Please Test This... Rebooted.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello.

 

I'd be grateful if my fellow members would inspect this argument and test it to destruction.

 

1. The only branch of the sciences that employs proofs is math, whereas every other branch employs the best possible explanation according to the available evidence.

2.  Inflationary theory is the best possible explanation of the evolution of the early universe, according to the available evidence.

3.  Inflation is not a one-off event but a never-ending process that began an indefinitely long time before it 'inflated' our part of the universe.

4. The internal logic of physics tell us that inflation makes stars, planets and people in a finite number of patterns.

5.  Since inflation has a limited (finite) number of patterns in which to make these things, the longer it continues making them, the more it repeats these patterns.

6.  Therefore, once inflation begins the pattern Christians refer to as the fine-tuning of the universe will be repeated over and over again.

7.  Therefore, once inflation begins the pattern Christians refer to as intelligently designed life will be repeated over and over again.

8.  Therefore, once inflation begins the finely-tuned, intelligently-designed pattern known as planet Earth will be repeated over and over again.

9.  Therefore, once inflation begins the patterns we call ourselves will be repeated over and over again.

10.  Therefore, the Christian apologetic argument for only one finely-tuned, intelligently-designed Earth, populated by unique individuals who are saved by Jesus Christ's one-and-only sacrifice is refuted by inflationary theory. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted October 31  By LimitedGrip

Can you expand on #4? What internal logic dictates that the number of patterns is finite? 

 

What I mean to say is, since matter cannot be created or destroyed, there is a finite amount of matter in the universe. Therefore, a finite amount of patterns can be produced. Perhaps spell it out a little more like that, instead of just saying the internal logic of physics dictates it. 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Posted October 31 By sdelsolray

Premise 5 is shaky with regards to repeating patterns.  You have not demonstrated that time continues indefinitely, or the frequency of repetition within a temporal setting, or that patterns equally repeat themselves (compared to other patterns being repeated).

[bornagainathiest]

Posted October 31 By LimitedGrip

  On 10/31/2017 at 4:18 PM, sdelsolray said:

Premise 5 is shaky with regards to repeating patterns.  You have not demonstrated that time continues indefinitely, or the frequency of repetition within a temporal setting, or that patterns equally repeat themselves (compared to other patterns being repeated).

 

True, and since space is expanding, there is nothing to say that ALL patterns will repeat themselves. Indeed, at some point, wouldn't the energy in the universe be so spread out that stars, planets, and people cannot be formed? 

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1 By BAA.

Thanks for your input and your patience, guys.  

Before I can move on to explain about the repetition of patterns I first need to explain how inflationary theory gives us an indefinitely long history of the universe and not one that begins 13.72 billion years ago.  When inflation was first formulated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde in the early 80's, the following details were discovered about it.

 

1.  Once inflation begins, it never ends. 

2.  It inflates pocket universes that are at least a thousand times larger than the volume of our observable universe. 

3.  Once it begins, inflation accelerates exponentially, doubling and redoubling the number of the pocket universes it inflates very rapidly.

4.  The doubling time is of the order of 10-34 seconds. (About a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.)

5.  Any observers (like us) living inside a pocket universe would observe the same history as any other other observer, located in any other pocket universe.

6.  "The same history" means that each observer would conclude that for them, space and time began with the inflation of their own particular pocket universe.

7.  But this conclusion is misleading because all they are observing is the beginning of their particular pocket universe.

8.  It is the beginning of the entire inflationary process (and not the beginning of any pocket universe) that marks the true beginning of space and time.

9.  But it is impossible for any observer anywhere to observe this because each episode of inflation completely erases all trace of what preceded it.

10.  Each observer, isolated in their own pocket universe can only see back in time as far as their own particular Big Bang - the beginning of their own particular pocket universe.

 

Now, the above details about inflationary theory are the result of combining General Relativity (GR) with particle physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Since GR is integral to inflation, the ground rules of GR must be followed at all times.  While almost everyone has heard of GR, what it says about the status of any observer is often overlooked and/or misunderstood.  In GR there is no fixed or absolute frame of reference for any observer (human or otherwise) anywhere or anywhen.  The status of all observers is relative to every other.  No observer can claim or assume that they observe any part of the universe from a special or privileged vantage point.  The status of all observers is exactly equal to all others.  This is because GR is 'general' and applies generally to all observers, equalizing their status everywhere and everywhen.

 

The result of taking this measure into account and applying it to ourselves in the context of the ten points listed above is as follows.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we observe space and time beginning with our own particular pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we are denied any knowledge of what preceded the beginning of our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can only observe the effects of inflation within our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can use use our observations of these effects to understand the following.

 

A.  Our particular pocket universe is not all that there is.

B.  Our particular pocket universe is just one of many.

C.  Many pocket universes are being inflated right now and many more will be inflated in the future.  This is because inflation never ends.

D.  Because we have no special or privileged status over any other observers anywhere, we cannot lay claim to be living in the very first such universe to be inflated. 

E.  Doing that would violate the ground rules of GR and also violate the Copernican principle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

F.  Since we cannot claim to be the very first observers in the very first pocket universe we must accept that the mediocrity of our status.

G. That many pocket universes and many other observers living within them have preceded us in the never-ending process of inflation.

 

If G is accepted, then we can use the ten listed points about inflation to gain a better understanding of how many pocket universes have preceded ours.  

That is, we can gain a glimpse of just what... 'an indefinitely-long period of inflation' ...really means.  That would be the next step, once G is accepted.  But for now I'll pause and field any questions you guys might have.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1 By sdelsolray

Please provide empirical evidence of a "pocket universe" other than our own.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1 By BAA.

  On 01/11/2017 at 3:39 PM, sdelsolray said:

Please provide empirical evidence of a "pocket universe" other than our own.

 

No empirical evidence can ever be provided.

 

All of the above is inferred from the effects of inflation within this pocket universe. 

When science cannot proceed by empirical evidence, it proceeds by inference.   These inferences can be indirectly tested by how well inflation's predictions match up with what we observe within this pocket universe.  The many confirmed predictions made by inflationary theory give us confidence that it is the best explanation, not just for the origin of our pocket universe, but of all pocket universes.  On that basis and following the necessary ground rules set down by GR and the Copernican principle, we infer that what we have discovered about inflation here (the ten listed points) applies elsewhere.  

sdelsolray, please note that almost all of cosmology proceeds on the basis of this kind of inference.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1 By LimitedGrip

  On 11/1/2017 at 3:03 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Thanks for your input and your patience, guys.  

 

Before I can move on to explain about the repetition of patterns I first need to explain how inflationary theory gives us an indefinitely long history of the universe and not one that begins 13.72 billion years ago.  When inflation was first formulated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde in the early 80's, the following details were discovered about it.

 

1.  Once inflation begins, it never ends. 

2.  It inflates pocket universes that are at least a thousand times larger than the volume of our observable universe. 

3.  Once it begins, inflation accelerates exponentially, doubling and redoubling the number of the pocket universes it inflates very rapidly.

4.  The doubling time is of the order of 10^-34 seconds. (About a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.)

5.  Any observers (like us) living inside a pocket universe would observe the same history as any other other observer, located in any other pocket universe.

6.  "The same history" means that each observer would conclude that for them, space and time began with the inflation of their own particular pocket universe.

7.  But this conclusion is misleading because all they are observing is the beginning of their particular pocket universe.

8.  It is the beginning of the entire inflationary process (and not the beginning of any pocket universe) that marks the true beginning of space and time.

9.  But it is impossible for any observer anywhere to observe this because each episode of inflation completely erases all trace of what preceded it.

10.  Each observer, isolated in their own pocket universe can only see back in time as far as their own particular Big Bang - the beginning of their own particular pocket universe.

 

Now, the above details about inflationary theory are the result of combining General Relativity (GR) with particle physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Since GR is integral to inflation, the ground rules of GR must be followed at all times.  While almost everyone has heard of GR, what it says about the status of any observer is often overlooked and/or misunderstood.  In GR there is no fixed or absolute frame of reference for any observer (human or otherwise) anywhere or anywhen.  The status of all observers is relative to every other.  No observer can claim or assume that they observe any part of the universe from a special or privileged vantage point.  The status of all observers is exactly equal to all others.  This is because GR is 'general' and applies generally to all observers, equalizing their status everywhere and everywhen.

 

The result of taking this measure into account and applying it to ourselves in the context of the ten points listed above is as follows.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we observe space and time beginning with our own particular pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we are denied any knowledge of what preceded the beginning of our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can only observe the effects of inflation within our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can use use our observations of these effects to understand the following.

 

A.  Our particular pocket universe is not all that there is.

B.  Our particular pocket universe is just one of many.

C.  Many pocket universes are being inflated right now and many more will be inflated in the future.  This is because inflation never ends.

D.  Because we have no special or privileged status over any other observers anywhere, we cannot lay claim to be living in the very first such universe to be inflated. 

E.  Doing that would violate the ground rules of GR and also violate the Copernican principle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

F.  Since we cannot claim to be the very first observers in the very first pocket universe we must accept that the mediocrity of our status.

G. That many pocket universes and many other observers living within them have preceded us in the never-ending process of inflation.

 

If G is accepted, then we can use the ten listed points about inflation to gain a better understanding of how many pocket universes have preceded ours.  

That is, we can gain a glimpse of just what... 'an indefinitely-long period of inflation' ...really means.  That would be the next step, once G is accepted.  But for now I'll pause and field any questions you guys might have.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Ah, well, I can not critique this then. Cosmology is not my strong suit. Except to ask, what is the level of acceptance of this particular theory, and are there competing ones? 

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1

  On 01/11/2017 at 5:43 PM, LimitedGrip said:

 

Ah, well, I can not critique this then. Cosmology is not my strong suit. Except to ask, what is the level of acceptance of this particular theory, and are there competing ones? 

Thanks for your openness and honesty, LG.

 

Inflation is generally accepted by most cosmologists and theoretical physicists as being a good enough working model. 

That said, it's also acknowledged as being incomplete and in need of further evidence.  Back in 2014 the BICEP2 team of astronomers claimed to have found the smoking gun that would have settled the issue and put inflation on very firm ground indeed.  However, they were mistaken and later had to retract their claim.  

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/03/galactic-dust-sounds-death-knell-for-bicep2-gravitational-wave-claim

 

Yes, there certainly are competing theories and imho perhaps the most serious contender is Ekpyrotic theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe 

 

Also, there's an important point that I shouldn't fail to make in response to your questions.

By rights, a given theory should be accepted or ruled out solely on the basis of the evidence.  The number of scientists supporting a theory isn't a true indicator of it's validity.  If sheer weight of numbers made a theory correct, then science would proceed by persuasion and consensus of opinion and not by evidence.  Since scientists are human beings it's inevitable that their objectivity is sometimes clouded by matters other than just the evidence.  

 

For this reason I keep tabs on this site... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

Peter Woit is possibly the harshest critic of the kind of inference I've been proposing in this thread.  I try to pay close attention to his criticisms and to test my thinking about these matters too.  Hence this thread and my invitation to have my thinking tested to destruction by my peers. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1 By LimitedGrip

  On 11/1/2017 at 6:11 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Thanks for your openness and honesty, LG.

 

Inflation is generally accepted by most cosmologists and theoretical physicists as being a good enough working model. 

That said, it's also acknowledged as being incomplete and in need of further evidence.  Back in 2014 the BICEP2 team of astronomers claimed to have found the smoking gun that would have settled the issue and put inflation on very firm ground indeed.  However, they were mistaken and later had to retract their claim.  

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/03/galactic-dust-sounds-death-knell-for-bicep2-gravitational-wave-claim

 

Yes, there certainly are competing theories and imho perhaps the most serious contender is Ekpyrotic theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe 

 

Also, there's an important point that I shouldn't fail to make in response to your questions.

By rights, a given theory should be accepted or ruled out solely on the basis of the evidence.  The number of scientists supporting a theory isn't a true indicator of it's validity.  If sheer weight of numbers made a theory correct, then science would proceed by persuasion and consensus of opinion and not by evidence.  Since scientists are human beings it's inevitable that their objectivity is sometimes clouded by matters other than just the evidence.  

 

For this reason I keep tabs on this site... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

Peter Woit is possibly the harshest critic of the kind of inference I've been proposing in this thread.  I try to pay close attention to his criticisms and to test my thinking about these matters too.  Hence this thread and my invitation to have my thinking tested to destruction by my peers. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Thanks for the links.

I didn't intend to appeal to consensus. I was just curious about the level of "competition" between theories, as I'm not familiar enough with the topic to make any conclusions about the evidence. And, I understand that inflation is pretty well supported, but was more curious about the support for the inference of the pocket universes--which is basically the multiverse theory, correct? Or is that something else? 

 

I'll definitely take a look at your links.

 

Thanks. 

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1 By LimitedGrip

  On 01/11/2017 at 6:20 PM, LimitedGrip said:

 

 

Thanks for the links. I didn't intend to appeal to consensus. I was just curious about the level of "competition" between theories, as I'm not familiar enough with the topic to make any conclusions about the evidence. And, I understand that inflation is pretty well supported, but was more curious about the support for the inference of the pocket universes--which is basically the multiverse theory, correct? Or is that something else?  I'll definitely take a look at your links. Thanks. 

We're cool, LG.  I just wanted to cover that possibility and didn't mean to to imply that's where you were going.  

 

When it comes to support for the multiverse theory the scientific community is deeply divided.

Those in Peter Woit's camp claim that any kind of inferred multiverse cannot be falsified by evidence and so none qualify as science.  The opposing camp answer this criticism by saying that these critics are being selective, readily accepting other examples of this kind of inference within our universe, without any qualms.  Either accept them all or reject them all.

Is this an adequate answer or would you like me to elaborate?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 1

  On 01/11/2017 at 9:30 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Is this not a mistake of the kind made by religious folks? We have something that applies to a part, and therefore assumes it applies to the whole. This sounds like a composition fallacy.

It sounds similar to the argument everything that begins to exist has a cause > therefore god (To shorten the argument, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here). The mistake made here by religious folks arguing the universe has a cause is that they take the fact that as far as we can tell everything ever tested has some cause. They then take this and say the universe as a whole therefore needed some cause. This is essentially a composition fallacy. All bricks in my wall is small, therefore my wall must be small. No the wall could be huge. Inferencing the whole from the parts can lead to incorrect conclusions.

So coming back to inflationary theory - while predictions match for conditions in our universe why should this be the case for any other universe? 

Thoughts?

 

Hello LF.

If this is indeed an example of a fallacy of composition, then the sciences of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and theoretical physics must renounce almost everything their theories claim to explain.  This is because almost everything observed by the scientists involved is done so in part - not in the whole.   I can illustrate what I mean by using M 100 as an example.  It's a fairly run-of-the-mill spiral galaxy that's only 55 million light years away.  In cosmic terms that not even outside the picket fence, that's on our doorstep.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_100

 

Now, from our recent discoveries of thousands of exoplanets in our galaxy, the Milky Way, we infer that M 100 should also have exoplanets orbiting around it's stars.  But we can never confirm that by observation.   The distances involved are simply too great for us to ever do that.  Furthermore, we aren't seeing this galaxy as it is in the year 2017 A.D.  We're seeing it as it was 55 million years ago.   So any observations we could make would be hopelessly outdated.  We could only ever say how these exoplanets were long ago and then infer what they might be like today.

The vast distances and the finite speed of light deny us the option of direct observation and force us to use inference.

 

Yet, M 100 is a close neighbor.   

The bulk of the observable universe is far, far more distant than a few tens of millions of light years.   Nature forces our hand and we either have to use inference or quit the game.  By default, inference is the only game in town that we can play.  But if we take the line that nothing known in part is truly representative of the whole, then we have to go further and renounce the whole scientific method.

Every branch of observational science observes in part and never in the whole.  This can easily be demonstrated with a few, well-chosen questions and answers.

 

Q.  Are the rates of cell division of the staphylococcus bacteria based upon measurments of every such bacterium in the world?

A.  No.  It's impossible to perform that measurement.  These rates are based upon what are considered to be a representative sample of the whole.  Compensating for certain variables, the rate of cell division of that sample is then inferred to apply to the whole.

 

Q.  Do we know that the melting point of gold is 1,064 degrees Celsius by heating up every gram of gold in the world?

A.  No.  It's impossible to perform that measurement.  This value is derived from repeated measurements of a limited number of test ingots of gold.  This value is then inferred to apply to all the gold in the world.

 

Q.  The energy of the neutron is measured in Mega electron Volts (MeV).  Do we know the energy of the neutron by measuring every neutron on Earth?

A.   No.  It's impossible to do that.  The value of 939.56563 MeV comes from measurements of a limited number of neutrons and this value is inferred to apply to them all.

 

See the problem, LF?   Either we infer from the part to the whole or science ceases to function.  

 

"So coming back to inflationary theory - while predictions match for conditions in our universe why should this be the case for any other universe?"

Because General Relativity (which is incorporated into inflationary theory) tells us that the necessary conditions for the making of a universe like ours are confined to a very tight window.  Any inflated universes that don't come within this window either cease to exist or cease to be life-friendly.   

 

The closed universe (sphere) is too 'heavy' and after a brief period of inflation it comes to a halt and then implodes, collapsing in upon itself to become a black hole.

The open universe (saddle shape) is too 'light' and inflates far too fast for even atoms to form.  It's ultimate fate is to become a sterile void.  Only the flat universe is balanced right on the knife-edge, exactly in the viable window for a life-friendly universe like ours.  As can be seen from the red triangle, it's internal geometry corresponds to exactly to what we experience.   The internal angles of a triangle in a flat universe add up to exactly 180 degrees.  Such a flat universe has three dimensions of space and one of time.  Again, this is exactly what we experience.  The other, dead-end universes have alien geometries, as can be seen from their distorted triangles. 

 

Now, in case you think this is an example of circular reasoning (oh look, what inflation predicts is just what we see!) please note the following.

These three types of expanding universe were found to be hidden in the equations of General Relativity.  Einstein missed them and published GR in 1906, oblivious to their existence.  But Alexander Friedmann found them in 1922.   http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_friedmann.html   Therefore, the flat, expanding universe was in fact predicted, over seventy years before our telescopes and satellites observed it and over fifty years before inflationary theory was first formulated.  

 

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

So LF, for these reasons we can be confident that what we observe in our flat universe is also what we would observe in other flat universes.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 2 By LogicalFallacy

  On 11/1/2017 at 11:49 PM, bornagainathiest said:

See the problem, LF?   Either we infer from the part to the whole or science ceases to function.  

 

Hi BAA

 

In each of your examples scientists are inferring from known data. My problem, and I guess the problem sdelsolray has, is that we have no data on any pocket universes. They are merely a hypothesis.

 

All of what you say holds true for OUR universe. However we cannot begin to say (IMO) that there are other universes, without first acquiring data. I think this faces the same problem as the arguments for God. While possible, without evidence its an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So if I was arguing this with you I'd say what I say to Christians: Demonstrate pocket universes exist then we will discuss the rest of your argument (I tell them demonstrate God exists... obviously)

 

I can see that your examples hold true for what we can observe. We can reasonably say there are other planets in M100 because we actually observe planets in our own universe and observe M100 also. We have not, and by your own admission cannot observe another pocket universe. I would say if you get to argue pocket universes, the religious person gets to argue God.

 

I would hope that further research actually can give us some solid data for this.

 

That's my problems with this argument. Now I'm clearly nowhere qualified to dissect inflationary theory so my objections are merely layman arguments and may simply suffer from ignorance. However pretend I'm a Christian, I think I have the same objections they would have. How do you show me otherwise?

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 2 By LogicalFallacy

  On 02/11/2017 at 2:29 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hi BAA

 

In each of your examples scientists are inferring from known data. My problem, and I guess the problem sdelsolray has, is that we have no data on any pocket universes. They are merely a hypothesis.

Yes, a hypothesis based upon known data.  

  Quote

 

All of what you say holds true for OUR universe. However we cannot begin to say (IMO) that there are other universes, without first acquiring data. I think this faces the same problem as the arguments for God. While possible, without evidence its an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So if I was arguing this with you I'd say what I say to Christians: Demonstrate pocket universes exist then we will discuss the rest of your argument (I tell them demonstrate God exists... obviously)

I think your reasoning is flawed, LF.

If Christians are arguing purely from faith (think Ironhorse) then they are not presenting any kind of hypothesis.   A hypothesis is an argument that is based (either directly or indirectly) upon a body of evidence.  By appealing to faith they are excluding evidence (see Hebrews 11 : 1- 3) and are also committing a logical fallacy.   https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/31/Appeal-to-Faith   So, to say that they are presenting an unfalsifiable hypothesis is not correct.  Their argument never qualifies as a hypothesis in the first place.

If Christians are using scientific evidence (think OrdinaryClay) then this will usually be a variant of the fine-tuned universe or intelligent design argument.

 

But, they have to cheat to do so.   

They invoke many statistics and examples that seem to point to the hand of God, but in all cases they falsely restrict the size of their sample to only the observable universe.  They also treat the observable universe's visual horizon as a solid and impermeable barrier across which no energy or information can cross.   Doing this allows them to falsely claim that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system and so couldn't have evolved the way it has without God's guidance.  

 

But you and I know that the edge of the observable universe is no such barrier and cannot close or seal anything off.

I've discussed this very topic, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/77558-is-the-fine-tuned-universe-argument-leaky/?tab=comments#comment-1155131   I would therefore submit that the science-based arguments used by Christians fail to make the grade as bona fide arguments because of this cheating.  

 

  Quote

 

I can see that your examples hold true for what we can observe. We can reasonably say there are other planets in M100 because we actually observe planets in our own universe and observe M100 also. We have not, and by your own admission cannot observe another pocket universe. I would say if you get to argue pocket universes, the religious person gets to argue God.

As per my argument against OrdinaryClay's 'leaky' universe, matter and energy passing across the edge of our observable universe cannot be destroyed.   

Galaxies cannot just disappear like this as the expansion of the universe carries them beyond our visual horizon.  While this is not direct evidence of other locations beyond that horizon, to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics we must treat the existence of locations beyond the horizon as being just as real as everything within the horizon.   If we fail to do that we violate the two measures I mentioned earlier, General Relativity and the Copernican Principle. 

 

This is exactly what cosmologists and theoretical physicists do, btw.   

Their theories (like Inflation) aren't formulated to explain only what is observed by us, from our location in the observable universe.  No.  Their theories try to explain what will be observed by any observer, located anywhere with the volumes of space their theories say should exist.   The bottom line in these sciences isn't do justice only to human observers but to do justice to all potential observers.   Otherwise their theories will have no explanatory power beyond the limits of our observable universe.

 

You see LF,  according to GR and the CP,  scientists have to equalize the status of all observers, everywhere.

No observer can have a special status over any other.  So when formulating theories like inflation the scientists cannot use it just to explain what we observe, they must formulate it to explain what observers in M100 observe too.  And when it comes to galaxies approaching the visual edge of our universe, what then?  Yesterday there were within our observable universe, but today they've passed beyond that horizon.   So where did they go?   Did they just wink out of existence and become metaphysical constructs, just as OrdinaryClay asserts?  Let's not forget that to any observer in one of these galaxies, WE are the one's who've just disappeared.  This paradox is solved by treating all observers equally.  And if you treat all observers equally you must also treat the locations they occupy equally too.

Re: what you say about who's entitled to argue what...

 

I am allowed to argue pocket universes because I use the evidence, logical inference based on that evidence and I also (AFAIK) follow the guidelines of cosmology correctly.

The Christians are not allowed to argue God because they do so using faith (disallowed by virtue of it's use being a formal logical fallacy) or they do so by dishonestly misusing the science.

 

  Quote

 

I would hope that further research actually can give us some solid data for this

That's my problems with this argument. Now I'm clearly nowhere qualified to dissect inflationary theory so my objections are merely layman arguments and may simply suffer from ignorance. However pretend I'm a Christian, I think I have the same objections they would have. How do you show me otherwise?

As per the above, LF.

I'd use the above reasoning to demolish your faith-based and science-based arguments for God and then submit that my inferential argument wins out over both.  It does so because inference is based upon evidence, while faith is based upon none.  It does so because your science-based arguments are either flawed or dishonest and my inferential argument is (hopefully) neither flawed nor dishonest.  So, while I cannot directly demonstrate the validity of my argument, I can do so indirectly.  You, on the other hand, have no valid arguments with which to proceed.  By default, mine is the stronger position.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 2 By LogicalFallacy

BAA before I go further can you explain what you mean by pocket universes?

 

I fully understand your examples of beyond our visual boundary, however we will still say that something beyond our visual boundary is still within our universe yes?

 

If I go back to In the Beginning thread you provided examples of inflation where there were bubbles within an expanding space, but were separate from each other. Is this what you mean by pocket universe? They are within inflating space but are like separate air bubbles in in a glass of fizzy for example?

 

If so are they separated dimensionally or just by space and time? In which case could the two ever interact?

 

Ok that ended up a whole lot of questions.... but important to understand where you are going with your OP.

 

Thanks

 

LF

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 3 By BAA

  On 02/11/2017 at 9:24 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

BAA before I go further can you explain what you mean by pocket universes?

I fully understand your examples of beyond our visual boundary, however we will still say that something beyond our visual boundary is still within our universe yes?

If I go back to In the Beginning thread you provided examples of inflation where there were bubbles within an expanding space, but were separate from each other. Is this what you mean by pocket universe? They are within inflating space but are like separate air bubbles in in a glass of fizzy for example?

If so are they separated dimensionally or just by space and time? In which case could the two ever interact?

Ok that ended up a whole lot of questions.... but important to understand where you are going with your OP

Thanks

LF

Not a problem, LF.

'Pocket universe' is the term used to describe one of those initially separate bubbles that distill out of the inflating energy field that fills the early universe.  Yes, they start physically separate from each other.  The early work on inflationary theory (in the 80's) suggested that each bubble stayed physically separate from all others, because it was supposed that the distance between them would increase faster than each one could inflate.  Thus, no contact was possible.  However, more recent work (and better data from various satellites) has marked a change in thinking.  Nowadays it's reckoned that while every bubble starts off separate, if inflation runs for long enough (and the calculations suggest that it should) more and more bubbles will come into contact with each other.  

 

Can two ever interact?

Yes.  They can.  If two bubbles 'bump' into each other, then just like colliding soap bubbles, a circular feature will be imprinted on the surfaces of both bubbles.  Not unlike this.

 

Now, wait up a minute!   

Rumors of just such a feature in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) have been doing the rounds for some years.  I've even posted a number of updates about this controversy in the Science vs Religion sub-forum.  Yet some people are getting over-excited about the CMB Cold Spot and images like this have been doing the rounds for a while.

 

 

 

The problem here LF is that the evidence is debatable.

Debatable...not clear cut.   Analyze the data in one way and the statistical significance of the spot becomes more pronounced.  Do it another way and it becomes less.  Now I'm sure you remember the BICEP2 fiasco from 2014, when their 'smoking gun' for inflation turned out to be nothing but a spurious artifact generated by interstellar dust combined with the wrong method of analysis?  Yes?  Well, that's why I still skeptical and open-minded about claims that this CMB cold spot being the result of another bubble universe bumping into ours.

I can explain why I'm skeptical (somewhat technical, but illustrations will help) or you can just take it from me that it's highly unlikely.

 

Also, you might think that if more and more bubbles come into contact with each other during inflation, then the incidence of these bumping events must increase accordingly and so we should see lots of these features in the CMB.   Actually, the opposite is true.  Once again, I can explain why (same terms as before - kinda technical, but well-illustrated) or you can just accept it from me that this is so.

Please let me know how you want to play this and if there's anything that needs further explanation and/or clarification.

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA.

 

Oops!  I just noticed that I didn't answer this question, LF.

I fully understand your examples of beyond our visual boundary, however we will still say that something beyond our visual boundary is still within our universe yes?

Provided something beyond our visual horizon still lies within the inflating volume of our particular bubble or pocket universe then Yes, it's physically within our bubble universe.  Think of nested spheres, LF.   Our observable universe is an imaginary sphere, with us at it's center.  It lies somewhere within our home bubble universe.  This is just one of many (possibly infinitely many?) other bubble universes all doing the same thing - inflating like crazy. 

Ok?

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 3 By Disillusioned

This is another thread I've been meaning to get to, but haven't had the time to properly treat. Such is life. I'll be brief. Hopefully I'll be able to contribute more in the next couple of days.

 

BAA, it seems to me that the form of your argument treats scientific theories in general, and inflationary cosmology in particular, as being either entirely correct or entirely incorrect. I think this is problematic. Premises 1 and 2 are not worth disputing. Premise 3 is a hypothesis, and premise 5 seems to rest on at least one hypothesis. And this is the problem that I see: the fact that inflationary cosmology is the best theory we have does not mean that its hypotheses should be treated as scientific facts. They are not facts. They are hypotheses. They may be good hypotheses, but they are still hypotheses. So this means that the conclusions you reach are also hypothetical.

 

That's all I have time for now. I will be back!

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 3 By BAA.

 

  On 03/11/2017 at 8:31 PM, disillusioned said:

This is another thread I've been meaning to get to, but haven't had the time to properly treat. Such is life. I'll be brief. Hopefully I'll be able to contribute more in the next couple of days.

BAA, it seems to me that the form of your argument treats scientific theories in general, and inflationary cosmology in particular, as being either entirely correct or entirely incorrect. I think this is problematic. Premises 1 and 2 are not worth disputing. Premise 3 is a hypothesis, and premise 5 seems to rest on at least one hypothesis. And this is the problem that I see: the fact that inflationary cosmology is the best theory we have does not mean that its hypotheses should be treated as scientific facts. They are not facts. They are hypotheses. They may be good hypotheses, but they are still hypotheses. So this means that the conclusions you reach are also hypothetical.

That's all I have time for now. I will be back!

Thanks, D.

 

Now this is the kind of serious challenge to the internal logic of my argument that I was hoping for.  (No disrespect meant to any other participants by this comment, btw.

To respond, I submit that given what I said to LogicalFallacy...

 

As per the above, LF.

I'd use the above reasoning to demolish your faith-based and science-based arguments for God and then submit that my inferential argument wins out over both.  It does so because inference is based upon evidence, while faith is based upon none.  It does so because your science-based arguments are either flawed or dishonest and my inferential argument is (hopefully) neither flawed nor dishonest.  So, while I cannot directly demonstrate the validity of my argument, I can do so indirectly.  You, on the other hand, have no valid arguments with which to proceed.  By default, mine is the stronger position.

...if the best outcome I can manage here are good hypotheses and a hypothetical conclusion, then that is still better than anything the Christians bring to the table.  Faith, flawed arguments and outright dishonesty.     So, by default mine is still the stronger position.   In two ways.   First, because I'll have done what they cannot.   Second, because I did it by the book. 

 

The book they use is not the right one for the job.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 4 By LimitedGrip

  On 11/3/2017 at 11:57 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Thanks, D.

Now this is the kind of serious challenge to the internal logic of my argument that I was hoping for.  (No disrespect meant to any other participants by this comment, btw.)

 

To respond, I submit that given what I said to LogicalFallacy...

 

As per the above, LF.

I'd use the above reasoning to demolish your faith-based and science-based arguments for God and then submit that my inferential argument wins out over both.  It does so because inference is based upon evidence, while faith is based upon none.  It does so because your science-based arguments are either flawed or dishonest and my inferential argument is (hopefully) neither flawed nor dishonest.  So, while I cannot directly demonstrate the validity of my argument, I can do so indirectly.  You, on the other hand, have no valid arguments with which to proceed.  By default, mine is the stronger position.

 

...if the best outcome I can manage here are good hypotheses and a hypothetical conclusion, then that is still better than anything the Christians bring to the table.  Faith, flawed arguments and outright dishonesty.     So, by default mine is still the stronger position.   In two ways.   First, because I'll have done what they cannot.   Second, because I did it by the book. 

 

The book they use is not the right one for the job.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Ugh. I submit, again, that I am less knowledgeable about cosmology than are you. But the point of your original post was to propose a syllogism, at heart. Not something that was merely, "better than what creationists got." 

 

Let it also be known that I know where you are coming from in that my youngest brother came to be an atheist due, in large part, with his fascination in cosmology. A route utterly independent of my own. I find it hard to consider abstract concepts...even the dual slit experiment. But for him, it's fodder. Eats it up. I fully believe that there is a disconnect dependent on how one's mind processes information. Neither better than the other, but functionally at odds. I imagine there are the rare few who can adequately bridge the gap. 

 

I don't mean to be harsh, because I have thoroughly enjoyed every post in this thread; and I hope you are, in fact, on to something.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 4

  On 04/11/2017 at 9:44 AM, LimitedGrip said:

 

Ugh. I submit, again, that I am less knowledgeable about cosmology than are you. But the point of your original post was to propose a syllogism, at heart. Not something that was merely, "better than what creationists got." 

Let it also be known that I know where you are coming from in that my youngest brother came to be an atheist due, in large part, with his fascination in cosmology. A route utterly independent of my own. I find it hard to consider abstract concepts...even the dual slit experiment. But for him, it's fodder. Eats it up. I fully believe that there is a disconnect dependent on how one's mind processes information. Neither better than the other, but functionally at odds. I imagine there are the rare few who can adequately bridge the gap. 

I don't mean to be harsh, because I have thoroughly enjoyed every post in this thread; and I hope you are, in fact, on to something.

Thanks, LG.  But I'd rather you were harsh.

 

When I was putting together the OP I reckoned that I was on to something, but lacked the necessary wherewithal to formulate it correctly. 

Like your brother, I'm good at cosmology, but not so good when it comes to presenting the premises and conclusion of an argument in the correct manner.   Hence this invitation to my fellow members to test this.  The feedback has been gold for me and several more pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place over the last few days.   But I'm not doing this for me, of course.   Whatever I learn through the experience of having my argument tested in this way will be fed back into Ex-C, for the general benefit of those members leaving Christianity. 

 

As an aside, the hard thinking I've been doing here has yielded an unexpected side effect.

I've unearthed something about the Big Bang singularity which I believe relates to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.   So, even if I thought I was on to something here and wasn't,  maybe I'm on to something else!

 

I'm pleased you've found this thread so enjoyable, btw.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted November 4 By Disillusioned.

  On 11/3/2017 at 11:57 PM, bornagainathiest said:

As per the above, LF.

I'd use the above reasoning to demolish your faith-based and science-based arguments for God and then submit that my inferential argument wins out over both.  It does so because inference is based upon evidence, while faith is based upon none.  It does so because your science-based arguments are either flawed or dishonest and my inferential argument is (hopefully) neither flawed nor dishonest.  So, while I cannot directly demonstrate the validity of my argument, I can do so indirectly.  You, on the other hand, have no valid arguments with which to proceed.  By default, mine is the stronger position.

 

...if the best outcome I can manage here are good hypotheses and a hypothetical conclusion, then that is still better than anything the Christians bring to the table.  Faith, flawed arguments and outright dishonesty.     So, by default mine is still the stronger position.   In two ways.   First, because I'll have done what they cannot.   Second, because I did it by the book. 

 

Oh, I see.

 

It's been my experience that Christians who try to use science as the basis of the teleological argument (or other arguments, for that matter) generally don't use science appropriately. Either they don't understand the science, or they misrepresent it, or they err when they make inferences based on it. I have found that the best approach is usually to treat the specific case that happens to be in front of me, and point out the issues with the particular version of the argument that I am faced with at that moment. In general, I think that the teleological argument is just silly, and that it is fairly easily refuted. But specific arguers sometimes come with novel claims and different lines of reasoning which can require specific attention.

 

So yes, I think that you could use your argument in the way you suggest here, and you would be in a stronger position than a Christian who is making a faith-based argument. But you wouldn't be in that much of a stronger position. You will not have shown that the universe is not fine-tuned for our existence. You will have shown that only that we don't have to think that it is. What I think is problematic is that the form your initial argument seems to indicate that the conclusions follow necessarily. But they don't. This is somewhat similar to what LG is saying as well. If the argument is presented as a deduction when it isn't, then it is subject to the same sort of dishonesty criticism that we serve up to the creationists. Better, I think, to lay all cards on the table at the outset, so as not to appear to be engaged in any sleight of hand. In other words, I think that the acknowledgement that you make above is very important. It actually doesn't make your position weaker; it makes it stronger.

 

  10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

The book they use is not the right one for the job.

 

No argument here.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted Wednesday at 11:31 AM By BAA.

 

My friends,

 

Having taken on board the understanding that inflation theory remains the best hypothetical explanation for the evolution of the early universe I’ve decided to proceed in the following way.

First, I’ll give a brief description of the two mostly likely ways that we can obtain evidence in support of inflation.  They can be summarize fairly quickly and easily, without referring to anything complicated.

 

Next, I’ll refer back to what the Christian apologists did in 2014, when a team of scientists made the claim that they’d detected this evidence.   

This claim was soon shown to be mistaken, but it’s the crafty trick used the Christians to say that, ‘God did it!’  that needs to be examined.  Why?  Because if evidence for inflation is detected and it stands up to scrutiny, then the Christians will try and pull exactly the same trick again.  They will maintain that Christianity is still true and still explains everything.  But this is not so!

So, if you don't want to be fooled, if you want to be ready for when they try to use that trick again and if you want to understand why inflation kills Christianity stone dead I’ll be happy to explain all.

Please let me know.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted Thursday at 01:28 AM By Disillusioned.

Sounds good BAA, I'd be interested in looking at that.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted Thursday at 02:21 AM By LogicalFallacy.

I agree, I'd be most interested, especially as it will (Or should) also help me with understanding the subject matter in the In the beginning topic. I'm trying to get a better grounding in cosmology. I think I've come in from virtually no education on the matter and trying to understand topics without a firm grounding.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted Thursday at 04:25 PM By BAA.

 

Ok guys, the two ways that we might gain evidence that will confirm inflation will come from looking at the CMB.

Either from circular features that are relics of where other universes have bumped into ours or from the signal of inflation itself, imprinted as B-mode polarization in the CMB.   The CMB Cold Spot... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot ...might be such a circular relic, but I personally consider that to be be an extremely long shot.  The BICEP2 team thought they'd nabbed that polarization signal in 2014,  but that didn't pan out. 

 

This proposed satellite...  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.2044.pdf ...should detect that polarization, if it exists. 

Please scroll down the .pdf file and study Figures 1 and 6.  You'll note that the dotted red line of Pixie's sensitivity intersects the proposed values for B-mode polarization.  It should therefore be capable of detecting the energy signature of inflation.

 

In either case, cue a William Lane Craig interview like this one... http://video.foxnews.com/v/3372449786001/?#sp=show-clips

Back in 2014 he took advantage of the fact that like most people Lauren Green didn't understand that the Big Bang we observe at the beginning of OUR universe isn't the true beginning of the entire inflationary process.  He knew that and exploited her ignorance, letting her reach the false conclusion that inflation DID begin with us.   That's a lie.   It's a lie by the deliberate and willful omission of vital knowledge - with the explicit intention of misleading others.

 

Also, when he says that God can create as many universes as He likes, Craig is careful NOT to say that ours is not special and not the first such universe.

He lets Green think that everything began with us, according to God's divine plan.  He let's her conclude that we are special and are the very first universe to exist.  But the Copernican Principle, General Relativity and Inflationary theory itself all DEMAND that we make no such claims about our universe.   

 

I'll leave this here, for your responses, questions and comments.

At a later point we can delve into the numbers involved and see just how much Craig is leaving unmentioned.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.