Cosmology 101 ...for 1Acceptingatheist1.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

to say it is unknowable is claiming absolute knowledge of all options, unknown refers to present state. If that is what you mean, you can try to present that as a thrid option fine, but my point was to say antonymic pairs exist like.  Humans exist or they dont exist. there are many anonymic pair.  You said personal cause and no personal cause that unknown is the third option? is that what your saying?

[RogueScholar]

Of course an admission of ignorance would be inconceivable? You seem to desperately cling to the hope that somehow the universe can be placed into nicely labelled boxes that happen to appeal to human hubris and all the bias and presupposition of religion and ignorant faith.

 

It's one of the most corageous steps one with faith can take.

[Ravenstar]

Time is an expression of space, from what I understand. No space… no time. Therefore the concept of a 'before' space is nonsense. The expansion was space becoming… and the start (for lack of a better word) of time.

 

There's also the hypothesis that everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen is one (timeless) moment, but our minds parcel it out into discrete events, sequentially. But that's a whole new area of thought, metaphysics I believe. Fun mind games.  

 

And that's my layman's understanding of cosmological time.

[disillusioned]

There is also the possibility that everything we observe is an advanced computer simulation. Or maybe the universe sprang into being five minutes ago with the appearance of age built in. Or maybe it began to exist circa 14 billion years ago, and has a personal cause. These are all possibilities, but the veracity of each is unknowable.

 

 

It is also possible that the statement "The universe began to exist" makes no logical sense whatsoever.

[bornagainathiest]

to say it is unknowable is claiming absolute knowledge of all options, unknown refers to present state. If that is what you mean, you can try to present that as a thrid option fine, but my point was to say antonymic pairs exist like.  Humans exist or they dont exist. there are many anonymic pair.  You said personal cause and no personal cause that unknown is the third option? is that what your saying?

 

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

 

Nothing can be known, 1AAT1.

The process of inflation erases all information about what (if anything) precedes it.  

 

Thus the third option isn't unknown... it's unknowable.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again 1AAT1.

 

I have two more items for your attention.

The first deals with why the origin of the cosmos will always be unknowable to us.  The second explains why cosmologists treat our universe in exactly the same way as all the other pocket universes that are unknowable to us.

 

1.

Extract from, "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan Guth, p 249 - 250.

In chapter 15, Guth explains the on-going process of Inflation and how not just our universe was 'inflated'.  For the sake of clarity I've inserted brief explanations, like... [this]

 

"The process does not stop here, but goes on forever, producing an infinite number of pocket universes at an ever-increasing rate."

 

"Thus a region of false vacuum [the quantum-sized region that inflated and of which our universe is one tiny part] does not produce merely one universe, but instead produces an infinite number of universes!  In the cosmic shopping mall, an infinity of pocket universes can be purchased for the price of one.  Each pocket universe undergoes a big bang history, just as we believe that the observed universe [ours] is doing."

 

"In particular, any hypotheses about cosmic origins become totally divorced from observational cosmology.  Even with only a single episode of inflation, essentially all evidence of what came before is erased.  But if inflation has been happening for an arbitrarily long time, and our universe is not the first but perhaps the 10^1000th universe to be created, then any hope of learning about how it all began by observing our universe seems totally futile."

 

"The beauty of  inflation - that it can make predictions independent of the details of the initial conditions - becomes the cosmologist's ultimate barrier.  Because the properties of the observed universe are determined by the physics of inflation, they tell us nothing about what existed before inflation."

 

SUMMARY

So you see 1AAT1, true knowledge about the origin of the cosmos is forever denied to us by the nature of Inflationary cosmology.  Your arguments are no help either.  They cannot be tested, confirmed or ruled out by observation.  No evidence for or against them can ever be gained.  Reality itself denies you the possibility of ever knowing the truth.  The truth is unknowable.  This is the third option we've been discussing.

.

.

.

2.

Since Inflationary theory posits the existence of many universes (possibly infinitely many) beyond the limits of what we can observe, cosmologists employ the Copernican principle and extend it usage beyond the observable universe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

 

Thus, our universe is considered to be of EXACTLY THE SAME status as every other one.

If we considered our universe to be the very first one inflated, then we would be promoting it above all others.  Since we can never know if ours was the very first universe to be inflated in this way, we must therefore treat our universe as having exactly the status as any other. 

 

This is an assumption cosmologists are forced to make.

This is forced upon them because they can never observe any other universes to confirm or rule out if ours was the very first to come into existence.  In the absence of this data, the status of the cosmos' origin (if there ever was one) remains unknown and unknowable.

 

SUMMARY

Philosophical arguments about reality, that attempt to accurately describe reality, MUST be based on true knowledge of reality.  True knowledge about the origin of the cosmos is... unknowable.  Therefore, any argument about what is unknowable is untestable. 

 

An untestable argument is a blind alley.  A cul de sac.  A mistake.  A waste of time.

.

.

.

 

Please read and digest, 1AAT1.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

ABOUT THE INITIAL SINGULARITY

 

1AAT1,

 

I've already posted Stephen Hawking's position on the status of the initial singularity.

He first theorized a singularity-driven theory of universe creation, but has long since discarded that theory as unworkable.  Fyi, here's what Alan Guth (the originator of Inflationary theory) has to say about the initial singularity. (Extracts from his book, 'The Inflationary Universe'.)  My explanatory comments are enclosed, like... [this]. 

 

Page 341, Glossary.

 

Singularity

"If the standard big bang theory is extrapolated all the way back to time zero, one reaches an instant of infinite density, infinite pressure and infinite temperature - an instant that is frequently called the initial singularity.  This singularity is said to mark the beginning of time, but it is more realistic to recognize that an extrapolation to infinite density cannot be trusted."

 

[Or in plain English, we have no reliable information about the singularity - only theory.]

.

.

.

Page 344, Glossary.

 

White Hole.

"The time-reversal of a black hole.  A white hole is a singularity from which matter emerges unpredictably, but into which matter cannot enter.  The initial singularity of the standard big bang theory is an example of a white hole.  It can be shown that the creation of a new universe from a false vacuum bubble [ the quantum-sized region that inflates to become a new universe ] in the context of general relativity would require a white hole singularity, which means essentially that it cannot be done, even in principle." 

.

.

.

 

[important point 1AAT1!  In the context of ONLY general relativity, a singularity CANNOT create a new universe.  That's why Hawking discarded his singularity-driven theory.  But Guth's inflationary theory does work, because it doesn't rely ONLY on general relativity - it incorporates quantum mechanics too.  This makes it workable.  As Guth himself says in the very next sentence.]

 

"However, a false vacuum bubble could conceivably grow to become a new universe thru a process of quantum tunnelling."

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[bornagainathiest]

In case my latest posts have been a bit 'heavy' for you, 1AAT1, here's a real simple Q&A for you.

 

Q.

How do we know that the Sun exists, right now?  Not eight minutes ago. But right NOW?

 

A.

We can't know.  Such information is unknowable to us.

 

The speed of light forces us to assume the Sun exists right now - but absolute certainty of it's existence NOW is forever beyond our grasp.  Arguments of formal logic are of no help here.  The nature of reality actively prevents us from knowing anything much about reality -  right now.  Almost all of our understanding of the universe is based on what we think it looked like in the past - not what it looks like NOW.

.

.

.

 

This simple Q&A proves that almost all of reality is unknowable to us...now.

This forces us to assume almost everything we think we know about reality, without ever being able to be certain. 

As the RogueScholar has pointed out, your position is one of faith, not true knowledge.

 

Think about it.

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Lucynia]

Wow, there is a ton of great info in this thread. I'm still working on reading through it all, but I just wanted to say thanks for putting this all in one place. I love reading about this stuff!

[bornagainathiest]

Enjoy, Lucynia!

 

We're privileged to be living at a time when we'll makes great strides in our knowledge of the universe.  So... enjoy!  

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

hmm i like that you broken it down thanks Bud. If its unknowable then i cannot come back with a comeback lol. But i do have some concerns but i will digest all this thanks

[bornagainathiest]

Ok 1AAT1.

 

Now, that's a LOT of info that I've given you to look at and absorb.

So, would you like me to break it all down into a numbered list of the main points of contention? That way you could proceed at your speed and then come back to this thread whenever you like. You needn't even deal with the first or second item on the list, but could choose whichever one/s you're comfortable with, leaving the others till later. This approach should take some pressure off you to 'deliver' and you can even choose the pace you'd like to post at.

 

If you like the sound of what I'm proposing, please let me know.

This coming weekend's a tad too busy for me to make a start on that list, but next week should be ok.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

p.s.

Oh... and of course I'd be interested to hear your concerns. Please share them. Thanks again.