing. It’s also a reminder that science is never settled and even the best minds come into question, respectfully, intelligently, and full of curiosity.
That’s the way progress occurs. Whether this young prodigy ends up vindicating or refuting Stephen Hawking, he’s already accomplished something remarkable: he’s sparked again the question of meaning in an often mechanical and vacant universe.
And perhaps, just perhaps, the sign of genius is the ability to dare to pose the questions that rock the stars.
No Comments