Cosmology 101 ...for 1Acceptingatheist1.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi 1AAT1! 

 

I'm sorry to tell you, but the cosmologically-based arguments you've been making recently rest upon a major misunderstanding of cosmology. 

 

You seem absolutely certain that the universe expanded from a single point. (A.k.a., the initial singularity) 

 

I therefore invite you to read what Stephen Hawking (the scientist who formulated the singularity-driven theory of universal origin) had to say about it in the late 1980's.

 

A Brief History of Time, 1988.  Stephen W. Hawking.

 

"In 1965 I read about Penrose's theorem that any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity.  I soon realised that if one reversed the direction of time in Penrose's theorem, so that the collapse became an expansion, the conditions of his theorem would still hold, provided that the universe was roughly like a Friedmann model on large scales at the present time."

 

"During the next few years I developed new mathematical techniques to remove this [the initial singularity] and other technical conditions from the theorems that proved a singularities must have occur.  The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a Big Bang singularity provided only that General Relativity is correct and that the universe contains as much matter as we observe."

 

"So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a Big Bang singularity.  It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account."

 

1AAT1,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you still seem to be working under the assumption that the universe started with a Big Bang singularity.

 

If you are, then your model of this universe's origin is based only on General Relativity.

GR cannot be a true or accurate description of reality on it's own because it takes no account of quantum effects.  That's why Hawking dropped his support for a Big Bang (initial) singularity.  This singularity is now considered to be artefact of the math and not a true, physical phenomenon.  If you still consider the universe to have originated from such a singularity, then you're holding on to an unworkable, outdated and discarded model of cosmology.  Such a model cannot support your arguments.

 

Please let me know if my assessment of your position is accurate.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

I agree with this completely.

 

1AAT1, it seems that your understanding of cosmology is outdated. Moreover, as I noted in the other thread, you seem very eager to apply the law of cause and effect to the universe itself. Again, I would note that we have no reason to think that this law needs to apply to the universe. It is known to (generally) apply within the universe, but that is all that may be said. Further, you seem to be under the impression that the universe began to exist (presumably at the initial singularity). I would contend that this is not a statement we may make, irrespective of whether such a singularity actually occurred. Generally, we say that something began to exist if there was some time “t₁” when it did not exist and some later time “t₂” when it did exist. If this is true, then we can safely say that at some time “t”, such that t is after t₁ and before t₂, that thing began to exist. This is not the case with the universe. Time is a facet of the universe. If there is no universe, there is no time. Therefore there literally was no time when the universe did not exist. Hence it seems to me that we cannot say that the universe began to exist, at least not in the usual sense.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

I'm glad you posted this.

So, the Big Bang is an outmoded theory now?

I have to stop referring to it.

 

It all depends on what you mean by the words, 'Big Bang', Human.

 

I recommend reading about it here...  

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/big-bang-expansion-not-explosion/

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/inflation/

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Bhim]

Thank you for providing these explanations BAA.  You are ever the gifted science communicator, and deliver relevant sci  entific truths to this broader audience of Christians and ex-Christians alike with great clarity.

 

Human, I think it's quite safe to continue using the phrase "Big Bang."  Even in fairly specialized circles I hear people referring to "t years after the Big Bang," and I see references to the Big Bang in most slides that we've presented to the DOE and other funding agencies.  I suppose it's sort of how when we talk about "Darwinian evolution," we're referring to a theory that is far more complex and close to complete than anything Darwin would have envisioned.  Yet the theory still has its basis in his work.  Likewise, I doubt that "Big Bang" will ever leave us.  Nor should it I suppose, since it effectively communicates the salient points of the cosmological theory of the universe's origins.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

still reading the articles, I must say that is a vast difference from the Original argument of Big bang/singularity, interestign stuff i will respond shortly

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

OOOhhhkkayy im am still reading all this stuff, As i been reading I notice it seems to keep some similar arguments from the previous singularity complex but once it realizes thats christianty has won in that department and it becomes a losing path to take, it re morphs into an irrefutable defense by saying the Before the inflation before the big bang before the dark matter before time, before the universe before this and before that is....Unknowable and then works from that point, but Doesnt that mean it is still starting at a single point again? how else can it start? or is it saying instead of a point there was Open space already there and that space expanded? still understanding it forgive me

 

but i have concerns here, can something come into existence without any....non whatsoever pre existing materials to use? I heard scientists found something that can pop in and out of existence?...what do they mean by that? like evaporated like water and formed again?

 

The universe has a beginning i believe because it cannot escapt this fact...nothing can move from potential to actual except by something that is already actual. A pile of wood is a potential house, but it cannot move itself from potential to actually being a house, except by someting that is already actual, in this case, a carpenter or an architect. Still further, an effect must pre-exist in the cause. The house must pre-exist in some sense in the architect before it can become actual. The house will be in the architect’s mind before the pile of wood can become a house. So nothing in potential can move itself from potential to actual except by something that is already actual. The potential alone cannot actualize itself. So why cant God in all respects is purely actual with no potential, He can be the cause of moving any potential to actual. He has no potential for growth or knowledge he is infinite in all aspects he has no potential to Gain he is actuality himself. So the universe needed to be actualized, need to be made actual by the actualizer

[mymistake]

. . .  but once it realizes thats christianty has won in that department . . . 

 

 

What the fuck?  Christianity hasn't won anything since the Church lost the power to burn people at the stake.  

[bornagainathiest]

OOOhhhkkayy im am still reading all this stuff, As i been reading I notice it seems to keep some similar arguments from the previous singularity complex

 

No.  No, it doesn't.  Go back and re-read the Stephen Hawking quote.

NO INITIAL SINGULARITY.

 

but once it realizes thats christianty has won in that department and it becomes a losing path to take, it re morphs into an irrefutable defense by saying the Before the inflation before the big bang before the dark matter before time, before the universe before this and before that is....Unknowable and then works from that point, but Doesnt that mean it is still starting at a single point again?

 

No. No, it doesn't mean that.  

You can't sweep this under the rug and ignore it.  Go back to the Matt Strassler links as well and re-read them.  (Once you've read and digested, I've got a LOT more material to hand about the problem of the initial singularity in cosmology.  I'd be happy to share this stuff with you.) 

 

how else can it start?

 

Good question!  

Please start entertaining the possibility that an honest answer is... we just don't know.  

Assuming the singularity as an ABSOLUTE TRUTH is not an honest option.

 

or is it saying instead of a point there was Open space already there and that space expanded? still understanding it forgive me

 

but i have concerns here, can something come into existence without any....non whatsoever pre existing materials to use? I heard scientists found something that can pop in and out of existence?...what do they mean by that? like evaporated like water and formed again?

 

We don't know, 1AAT1.  That's the honest answer.  Please try and live with it, rather than ASSUMING an absolute truth to support your religious beliefs, ok?

 

The universe has a beginning i believe because it cannot escapt this fact...

 

Your personal and subjective beliefs are not the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, ok?

You might not be able to escape from your personal need for a beginning, but the science says different.

 

nothing can move from potential to actual except by something that is already actual.

 

You know this for fact... how?

By referring to earthly examples?  So who says that what happens on Earth MUST apply ABSOLUTELY everywhere?  You?

 

A pile of wood is a potential house, but it cannot move itself from potential to actually being a house, except by someting that is already actual, in this case, a carpenter or an architect. Still further, an effect must pre-exist in the cause. The house must pre-exist in some sense in the architect before it can become actual. The house will be in the architect’s mind before the pile of wood can become a house. So nothing in potential can move itself from potential to actual except by something that is already actual. The potential alone cannot actualize itself. So why cant God in all respects is purely actual with no potential, He can be the cause of moving any potential to actual. He has no potential for growth or knowledge he is infinite in all aspects he has no potential to Gain he is actuality himself. So the universe needed to be actualized, need to be made actual by the actualizer

 

Please go back, re-read and try to understand, 1AAT1.

 

Your beliefs do not yield absolute truth, no matter how much you want them to and how much you believe they do.  Logical and philosophical arguments that attempt to describe reality MUST be based on reality.  That is, you have to base your arguments on what is observed, not what you want to be true.

 

Now, go back and re-read the material I've posted about what has been observed, what is logically consistent with those observations and what isn't.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[disillusioned]

OOOhhhkkayy im am still reading all this stuff, As i been reading I notice it seems to keep some similar arguments from the previous singularity complex but once it realizes thats christianty has won in that department and it becomes a losing path to take, it re morphs into an irrefutable defense by saying the Before the inflation before the big bang before the dark matter before time, before the universe before this and before that is....Unknowable and then works from that point, but Doesnt that mean it is still starting at a single point again? how else can it start? or is it saying instead of a point there was Open space already there and that space expanded? still understanding it forgive me

 

but i have concerns here, can something come into existence without any....non whatsoever pre existing materials to use? I heard scientists found something that can pop in and out of existence?...what do they mean by that? like evaporated like water and formed again?

 

The universe has a beginning i believe because it cannot escapt this fact...nothing can move from potential to actual except by something that is already actual. A pile of wood is a potential house, but it cannot move itself from potential to actually being a house, except by someting that is already actual, in this case, a carpenter or an architect. Still further, an effect must pre-exist in the cause. The house must pre-exist in some sense in the architect before it can become actual. The house will be in the architect’s mind before the pile of wood can become a house. So nothing in potential can move itself from potential to actual except by something that is already actual. The potential alone cannot actualize itself. So why cant God in all respects is purely actual with no potential, He can be the cause of moving any potential to actual. He has no potential for growth or knowledge he is infinite in all aspects he has no potential to Gain he is actuality himself. So the universe needed to be actualized, need to be made actual by the actualizer

 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

i will re-read, sure, but what about my from potential to actual theory no one really talked about how it is not possible i gave to support my case. I dont know is an honest answer nothing wrong with that but we can use induction and extract from the things we do know and build a framework or case we cant inductivly think of anything that is non-intelligence can produce intelligence, amorals can produce morals, impersonal can create personality, meaningless and purposeless can create meaning and purpose…….can you show me an example of this happening? because this is essentially it seems what scientists the universe is doing and how humasn got here from non intelligence and moral from amoral

[Orbit]

i will re-read, sure, but what about my from potential to actual theory no one really talked about how it is not possible i gave to support my case. I dont know is an honest answer nothing wrong with that but we can use induction and extract from the things we do know and build a framework or case we cant inductivly think of anything that is non-intelligence can produce intelligence, amorals can produce morals, impersonal can create personality, meaningless and purposeless can create meaning and purpose…….can you show me an example of this happening? because this is essentially it seems what scientists the universe is doing and how humasn got here from non intelligence and moral from amoral

Speculation isn't science.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

thats correct speculation isnt sciene yet seems like what alot of times that is what they do, is..survival of the fittest falsifiable....can the extinction of the dinosaurs be repeated? can the a piece of the sun be put in a lab and be observed under a microscope?

[bornagainathiest]

Proper criticism of science is best done from a position of understanding how science works.

 

You don't seem to have that understanding, 1AAT1.

[disillusioned]

i will re-read, sure, but what about my from potential to actual theory no one really talked about how it is not possible i gave to support my case. I dont know is an honest answer nothing wrong with that but we can use induction and extract from the things we do know and build a framework or case we cant inductivly think of anything that is non-intelligence can produce intelligence, amorals can produce morals, impersonal can create personality, meaningless and purposeless can create meaning and purpose…….can you show me an example of this happening? because this is essentially it seems what scientists the universe is doing and how humasn got here from non intelligence and moral from amoral

 

This is somewhat beside the point that BAA raised. It is no longer accepted by the scientific community that there was a singularity. This is an outdated model. It is from this model that you derived your claim that the universe requires a cause.

 

There is also a more philosophical objection to the argument that the universe requires a cause, which I raised above. I don't want to derail this thread, but this objection seems to be relevant to your claim that the universe went from potential to actual. I claim that it may not be said, at least in the traditional sense, that the universe began to exist. Hence it cannot be said to positively require a cause. Moreover, I also say that the law of cause and effect need not apply to the universe as a whole, even if it did begin to exist. If you want to discuss this more, I'm open to it, but please address BAA's original question first.

 

thats correct speculation isnt sciene yet seems like what alot of times that is what they do, is..survival of the fittest falsifiable....can the extinction of the dinosaurs be repeated? can the a piece of the sun be put in a lab and be observed under a microscope?

 

You display your ignorance here. "Survival of the fittest" is not a tenet of science. The extinction of the dinosaurs was a historical event, not an experiment. Other extinction events have taken place, and will certainly take place again. The composition of stars is determined primarily by spectroscopy. If you want to be taken seriously on scientific topics, you would do well to educate yourself at least a little bit before speaking.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

still reading mind you, interesting stuff mind you.

 

but so far we can break it down into two points, the universe is eternal or it is not eternal. If it is eternal that means it didnt have a beginning if it is NOT eternal that means it DID have a beginning.

 

We know the universe being eternal would also mean infinite regression is possible do you believe in infinite regression?

[bornagainathiest]

still reading mind you, interesting stuff mind you.

 

but so far we can break it down into two points, the universe is eternal or it is not eternal.

 

Nope.  Those are not the only options.  Please familiarize yourself with Hawking's No-Boundary model.

 

If it is eternal that means it didnt have a beginning if it is NOT eternal that means it DID have a beginning.

 

And if it is not eternal, the point of origin can still so far removed  from our universe that it might as well be eternal.

That's the point of Susskind's riposte to Mithani and Vilenkin.  Which you haven't read yet?

 

We know the universe being eternal would also mean infinite regression is possible do you believe in infinite regression?

 

Infinite regression isn't a religious thing that needs to be believed in... like miracles or the Exodus.

 

You can be persuaded that infinite regression is possible, that it is impossible or you can declare that you don't know.

 

There are more than just two possibilities, 1AAT1.

[mymistake]

still reading mind you, interesting stuff mind you.

 

but so far we can break it down into two points, the universe is eternal or it is not eternal. If it is eternal that means it didnt have a beginning if it is NOT eternal that means it DID have a beginning.

 

We know the universe being eternal would also mean infinite regression is possible do you believe in infinite regression?

 

 

None of this suggests that your imaginary friend created the universe.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

i asked you you personally beleived in infinite regression and why not?

The universe was either always here or it ws NOT always here, wheter i use the term eternal is irrelevant. this is a play on termonlogy, so if you like to play with terms i will put it this way then.. The universe had a personal cause or it did NOT have a  personal cause. 2 options...no other options. I dont know is not an option WITHIN this Antonymic pair specifically when one option is invalidated the other is validated. So my job would be to present a plausible case there was a personal cause of the universe than a unpersonal cause.

[disillusioned]

i asked you you personally beleived in infinite regression and why not?

 

The universe was either always here or it ws NOT always here, wheter i use the term eternal is irrelevant. this is a play on termonlogy, so if you like to play with terms i will put it this way then.. The universe had a personal cause or it did NOT have a  personal cause. 2 options...no other options. I dont know is not an option WITHIN this Antonymic pair specifically when one option is invalidated the other is validated. So my job would be to present a plausible case there was a personal cause of the universe than a unpersonal cause.

 

It depends what you mean by "always here". If time is merely a facet of the universe (as many believe), then it is literally true that the universe has been here for all time, regardless of where it came from. You are still trying to ascribe to the universe as a whole properties of the things that exist within the universe. This is to commit a fallacy of composition. Within the universe, if something begins to exist then it (generally) has a cause. We don't know whether or not this principle applies to the universe as a whole. It is possible that the universe has a cause. It has not been shown to be necessary.

[bornagainathiest]

i asked you you personally beleived in infinite regression and why not?

 

Because it's not a religious belief, that's why.

So you've asked me a religious question... one I can't answer.  I explained this to you earlier.

 

The universe was either always here or it ws NOT always here, wheter i use the term eternal is irrelevant. this is a play on termonlogy, so if you like to play with terms i will put it this way then.. The universe had a personal cause or it did NOT have a  personal cause. 2 options...no other options.

 

Really?  Only two?  

Is that what cosmological science tells us?

 

I dont know is not an option WITHIN this Antonymic pair specifically when one option is invalidated the other is validated. So my job would be to present a plausible case there was a personal cause of the universe than a unpersonal cause.

 

Surely it's the science of cosmology that tells us how many options there are, not the law of antonymic pairs?

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Yes Antonymic pairs.. 2 +2 is 4   or    2 +2 does NOT equal 4 an antonymic pair. Not third option is so, feel free to present it.

[disillusioned]

Yes Antonymic pairs.. 2 +2 is 4   or    2 +2 does NOT equal 4 an antonymic pair. Not third option is so, feel free to present it.

 

This relates back to what you and I were discussing in the other thread. You are assuming a bivalent system of logic. There are other systems. For example, there are useful systems of logic that are trivalent, with truth values corresponding to "true", "false" and "unknowable".

 

Also, the proposition 2+2=4 is entirely different from the proposition that the universe had a beginning. 2+2=4 may be expressed precisely in the language of any number of formal systems, and may be formally proven in many such systems. The claim that the universe had a beginning relies much more heavily on semantics (What is meant by "the universe"? What is meant by "beginning"? etc). It is not a claim which can be easily expressed in the language of a formal system. It certainly is not a claim which can be proven logically. Hence it is within the purview of science to attempt to answer this question, and in doing so, to identify the possible options.

[bornagainathiest]

Yes Antonymic pairs.. 2 +2 is 4   or    2 +2 does NOT equal 4 an antonymic pair. Not third option is so, feel free to present it.

 

Yes, thanks Disillusioned.

 

That was going to be my third option... unknowable.

[bornagainathiest]

Oh... and to put that into it's correct context, 1AAT1...

 

It's the origin of the universe that may be unknowable.  THAT is the viable third option you're refusing to accept.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Its not unknowable it would be more correct to say Unknown, Unknowable hints that ti will never be known