Where do we come from

My understanding is that this is not really a point of debate among cosmologists. The Borde-Guthe-Vilenkin Theorem reigns supreme and there was a beginning.

“The BGV theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold.”

This means no matter what, there was a beginning. Multiverse? Still a beginning. Cyclic (contraction expansion forever)? Nope.

1 Like

The Big Bang theory is clear on this point, isn’t it? Matter, space, and time began around 13.7 billion years ago. Nothing. Then in an instant, of an instant, of an instant (inflation theory tells us), everything.

I think there’s pretty general agreement on that, but all of the implications aren’t agreed on, or anything past the Big Bang and this universe. Out of the sciences, I don’t pay that close attention to cosmology, but I should. It kind of makes my head hurt :slight_smile: Understanding one thing just creates new questions. I did listen to a Lawrence Krauss talk the other day and he said exactly that, using the example of the Higgs field that has become more certain lately.

Yes, my head too. Add to this, the personal agendas of the scientists: they steer clear of theories that don’t mesh with their world views. More on this tomorrow. I’m on my third glass of scotch. Talk about a buzzkill.

1 Like

I sympathize. I wouldn’t want the task of trying to make sense of the origins of the universe and intelligent life purely in terms of physical matter.

Your mention of Lawrence Krauss more than anything is what made me think of something I shared on fb some time back. In my view, he has a clear agenda and I think this clouds his science, his genius. Here’s part of my fb share:

In the early 20th century, the steady-state theory was accepted among physicists as the best explanation for the nature of the universe and particularly its beginning. Simply put, the steady state theory asserts that the universe has no beginning and no end. In 1927, however, Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physicist, proposed his “hypothesis of the primeval atom,” which later became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. His theory was not well-received by the scientific community, and in fact, derision probably best characterizes the reaction to the new theory by Lemaître’s fellow physicists. For example, Einstein refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe that has a beginning, and commented to Lemaître, “Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.”

In Einstein’s case, his part in the history of the Big Bang theory is much more involved than simple mockery of a colleague. Repulsed by the notion of a beginning of the universe and all that would imply, the German-born theoretical physicist refused to get rid of his cosmological “fudge factor” in equations related to relativity until 1931. Let me explain. In 1917, Albert Einstein tried to use his new theory of general relativity to describe the evolution of the universe. As stated above, steady-state theory reigned supreme and this meant that general relativity should have explained a static and unchanging universe with no beginning. When it didn’t, a surprised Einstein added a term to his original equations which enabled his mathematical universe to appear permanent and invariable. That’s right folks, Einstein artificially introduced math into his equations because they didn’t mesh with his world view (hey biologists and chemists, does this remind you of what you did in your college labs when your experiments didn’t produced results like they should have?). Lemaître would have the last laugh, however, when Hubble’s astronomical observations caused Einstein to grudgingly accept “the necessity for a beginning.”

The point in all this is that we need to realize that scientists, no matter how brilliant, are in the end human, with personal philosophies and a desire to steer clear of things that are contrary to them. I think the British physicist Arthur Eddington provides the best illustration of the point I’m trying to make. Eddington stated during this initial period of debate surrounding the Big Bang theory that, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.” (Notice he started that by stating “philosophically.”)

This is from the link you provided:

Materialism as a philosophy is held by those who maintain that existence is explainable solely in material terms, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness. Individuals who hold to this belief see the universe as a huge device held together by pieces of matter functioning in subjection to naturalistic laws. Since materialism denies all concepts of Special Creation, it relies on the Theory of Evolution to explain itself, making beliefs in materialism and evolution interdependent.

The first question this worldview should cause most of us to ask is, “If all that exists is matter only, where did the natural laws that govern it come from?”

I think maybe it’s possible for certain laws to exist whether there is a material world to apply it to or not. To provide the simplest example, does 1+1=2 hold true whether anything exists or not? Do such ideas transcend matter, space, and time? I think they do. (Plato, his allegory of the cave, his thoughts of world of ideas, etc. must tie in with this on some level. I need to think about his and refresh my memory.)

Just to be clear, materialism doesn’t do it for me, either. Perhaps I’ll expand on this sometime.

isn’t it just a definition human being created?

I can’t imagine a situation, world, universe, way of being where this wouldn’t hold true. Can you? I don’t mean this as a challenge. I honestly can’t. My thoughts on this are flexible and being wrong would actually tie in better with my philosophical views, but my honest feeling about this is that 1+1=2 would hold true in any type of existence or non-existence of a material world.

Edit: Maybe in the crazy world of quantum dynamics this wouldn’t hold true? This might be totally off. Thinking more of food than physics right now.

I agree that he is pursuing an agenda. I’m not aware that it’s clouding his science in any way, but I have a limited ability to make such a judgment.

As it should be, in the end, no? How much did his world view matter in the end? It’s human to hold on to a belief, but the best tradition of science is to accept contrary evidence when it is clear. In the talk I saw Krauss discussed how he didn’t believe the Higgs boson existed either. He mentioned he had three papers written in his drawer waiting to be published when the collider experiments failed. But he admitted he was wrong. He noted being wrong is a good thing as it’s all part of the process, to paraphrase.

Materialism as a philosophy is held by those who maintain that existence is explainable solely in material terms, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness.

Well, we have to account for consciousness in some manner, but ok.

Individuals who hold to this belief see the universe as a huge device held together by pieces of matter functioning in subjection to naturalistic laws.

“A huge device held together by pieces of matter”. That’s odd

Since materialism denies all concepts of Special Creation, it relies on the Theory of Evolution to explain itself, making beliefs in materialism and evolution interdependent.

This is nonsense. The rest of the article gives plenty of similar examples. It’s from a very partisan site, and I suspect young-earth creationists given this last quote. There’s a lot to say about materialism, but that article is not a good starting point.

We need Peano axioms to say 1+1=2 is true.

Btw, was there anything measurable before the Big Bang?

How about 0.999…=1?

I’m glad you saw that and am giving me a chance to address this. So the objection seems to be that scientists, in the end, must accept whatever conclusions the evidence points to regardless of their personal views, exactly in the way Einstein had to accept what Hubble’s observations were saying about the universe.

The problem at present, however, is that in so many areas, we have come to the point where science cannot take us any further and oftentimes what is happening is nothing more than a reliance on highly speculative theories which are in principle unsolvable.

For example, the scientific community’s answer to fine-tuning is multiverse theory. If you aren’t familiar with fine-tuning, here’s an example: The atomic weak force which operates within the nucleus of the atom is so finely tuned that an alteration of even one part out of 10^100 would have rendered the universe life-prohibiting. Now multiverse theory asserts that we are in but one of an astronomical number of other universes (perhaps an infinite number of universes). With so many universes, the probabilities involved with fine-tuning, which become so great that they are in fact an impossibility, become possible again (with so many universes, the thinking goes, surely one would have hit the jackpot). Problem solved, right?

Well, not so fast. To begin with, cosmologists aren’t being completely upfront about the speculative nature of this theory. Also, and more importantly, multiverse theory is, in principle, unprovable. This means that it’s not just a matter time before the science catches up so that it can be proven, but rather, it can never be proven.

I don’t understand.

Oh man, you just started a whole new discussion. For starters, since time was created with the Big Bang, it’s not possible to talk of events “before” the Big Bang. For me, I like to think of the Big Bang as the beginning, otherwise we get into head hurting territory again and lots of speculation put forward by scientists as science.

It seems that I stretched too much the meaning of your sentences.

“To provide the simplest example, does 1+1=2 hold true whether anything exists or not? Do such ideas transcend matter, space, and time?”

I think 1+1=2 has more meanings mathematically than physicists think, though.

1 Like

I’m beginning to suspect that Discobot had a hand in the origin of this thread.

I know about fine tuning, but I don’t really know what to make of the multiverse. Much as you say, I’m not aware of any evidence for it.

I’m not convinced that there’s cause for concern here. As long as a proper perspective is maintained, I don’t think a more theoretical approach to cosmology has to be a problem. The reality is we’re approaching the limits of what we can determine about reality through observation. If some cosmologists are not ready to call it a day, and feel they still have something to contribute through a more theoretical approach, I won’t be standing in their way. If that means that cosmology becomes something more of a soft science compared to physics, that is what it is. The proof will be in the pudding. As long as awareness remains that the pudding is theoretical, we may still get something out of it, without danger. The article hasn’t convinced me that danger exists as of now. You said “cosmologists aren’t being totally upfront about this”; do you have any other examples?

But isn’t this speculation? It seems to me we don’t know if it was the beginning of everything. I’m not sure if anyone has ever seriously argued that the universe arose spontaneously, with no assistance from any outside force, from a literal nothing? Now that makes my head hurt. A funny thing to me is that if you believe in a universe-creating God, then it literally can’t be true either, unless God is nothing. Not quite ex nihilo.

Where do we come from, @discobot quote

:left_speech_bubble: I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. — Pablo Picasso

2 Likes

Who created discobot?

Hi! To find out what I can do, say @discobot display help.