SPEAKING at the University of Cambridge in 1980, Stephen Hawking considered the possibility of a theory of everything that would unite general relativity and quantum mechanics – our two leading descriptions of reality – into one neat, all-encompassing equation. We would need some help, he reckoned, from computers. Then he made a provocative prediction about these machines' growing abilities. "The end might not be in sight for theoretical physics," said Hawking. "But it might be in sight for theoretical physicists."

Judea Pearl, a winner of the Turing Award (the "Nobel Prize of computing"), has argued that, "All the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just curve fitting." Finding patterns in data may be useful but it is not real intelligence. A recent New York Times article, "Can a Computer Devise a Theory of Everything?" suggested that Pearl is wrong because computer algorithms have moved beyond mere curve fitting. Stephen Hawking's 1980 prediction that, "The end might not be in sight for theoretical physics, but it might be in sight for theoretical physicists" was quoted. If computers can now devise theories that make theoretical physicists redundant, then they are surely smarter than the rest of us.

Dreams are, for the most part, delightful. As we sleep, visual and audio fragments combine into nonsensical snippets and epic narratives. Loosely recalled moments merge with vivid, imagined scenes; we interact with characters known and characters conjured up; we explore our fantasies and, sometimes, face our fears. Yet sleeping and dreaming do not exist for our nocturnal pleasure alone. As we slumber, our brains filter information collected in waking hours.

Dreams are, for the most part, delightful. As we sleep, visual and audio fragments combine into nonsensical snippets and epic narratives. Loosely recalled moments merge with vivid, imagined scenes; we interact with characters known and characters conjured up; we explore our fantasies and, sometimes, face our fears. Yet sleeping and dreaming do not exist for our nocturnal pleasure alone. As we slumber, our brains filter information collected in waking hours.

Nothing is moving in the foundations of physics. One experiment after the other is returning null results: No new particles, no new dimensions, no new symmetries. Sure, there are some anomalies in the data here and there, and maybe one of them will turn out to be real news. But experimentalists are just poking in the dark. They have no clue where new physics may be to find.

Stephen Hawking, the world-famous theoretical physicist, has died at the age of 76. Hawking's children, Lucy, Robert and Tim said in a statement: "We are deeply saddened that our beloved father passed away today. "He was a great scientist and an extraordinary man whose work and legacy will live on for many years. His courage and persistence with his brilliance and humour inspired people across the world. "He once said: 'It would not be much of a universe if it wasn't home to the people you love.' We will miss him for ever." The most recognisable scientist of our age, Hawking holds an iconic status.

Editor's Note: We Need to Find an IT Celebrity. "If IT wants to attract bright youngsters, one thing it might do is find a celebrity champion--real or fictional--to give an idea of what working in IT really involves and where it can lead. Unfortunately, some role models, such as the IT experts in the absurd but compelling thriller series 24, tend to be oddball characters. Being at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, robotics, mobility, and so on, ought to be an exciting prospect for any student. But the overall message reaching them is muddled and unappealing.

He has formulated the notion of the hard problem of consciousness, seeking to explain the subjective aspects of mental processes. He is author of Constructing the World and four other books concerning the philosophy of consciousness. Davoudi was the co-author of the paper "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation", which outlines a possible method for experimentally detecting if the universe is actually a computer simulation by looking for anomalies characteristic of a simulation. Gates is a string theorist and author of Superspace, or 1001 Lessons In Supersymmetry. In a previous Asimov Debate, Gates claimed that he found error correcting code buried within the mathematical equations of supersymmetry.

How do scientists decide what research to do? One would like to think that they take a suitably scientific approach to this question by thinking about important problems that need to be solved, and asking which of these problems could be solved given the time and money available. But are research projects actually proposed and funded in this way, or are there other forces at work? Particle physicists and astronomers realized decades ago that they needed to take a coordinated approach to planning so that they had accelerators and telescopes to work on. This "big science" approach involved agreeing on the long-term scientific goals in a given field and then getting the relevant funding agencies in different countries on board. This approach has been remarkably successful, as demonstrated by the recent detections of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves.

What may have started as a science fiction speculation--that perhaps the universe as we know it is a computer simulation--has become a serious line of theoretical and experimental investigation among physicists, astrophysicists, and philosophers. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium, hosts and moderates a panel of experts in a lively discussion about the merits and shortcomings of this provocative and revolutionary idea. The 17th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate took place at The American Museum of Natural History on April 5, 2016. In his memory, the Hayden Planetarium is honored to host the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate -- generously endowed by relatives, friends, and admirers of Isaac Asimov and his work -- bringing the finest minds in the world to the Museum each year to debate pressing questions on the frontier of scientific discovery. Proceeds from ticket sales of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates benefit the scientific and educational programs of the Hayden Planetarium.