Atheism is proven irrational by science and mathematics

[warpspeedpetey]

it has come to my attention in various conversations that the accepted big bang theory proves the existence of an infinity prior to the expansion.

here is why.

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

anybody got a decent counter argument?

 

[Dameedna]

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

anybody got a decent counter argument?

There are different theories in the world of physics that are honestly beyond my comprehension, so I would suggest you just go do some research on those from a scientific perspective.

But, from what I know of the argument there is a point of infinite regression, no starting point. Claiming it’s god, or an infinite universe is one and the same. It’s infinite whatever it is. There is the observable universe, which is obviously that which we draw our knowlege of science from. There there is the infinite point to which it regresses.

IE, that “infinite” entity could be the actual universe itself, and if you want to call the universe a first cause be my guest. Something can’t create itself? It didn’t need to…it alway’s existed infinately.

Universe/god…what’s the difference? Nothing. It’s the attributes we attribute to God, that throw a spanner in the works.

 

[rossum]

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

It is not wise to base an argument for the existence of God on science. Science changes as more things are discovered. You cannot assume that the Big Bang was the beginning of time. See The Myth of the Beginning of Time.

We do not yet know whether String Theory is correct, but it does show that it is possible for science to look to what happened before the Big Bang, and what was in place to trigger it. That trigger may not have been God.

rossum

 

[PaulAndrew83]

The funniest thing I have ever read is the way modern physics covers up all of the things that shake the copernican principle.

If the observable data on the distribution of quasars, the isotropy of the CBR and multiple other observational phenomena were released people like dawkins/hawking would be lynched.

The other thing that is funny is the modern discoveries about the speed of light which have dethroned relativity - decreasing of the speed and Jose of imperial college london working to show experimentally that the speed of light is not constant.

If the other non-relativistic interpretation of the michelson/morely experiments was released the modern world would get an extreme shock. This experiment was repeated by miller and of course lets not forget the airy experiment - airys failure ^ ^.

Paul

 

[rossum]

If the observable data on the distribution of quasars, the isotropy of the CBR and multiple other observational phenomena were released people like dawkins/hawking would be lynched.

If it has not been released then how do you know what it says? If it has been released then why have not the effects you state been observed?

Do you have a reference to this data anywhere?

The other thing that is funny is the modern discoveries about the speed of light which have dethroned relativity - decreasing of the speed and Jose of imperial college london working to show experimentally that the speed of light is not constant.

Old news. The change in the value of the Fine Structure Constant was first noticed in 1999 (Webb 1999). Later measurements (Chand, 2004) have reduced the amount of variation, but even on Webb’s initial figures the variation is a fraction of a percent between 10 and 12 billion years ago. Relativity has not been dethroned yet.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There are different theories in the world of physics that are honestly beyond my comprehension, so I would suggest you just go do some research on those from a scientific perspective.

other theories, like string theory exist, but they are not fully accepted science because they dont not fully coincide with the observable phenomenon. they have changed every few years since their inception. in fact they have come from denial of eleven dimensions, to the acceptance, they have gone from 5 separate theories to 1, supergravity, which previously they had been formed to deny the validity of the eleven dimension supergravity model. they are not yet formed into a grand unified theory, nor may they ever be from their intellectual history, mean while good old newtonian physics still holds up to the data of the observable universe

But, from what I know of the argument there is a point of infinite regression, no starting point. Claiming it’s god, or an infinite universe is one and the same. It’s infinite whatever it is. There is the observable universe, which is obviously that which we draw our knowlege of science from. There there is the infinite point to which it regresses.

thats the point of my argument, there is no infinite regression, all the mathematical models stop at the expansion, they dont even prove a singularity, they only prove a self existent infinity, necessarily separate from the universe, prior to it, and therefore not bound by laws of physics or causality, as these are only locally provable phenomenon.

IE, that “infinite” entity could be the actual universe itself, and if you want to call the universe a first cause be my guest. Something can’t create itself? It didn’t need to…it alway’s existed infinately.

the mathematics of cosmology disprove that it is the universe itself that is infinite, see the OP. mathematics claim there was a beginning, it says there was a beginning, a big bang

Universe/god…what’s the difference? Nothing. It’s the attributes we attribute to God, that throw a spanner in the works.

unfortunately this idea contradicts basic science. so there is a huge difference. we can now separate a Creator from the universe. they cannot be the same, and still for mathematics to be a valid expression of logic.

also it is important to understand that the universe is finite in space, time, and matter, there is only so much of each.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is not wise to base an argument for the existence of God on science. Science changes as more things are discovered. You cannot assume that the Big Bang was the beginning of time. See The Myth of the Beginning of Time.

i dont assume it, the math proves it, basic cosmology

We do not yet know whether String Theory is correct, but it does show that it is possible for science to look to what happened before the Big Bang, and what was in place to trigger it. That trigger may not have been God.

the math does not regress through the expansion, you are talking about m-theory.

here they postulate certain conditions prior to the expansion, membranes to be exact, then they progress the math from these postulate conditions through a big bang to the present universe

the problem is these postulates, they are completely made up based on the umpteenth version of string theory, that itself is not yet proven as you allude to in your post.

even if all these guesses turned out to be correct, you would simply fall into the problem of infinite regression, i.e where did the ‘branes’ com from?

i will worry about string theory when it is proven. until then its a nice flight of fancy, but thats it at least for now.

 

[rossum]

i dont assume it, the math proves it, basic cosmology

Cosmology is science, not maths. Science cannot “prove” anything since all of science is provisional. Maths can prove things, but we cannot be certain that the mahts we have proved refers to the real world. Mathematicians have proved certain results about odd perfect numbers, yet we are not even sure that any odd perfect numbers exist at all.

even if all these guesses turned out to be correct, you would simply fall into the problem of infinite regression, i.e where did the ‘branes’ com from?

What string theory, and other ideas about the pre-Big Bang universe, shows is that we cannot just assume that the Big Bang was a beginning. It may just have been a change of state in a pre-existing universe. That reopens the question of whether the universe is eternal or not. An eternal universe does not require a creator/cause.

Hence my point that Aquinas’ First Mover argument is dependent on the results of cosmology and hence Aquinas’ argument must be provisional because all the results of cosmology are provisional.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Cosmology is science, not maths. Science cannot “prove” anything since all of science is provisional. Maths can prove things, but we cannot be certain that the mahts we have proved refers to the real world. Mathematicians have proved certain results about odd perfect numbers, yet we are not even sure that any odd perfect numbers exist at all.

the inability to know things applies equally to all knowledge, as all knowledge is provisional. it makes for nice conceptual exercises in a philosophy 101 class, but it is refuted by empirical experience in the real world.

i.e. i have never been to the asia, so i can not prove its existence, nice idea, but i assure you that i could hop on an airplane and be there in 18 hours.

i may have been mistaken, i should clarify that i seek arguments from accepted science or cosmology

What string theory, and other ideas about the pre-Big Bang universe, shows is that we cannot just assume that the Big Bang was a beginning. It may just have been a change of state in a pre-existing universe

.

as i said in the previous post, string theory is dead it has morphed through several incarnations and is now currently m-theory.

also as previously stated m-theory postulates pre-big bang conditions that no one can prove ever existed, then they progress the math forward through the big bang to the current universe.

further, the mathematics of cosmology prove, (yes i said prove) that the universe had a beginning at the expansion. basic newtonian physics

and lastly

no form of string theory has ever been proven to be accurate, it may as well be a fairy tale, you cant base a reasonable argument on it because its own validity is questionable, not by just a little but by a lot. you may benefit from a look into the history of string theory, you will find that it has undergone many permutations and as yet is not accepted in place of newtonian understanding for this reason

when it is proven then we can talk about it as an argument for or against my thesis

That reopens the question of whether the universe is eternal or not. An eternal universe does not require a creator/cause.

yet again accepted newtonian physics denies an infinite universe. the universe is finite, as observation tells us, as the mathematics define it.

and besides that, i would love to see any existent infinities that you could point out in the observable universe

Hence my point that Aquinas’ First Mover argument is dependent on the results of cosmology and hence Aquinas’ argument must be provisional because all the results of cosmology are provisional.

as above, all knowledge is provisional, it is empirically refuted as an argument applicable outside the classroom

 

[rossum]

the inability to know things applies equally to all knowledge, as all knowledge is provisional. it makes for nice conceptual exercises in a philosophy 101 class, but it is refuted by empirical experience in the real world.

i.e. i have never been to the asia, so i can not prove its existence, nice idea, but i assure you that i could hop on an airplane and be there in 18 hours.

I have been there - just take Bosporus ferry from Istanbul to Üsküdar.

also as previously stated m-theory postulates pre-big bang conditions that no one can prove ever existed, then they progress the math forward through the big bang to the current universe.

Science never “proves” anything, all it can do is to eliminate incorrect hypotheses. If you run the maths forwards and end up with a universe of only hydrogen then you can be sure that your initial starting point was wrong.

further, the mathematics of cosmology prove, (yes i said prove) that the universe had a beginning at the expansion. basic newtonian physics

Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity and quantum physics in the first half of the twwentieth century. We already know enough to tell that Einstein was not completely correct about gravity so his theory will eventually be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. Any conclusion derived from Newtonian physics is only valid provided it does not stray into areas with too large a mass or too small a distance. Since the monobloc of the Big Bang was both extremely massive and extremely small, any conclusion about that monobloc derived from Newtonian physics is invalid because it is well outside the range of conditions within which Newton’s physics is valid.

when it is proven then we can talk about it as an argument for or against my thesis

My argument does not rest on the validity or not of string theory. It rests on the fact that we cannot absolutely assume that the Big Bang was a beginning as opposed to a change of state. It is not wise to base a proof on an assumption which may be shown to be incorrect. The existence of string theory, and of other theories of the state of the universe before the Big Bang, serves to show that any such assumption is currently at risk of being shown to be invalid by science.

and besides that, i would love to see any existent infinities that you could point out in the observable universe

The cardinal number of the set of integers.

rossum

 

[Eucharisted]

It takes reason to know that something infinite and incomprehensible created the Universe.
It takes philosophy to know that something is Being.
It takes faith to know that Being is God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have been there - just take Bosporus ferry from Istanbul to Üsküdar.

sorry i hadn’t noticed that you were British

Science never “proves” anything, all it can do is to eliminate incorrect hypotheses.

i keep seeing this part as half a dozen of one, six of another. it doesn’t seem to matter as long as we arent talking about something being not ‘knowable’ or the more esoteric Philosophy of Science, a discussion of which is not my intent in this thread

If you run the maths forwards and end up with a universe of only hydrogen then you can be sure that your initial starting point was wrong.

the problem from my view point is that to reach conclusions with consistent with the observable universe you must start with imaginary data concerning the nature of any pre-big bang environment.

easy enough under those conditions to come to any conclusion you like. further, without those imaginary postulates one cant drive the equations back through the ‘infinite moment’ mentioned in the OP. which means the math is wrong, if it doesnt work from both directions then it is suspect to say the least

but again all these theories have yet to be proven, and as they change quite often, there is a growing school of thought that they may never be.

but i will worry about them when they are proven.

Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity and quantum physics in the first half of the twwentieth century. We already know enough to tell that Einstein was not completely correct about gravity so his theory will eventually be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. Any conclusion derived from Newtonian physics is only valid provided it does not stray into areas with too large a mass or too small a distance.

i was wrong, let me use the word Einsteinian physics or just accepted physics then

Since the monobloc of the Big Bang was both extremely massive and extremely small, any conclusion about that monobloc derived from Newtonian physics is invalid because it is well outside the range of conditions within which Newton’s physics is valid.

first let me say that my point is that the existence of the singularity, or monobloc is not provable, its existence is an assumption that simply gives one an object that the universe expanded from. the math never says there was a singularity, it just ends up at the expansion from a single point, which is not an object, it is just a point, but it is peoples natural inclination to assume ‘something’ exploded. but the math never gets there.

My argument does not rest on the validity or not of string theory. It rests on the fact that we cannot absolutely assume that the Big Bang was a beginning as opposed to a change of state.

sure we can, that ‘infinite moment’ postulated by the big bang is the mathematical starting point of the observable universe,

its not even an assumption, it is mathematically proved to have existed. anything prior to this expansion therefore is, by definition, not part of this universe.

even better, with no time or physical laws at that ‘moment’ there was also no such thing as ‘prior’ to the moment of expansion, which is why it can be interpreted as a self existent infinity. the math bears it out.

It is not wise to base a proof on an assumption which may be shown to be incorrect.

its not an assumption it is a logical mathematical regression from observed conditions. it can only be wrong if mathematics is wrong, or the observations are wrong, so it is possible, but highly unlikely.

The existence of string theory, and of other theories of the state of the universe before the Big Bang, serves to show that any such assumption is currently at risk of being shown to be invalid by science

yes it is at risk, but once again these other theories are still unproven and may never be. so they cant be used to contradict a a commonly accepted theory.

The cardinal number of the set of integers.

this is a conceptual infinity, not an existent infinity. no existent infinity can exist in a finite universe. the key here is the word ‘existent’ but dont feel bad, mathematically infinite setsare the first answer to that question that i usually get.

i.e there are an infinite number of points in space, however were one to assign any size at all to them, you would run out of room before you ran out of points, so to speak.
i got this analogy from a young woman who kept trying to prove MOQ

 

[rossum]

the problem from my view point is that to reach conclusions with consistent with the observable universe you must start with imaginary data concerning the nature of any pre-big bang environment.

We start with consistent data. We require initial data that results in a universe like the one we see around us. Given that we know the end point and we know someting of the processes we can calculate back to give a range of allowed values for the data at the starting point. It is not exact but it does allow us some insight into what was going on before the Big Bang. The fact that we can do this indicates that it is not unreasonable to allow that there was someting before the Big Bang.

but again all these theories have yet to be proven,

No scientific theory is ever proven. Not one. Science does not do “proof”, that is for mathematics. Science can only ever givve the best answer we currently have.

i was wrong, let me use the word Einsteinian physics or just accepted physics then

As I said, we know that Einstein’s physics also breaks down near the Big Bang. We are still looking for a theory of quantum gravity because Einstein’s gravity is not quantised but smooth; hence its failure in the quantum-scale conditions of the monobloc.

first let me say that my point is that the existence of the singularity, or monobloc is not provable, its existence is an assumption that simply gives one an object that the universe expanded from. the math never says there was a singularity, it just ends up at the expansion from a single point, which is not an object, it is just a point, but it is peoples natural inclination to assume ‘something’ exploded. but the math never gets there.

The existence or not of a singularity depends on which theory you are using. Different theories use different mathematics. As I said above, Einstein’s General Relativity breaks down near the monobloc so it is possible that the singularity is a result of the mathematics of that theory, and may disappear when the mathematics of quantum gravity are used. The mathematical results are only as good as the mathematical model they are based on. Results from a faulty model do not have to be valid in the real universe, even if they have no mathematical errors.

its not even an assumption, it is mathematically proved to have existed.

Any mathematical proof in physics (or cosmology) is only as good as the theory it is based on. Hence all such proofs are provisional as are all scientific theories.

anything prior to this expansion therefore is, by definition, not part of this universe.

I define the universe as all that exists. If something existed before the Big Bang then that is also part of the universe.

even better, with no time or physical laws at that ‘moment’ there was also no such thing as ‘prior’ to the moment of expansion, which is why it can be interpreted as a self existent infinity. the math bears it out.

Some theories have time starting at the Big Bang, others allow for a time before the Big Bang. Things are not as certain as you seem to think.

its not an assumption it is a logical mathematical regression from observed conditions. it can only be wrong if mathematics is wrong, or the observations are wrong, so it is possible, but highly unlikely.

You have left out the possibility of the model (or theory) being wrong. Observations are only correct to within a margin of error. Calculations are only as correct as the computer program that runs them - many equations in theoretical physics do not have analytical solutions but have to be solved by computer methods. A bad model will give bad results no matter how good the observations or calculations.

no existent infinity can exist in a finite universe.

How do you know that the universe is finite?

rossum

 

[PoliSciProf]

Since I know next to nothing about physics and cosmology, I am able to speak with great confidence about these subjects. Since I can only speak from pop physics, some seem to suggest that Nothingness is indeed not empty but a seething foam that is coming into being (particles) and vanishing into nothing. In other words, there is a quantum flux by which the universe just comes into being as a necessary consequence of the identitiy of being and nothingness. Since this is a philosophy forum, I assume that some of the posters are familiar with Hegel’s Logic. For those who need some refreshing, here is a link to an important article by Hans-Georg Gadamer ***The Idea of Hegel’s Logic/**I] (1971): cddc.vt.edu/marxists/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/gadamer.htm

It is difficult to summarize The Logic and Gadamer’s article. I think three short sections from H-G G will illustrate my point.
(1) Thus Hegel lays his very own foundation, on which he rebuilds absolute knowing as the truth of metaphysics as Aristotle, for one, conceived of it in nous or Aquinas, for another, in intellectus agens. And thus a universal logic — which explicates the ideas of God before the creation — is made possible.
(2) The transition from Being and Nothing to Becoming is, however, entirely different. Is there a dialectical transition here in the same sense? Hegel himself seems to single out this case as a special one when he comments that Being and Nothing “are only different in belief.” That would mean that if both were purely thought by themselves neither would be distinguishable from the other. Thus the pure thought of Being and the pure thought of Nothing would be so little different that their synthesis could not be a new, richer truth of thought. One way Hegel puts this is to say that Nothing “bursts forth immediately” from Being (L I 85). Clearly, the expression, “bursts forth,” is one carefully chosen to exclude any idea of mediation and transition. In accord with this it is said on page 79 that talk of such a transition implies the false appearance of separateness. And only in the case of the transition from Being and Nothing to Becoming does Hegel say that “that passing from one to the other does not yet constitute a relationship” (p. 90). Thus that Nothing “bursts forth” from Being is intended to mean that although in our belief Being and Nothing appear as the most extreme opposites, thought cannot succeed in maintaining a distinction here.
**(3)**I]Thus, saying that “Being passes into Nothing and Nothing passes into Being,” is actually a quite untenable way of putting the matter, because a Being already present and distinct from Nothing would thereby be presupposed. If one reads Hegel precisely, one will see that in fact he never speaks of such a transition at all. Instead he says that “what the truth is, is neither Being nor Nothing, but on the contrary, that Being does not now pass over into Nothing nor Nothing into Being, but rather has already passed over” — a transition, accordingly, which has always taken place already. Being and Nothing exist solely as passing over or transition itself, as Becoming. It seems to me most significant that Hegel is able to describe Being and Nothing starting with either intuition or thought (insofar as intuition or thought can be spoken of here). *

In short, both being and nothingness are both what they are and what they are not. They are both the same and different. And we can think back to them from their synthesis as Becoming. The relationship is dialectical. Becoming is the manifestation of what Hegel claims is an objective account of the Whole. I can’t go into further detail here due to space limitations but I have often wondered if somehow Hegelian ontology might connect with quantum physics. (Please note my opening caution). My main point in this post is that Aristotle and Thomism and their various scholastic variations may not provide adequat philosophical underpinnings to understand the question of the OP.

(By the way, I think Gadamer was Martin Heidegger’s last living student.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We start with consistent data. We require initial data that results in a universe like the one we see around us.

thats the problem with m-theories idea for pre-big bang environment. it uses imaginary postulates predetermined to result in a certain outcome, than it applies an unproven theory that changes every few years. that means it is all guess work. it boils down to a fantasy about an imagination. then it still fails to agree with accepted observable phenomenon well enough to be used as applied physics.

Given that we know the end point and we know someting of the processes we can calculate back to give a range of allowed values for the data at the starting point. It is not exact but it does allow us some insight into what was going on before the Big Bang.

yes, one can to some degree determine the state of system as a ratio of the how complete the information concerning that system
is. yet as the basis for this argument is a completely unproven theory then there is not much information too use. there is no such thing as pre-big bang information, it is wild conjecture at best.

The fact that we can do this indicates that it is not unreasonable to allow that there was someting before the Big Bang.

as above the mathematics say that there is an expansion from a point, ‘prior’ to that there were no laws or time, precluding the possibility of a pre existent environment

m-theory only gets around this idea by postulating a best guess, and then applying an unproven theory to those postulates.

its still just a guess about a guess.

No scientific theory is ever proven. Not one. Science does not do “proof”, that is for mathematics. Science can only ever givve the best answer we currently have.

your right, but quit beating a dead horse, i wont go down the path of the Philosophy of Science, it only works well in the classroom. fact is you cant prove causality, but in the trillions of times per second it is tested in any particle movement, we have yet to see the law of causality disproved. thats just an analogy, not an argument, but i hope that you see what i mean.

As I said, we know that Einstein’s physics also breaks down near the Big Bang. We are still looking for a theory of quantum gravity because Einstein’s gravity is not quantised but smooth; hence its failure in the quantum-scale conditions of the monobloc.

what monobloc, or singularity? the math never gets there, its only an assumption. the math stops at an expansion from a single point. it never actually shows that object exists.

The existence or not of a singularity depends on which theory you are using. Different theories use different mathematics. As I said above, Einstein’s General Relativity breaks down near the monobloc so it is possible that the singularity is a result of the mathematics of that theory, and may disappear when the mathematics of quantum gravity are used. The mathematical results are only as good as the mathematical model they are based on. Results from a faulty model do not have to be valid in the real universe, even if they have no mathematical errors.

all theories use the same mathematics, as long as we are talking base 10. the physics dont break down near the monobloc(which is a tacit admission that no monobloc existed) rather the mathematical values hit ‘infinity’

Any mathematical proof in physics (or cosmology) is only as good as the theory it is based on. Hence all such proofs are provisional as are all scientific theories.

yes, yes that horse is quite dead

I define the universe as all that exists. If something existed before the Big Bang then that is also part of the universe.

the OP is the ‘observable universe’ so that is the definition that we should use.

Some theories have time starting at the Big Bang, others allow for a time before the Big Bang. Things are not as certain as you seem to think.

yes other theories exist, but none conform to the data on the observable universe as well as the big bang theory.

that is why they are not taught as science in the public education system

if you know of a theory that does a better job, let me know

You have left out the possibility of the model (or theory) being wrong. Observations are only correct to within a margin of error. Calculations are only as correct as the computer program that runs them - many equations in theoretical physics do not have analytical solutions but have to be solved by computer methods. A bad model will give bad results no matter how good the observations or calculations.

of course it could be wrong, but it is accepted science, the models have been run countless times, destroyed, reconstructed, and then rebuilt, by physicists around the world for many years now, and the math always runs into the same wall as it approaches the beginning of the expansion. as you say, it is the best approximation, we are capable of.

How do you know that the universe is finite?

the universe has scientifically verified limits in mass, dimesion, and mathematically in age. thats how i know

the question becomes why didn’t you?

if you are posting arguments from some website, that would explain the why you keep arguing the point on the various forms of string theory.

and thats what the problem seems to be, all the theories from which you are arguing are not accepted science because they are fundamentally flawed in their description of the observable universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since I know next to nothing about physics and cosmology, I am able to speak with great confidence about these subjects. Since I can only speak from pop physics, some seem to suggest that Nothingness is indeed not empty but a seething foam that is coming into being (particles) and vanishing into nothing. In other words, there is a quantum flux by which the universe just comes into being as a necessary consequence of the identitiy of being and nothingness.

 

[rossum]

there is no such thing as pre-big bang information, it is wild conjecture at best.

I agree that there is a degree of uncertainty, but the mere fact that we can discuss pre-Big Bang information indicates that we cannot just assume that the Big Bang was an absolute beginning.

as above the mathematics say that there is an expansion from a point, ‘prior’ to that there were no laws or time, precluding the possibility of a pre existent environment

Using the equations from one theory we do indeed get expansion from a single point. Using the equations from a different theory we get explansion from an extremely small volume which is larger that a single point and allows us to know something about what happened prior to the collapse to that extremely small volume. Different theories use different equations. Einsteins theory uses smooth equations which naturally give rise to mathematical points. Quantum theories use jerky equations that do not give rise to mathematical points.

what monobloc, or singularity? the math never gets there, its only an assumption. the math stops at an expansion from a single point.

The singularity is the single point. Consider gravity at the “surface” of a mathematical point with mass. Since the equation has distance (d) as the denominator:F = G x (m1 x m2) / dand a point has zero size, this equation gives a division by zero - a mathematical singularity. The singularities arise from the mathematical equations; their presence is an indication that those particular equations - and the theories they are derived from - are incorrect descriptions of the real world.

all theories use the same mathematics

But different theories use different equations. The equations for Newton’s gravity are different to the equations used in Einstein’s gravity.

the OP is the ‘observable universe’ so that is the definition that we should use.

The observable universe is everything in the past light cone. That includes the Big Bang (we can see the CMBR) and anything we can observe from before the Big Bang.

yes other theories exist, but none conform to the data on the observable universe as well as the big bang theory.

There is more than one Big Bang theory. Any currently viable theory has to include the Big Bang.

the universe has scientifically verified limits in mass, dimesion, and mathematically in age. thats how i know

There are limits in mass and space dimensions. Limits in time are currently up for grabs in both directions. In the forward direction it looks like we are heading for a heat death (infinite time) rather than a big crunch, though that may change as more information on dark matter comes in. In the backwards direction we are back to the question of whether the Big Bang was a beginning (finite time) or a phase change (infinite time). That question is currently open.

if you are posting arguments from some website, that would explain the why you keep arguing the point on the various forms of string theory.

My degree is in Mathematical Physics, and I have had an interest in Cosmology for a long time. String theory is merely an example, like you I am inclined to doubt that it is the last word.

rossum

 

[Nepenthe]

Gotta say, Speedy, you just got told what. I’m not a Mathematical Physicist by any means, although i have a lot more hardcore training in mathematics and physics than the vast majority of Americans, and I gotta say, the way you use terminology and your grasp of the concepts here are pretty migraine-inducing.

There’s just some stuff you need to know to be able to talk about these matters in any sensical way, guy. I mean, are you used to using, oh say, different kinds of configurational space to describe mathematical functions? And oh dear, please don’t say ‘proven theory’ or any of that twaddle, okay?

And you may have doubts about probability, but, long story short, I don’t. On the other hand, I do harbor misgivings about what we call causality. How 'bout them apples?

Here’s a tip: try out the words ‘reproducible’ and ‘falsifiable’, just for giggles!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree that there is a degree of uncertainty, but the mere fact that we can discuss pre-Big Bang information indicates that we cannot just assume that the Big Bang was an absolute beginning.

there is the possibility, because of that uncertainty, that the big bang was not temporally an absolute beginning

we have yet to discuss pre-big bang information at all, it does not exist outside of conjecture. none is based on the currently accepted science

but the point i am trying to make is that no currently accepted theory postulates that, only theories that are yet to be decided.

none of our debate so far has addressed the cosmological implications of the the accepted model of the big bang

which is the the point of the OP. a discussion of these side theories is interesting but not germane to that issue in the OP

Using the equations from one theory we do indeed get expansion from a single point. Using the equations from a different theory we get explansion from an extremely small volume which is larger that a single point

how can there be an extremely small volume, that is smaller than a single point? a point is infinitely small…

but no matter, the accepted big bang theory is the only one the OP seeks to use, all others are yet to be accepted for their flaws.

and allows us to know something about what happened prior to the collapse to that extremely small volume. Different theories use different equations. Einsteins theory uses smooth equations which naturally give rise to mathematical points. Quantum theories use jerky equations that do not give rise to mathematical points.

only the big bang theory is accepted science, as it has been since the thirties, it has yet to be replaced. other theories in that time have come and gone, in order to discuss the implications of the big bang theory on cosmology, we must pick a theory, in this case the OP specifies the big bang theory.

The singularity is the single point. Consider gravity at the “surface” of a mathematical point with mass. Since the equation has distance (d) as the denominator:F = G x (m1 x m2) / dand a point has zero size, this equation gives a division by zero - a mathematical singularity.

gravity equations aside, the big bang theory postulates an actual physical, monobloc, or singularity whose mass equals all the material in the universe. not simply a mathematical point.

The singularities arise from the mathematical equations; their presence is an indication that those particular equations - and the theories they are derived from - are incorrect descriptions of the real world.

true, but as above the big bang theory postulates a physical monobloc, that the math never actually reaches

But different theories use different equations. The equations for Newton’s gravity are different to the equations used in Einstein’s gravity.

once again this is true, but missing the point of the OP, only the big bang is accepted science. all these other theories are not.

The observable universe is everything in the past light cone. That includes the Big Bang (we can see the CMBR) and anything we can observe from before the Big Bang.

yes the light speed horizon is 13.8 billion light years across as measured by but it doesn’t show anything pre-big bang.

you seem to be under the impression that we have some solid, empirical data about any pre-big bang environment. i dont know of any that is more than conjecture, if you have some, let me know.

There is more than one Big Bang theory. Any currently viable theory has to include the Big Bang.

i assume you are talking about the various competing inflationary models that look to differentiate the pattern of energy and matter in the environment from t=0 to t=1(-35) seconds. if not let me know what theories you are referring to.

if so, then first let me say that those models only address what the composition, or distribution of matter or energy of the alleged monobloc might have been, since i am denying the existence of the monobloc, or singularity that is all beside the point. the math never shows a monobloc or physical singularity in the standard model.

second all these competing inflationary models are no better accepted than the various permutations of string theory. all of them have various fatal flaws.

There are limits in mass and space dimensions. Limits in time are currently up for grabs in both directions. In the forward direction it looks like we are heading for a heat death (infinite time) rather than a big crunch, though that may change as more information on dark matter comes in.

dark matter is another unproven idea, something that most physicists take as a necessity, rather than an actual item.
much like the monobloc, or singularity it is a variable that makes the math make sense, it has yet to be proven to exist.

In the backwards direction we are back to the question of whether the Big Bang was a beginning (finite time) or a phase change (infinite time). That question is currently open.

as to a beginning the question is only open in models outside the standard big bang theory, the phase change that you speak of is only after t=0 in various inflation models, my point is that no monobloc is mathematically shown to exist

My degree is in Mathematical Physics, and I have had an interest in Cosmology for a long time. String theory is merely an example, like you I am inclined to doubt that it is the last word.

quite sorry about the inference, ive met some who just cut and past other peoples arguments

i find theoretical cosmology fascinating, however i must insist that further argumentation on this thread, only use the standard model, as that is the gist of the OP.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Gotta say, Speedy, you just got told what. I’m not a Mathematical Physicist by any means, although i have a lot more hardcore training in mathematics and physics than the vast majority of Americans, and I gotta say, the way you use terminology and your grasp of the concepts here are pretty migraine-inducing.

There’s just some stuff you need to know to be able to talk about these matters in any sensical way, guy. I mean, are you used to using, oh say, different kinds of configurational space to describe mathematical functions? And oh dear, please don’t say ‘proven theory’ or any of that twaddle, okay?

And you may have doubts about probability, but, long story short, I don’t. On the other hand, I do harbor misgivings about what we call causality. How 'bout them apples?

Here’s a tip: try out the words ‘reproducible’ and ‘falsifiable’, just for giggles!

do you have an argument based on the standard model of the big bang that refutes my position?