Big Bang Myth

[sidbrown]

I believe that it is this duality of space at the ground of reality, that allows the physical to commingle with the spiritual at the explicate level of reality.

|And where would the contimuum hypoothesis fit in ?

 

[itinerant1]

what are you talking about -

What is your motivation for responding to a post you fail to understand?

as regards different matter “those who took college courses in physics hardly more than a single generation ago learnt of matter which has since disappeared from scientific reckoning,but where it has disappeared what scientist clearly knows.One of the greatest theoretical achievements of science in this century has been the dematerialization of matter - belief in matter,in short,is belief in a gross but mesmeric illusion”[Dr.Paul Brunton] - so now what is all this science about matter,anti matter and CDM etc - more later -

It looks like you never studied astronomy, physics, chemistry, or any of the earth sciences.

btw the YECs I know are not in need of your benefits,thank you very much -

That tells me the YECs you know are closed-minded individuals. It’s not a very flattering characterization of YECs which you present, but I must agree with you on this one point.

btw Augustine was not infallible and so those who exhort us to support his views on science might be rather more impartial,and remind us he also wrote the following “But as to the fable that there are antipodes,that is to say,men on the opposite side of the earth,where the sun rises whilst it sets to us,men who walk with their feet opposite to ours,that is on no ground credible” This view, he claimed, was condemned by reason and Scripture ![Daylight No.6] - more later - twinc

That just illustrates my point. There are many things in Scripture that cannot be read literally as scientifically correct. Augustine mistakenly used Scripture in this case to support an antiquated view of the physical nature of the Earth. The biblical literalism of the YECs entails the same exegetical fallacy. Glad you agree. Keep up the good work!

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant1:

I think I am on the same page with you most of the time, but I don’t understand why you don’t consider the Big Bang evidence for the very Catholic doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. With the distinction you make between scientific theory of creation and theological theory, are you saying that theological creation is more comprehensive because it includes more than the creation of the cosmos, that it is more than the Big Bang? If that is your reasoning I agree. However, since God created us with the gift of reason we are meant to apply it in seeking His truth. I contend that the most effective use of reason in understanding the nature of reality has been the development and application of science. I believe that eventually when science uncovers the implicate truth of reality, it will find God. And waiting there to greet the men and women that are the unbelieving, materialistic part of that scientific endeavor will be the countless men and women that have gotten there in the most direct route, through faith.

I believe that God initiated creation with the big bang with a mechanism still hidden from modern science. The reason that the implicate truth of reality stays hidden from modern science is its adherence to a philosophical principle defined by what is called logical positivism whose base tenets that apply to science are:

1. Rejection of the idea that reality has some purpose;
2. Rejection of any attempt to explain natural phenomena by attributing to it an essence or a secret cause of things;
3. Rejection as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses;
4. Advocates the study of constant relationship among things without delving into the underlying causes.

The first three are an outright rejection of God and the fourth says don’t even bother to look for Him. Science’s adherence to this philosophical approach in effect divides our approach to the nature of knowledge into two views: the explicate and the implicate. These are terms used by the physicist David Bohm to explain some of the so-called quantum weirdness. The explicate view is the one that science describes and we experience directly through our senses. Its elements are space, time, matter, and energy. The implicate view is of a deeper level of reality, the ground of reality, at which the elements are space, form, change, and order. God created a reality constructed of forms that change and interact in an orderly manner. The forms (in space) created at the implicate level are manifested as matter at the explicate level; change at the implicate level is manifested as time at the explicate level; change in forms and space at the implicate level are manifested as radiant and ponderable energy at the explicate level.

When you say that creation occurred prior to the Big Bang, I agree. Certainly, God created the singularity from nothing “before” the big bang then created the mechanism that caused the universe to form; this two step sequence - creation of the singularity and an orderly change of forms – is manifested at the explicate level as the Big Bang. God created the singularity from nothing. It seems to me that the singularity of science and the “nothing” of God had to be the same thing. There is a simple way to understand how the seed of the universe was “nothing” at the implicate level and a singularity at the explicate level.

Continued—

How do you know that there was not a physical state before the intitial singularity?

 

[itinerant1]

Why mention SUvs when it is the huge fleets of 18-wheelers, each getting about 6 MPG, that consume more?

I never mentioned SUVs or any particular kind of motor vehicle. My statement was that we have become over-dependent on motor vehicles. The situation reeks havoc with the environment. Technology is great when used responsibly. If people aren’t out and about doing unnecessary driving, then they are at home watching too much television. It’s not a healthy way to live – it’s not good for the individual and its not good for the planet. The problem is much bigger than SUV’s or 18-wheelers.

 

[itinerant1]

btw Augustine was not infallible and so those who exhort us to support his views on science might be rather more impartial,and remind us he also wrote the following “But as to the fable that there are antipodes,that is to say,men on the opposite side of the earth,where the sun rises whilst it sets to us,men who walk with their feet opposite to ours,that is on no ground credible” This view, he claimed, was condemned by reason and Scripture ![Daylight No.6] - more later - twinc

A second look at this statement of yours reveals that it is more problematic than I first thought. First, no one is exhorting anyone to accept St. Augustine’s views on science, unless you mean his views on the relation of science to Scripture. If it is the latter situation, then what people believed in St. Augustine’s day, as well as St. Augustine himself, regarding the antipodes totally is irrelevant to his views on science and its relation to Scripture.

It is, rather, the unreasonable YEC view of the world with its denial of good science that is, relatively speaking, far more backwards than the ancient denial of the existence of antipodes, since denial of antipodes was reasonable at the time as there was no scientific or other evidence to the contrary. The anti-science posture and blind biblical literalism of “creationism” is still the problem, a problem that highlights the absurdity of a YEC trying to make a point by saying St. Augustine was not infallible.

In De Genesi ad litteram, St. Augustine forcefully concluded that the sphericity of the Earth as established by reason should be given priority to whatever the Bible may say to the contrary on that point. This remains a sound precept. It is most unfortunate for any YECs who think they know better than St. Augustine. As a result, YECs remain at a superficial level of understanding in regard to both science and Scripture.

There is with St. Augustine, the obvious recognition that reason and Revelation cannot contradict each other. If there had been conclusive evidence for the existence of antipodes then St. Augustine would undoubtedly have accepted the fact. The God of the natural world is also the God of Scripture. YEC’s have separated the God in the Book of Wisdom, who created all things by “measure, weight, and number” (the object of science), from the God of Creation in Genesis.

There is good scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory. In fact, it is the most successful theory in the history of science. The YEC motivation for rejecting the theory has nothing to do with sound scientific concerns. The motivation, as everyone knows, is to promote the views of creationist ideology, by whatever means, rational or not.

 

[StAnastasia]

I never mentioned SUVs or any particular kind of motor vehicle. My statement was that we have become over-dependent on motor vehicles. The situation reeks havoc with the environment. Technology is great when used responsibly. If people aren’t out and about doing unnecessary driving, then they are at home watching too much television. It’s not a healthy way to live – it’s not good for the individual and its not good for the planet. The problem is much bigger than SUV’s or 18-wheelers.

Is the problem perhaps with 19 wheelers?

Itinerant1, it will be interesting to see what happens if China shuts off exports of rare earth elements in 2012, and when other strategic minerals become scarce. Can we live without computers, or cell phones, of MRI machines, or chemotherapy, or pharmaceuticals, or air travel, or television? I need to buy new crampons before then.

Of course, humans and their ancestors lived without these for millions of years, but with different expectations.than ours. Return to a more gentle coexistence with the earth may be good for our physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual health.

Happy Holy Saturday,
StAnastasia

 

[twinc]

What is your motivation for responding to a post you fail to understand?

It looks like you never studied astronomy, physics, chemistry, or any of the earth sciences.

it matters little what I studied,or what my biased opinion is or my faulty conclusions.In this wise I have always suggested we consult the experts and specialists in not just one or two disciplines but in all disciplines as we were rightly advised to do by Pope Pius XII via humani generis,so please do so and let us know what they have concluded after much specialised study,discussion and debate since 1950 - it seems it is you who fail to understand - twinc

That tells me the YECs you know are closed-minded individuals. It’s not a very flattering characterization of YECs which you present, but I must agree with you on this one point.

which of course if preferable,by far,then being open minded and absorbing any old,odd,pseudo non science and nonsensense riddled,it seems, with hoaxes,fakes,cons and frauds as I read it - twinc

That just illustrates my point. There are many things in Scripture that cannot be read literally as scientifically correct. Augustine mistakenly used Scripture in this case to support an antiquated view of the physical nature of the Earth. The biblical literalism of the YECs entails the same exegetical fallacy. Glad you agree. Keep up the good work!

nowhere in Scriptures did Augustine read some of the phony things he postulated so presumably he got it from the same sort of phony science that was abroad in his day - btw many if not most things in Scripture cannot be read literally as scientifically correct.Where,however,Scripture touches on science or history it is scientifically and historically correct for how could it be otherwise from the creator of scientists and historians and science and history - it seems Augustine accepted,contrary to Scriptures that the first living thing to appear was the first man,followed by plants,animals and the first woman.His ideas certainly suggest something like the science of ‘spontaneous generation’[Daylight No.6] - twinc

 

[yppop]

Ypopp, I’m not sure of your dividing line at the formation of stars. Why are stars significant? Why not nebulae? Why not the separation of the fundamental forces? Why not galaxy formation, and planetary formation?

StA

The separation of fundamental forces is part of the big bang theory.

Star, galaxy, and planet formation are not; they are explained by completely different mechanisms. For example, the big bang explanation relies on negative pressure (anti-gravity); the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets rely on gravity to make nebular theory, nucleosynthesis and other theories to work.

The big bang theory ends with and includes the formation of nebulae after which gravity takes over to form stars, galaxies, and planets. Different explanations are called for.

My contention is simply to show that to get from the singularity to the mind of man; science must invent a plethora of hypothesis/theories to complete the path of creation. Such as: formation of the earth, (accretion or impact theories, plate tectonics); creation of a life friendly environment: (Gaia Hypothesis); creation of unicellular life – abiogenesis: (Oparin’s hypothesis, autocatalysis, Clay theory, Gold’s theory, PAH world hypothesis); diversity of life: (the theory of evolution and modifications such as: punctuated equilibrium, autopoesis, synthetic evolution, entelechy, dissipative structures); multicellular organisms: ( Symbiotic theory, Cellurization theory, Colonial theory); creation of humans: (a new theory with each new find), and the mind: (Edelman’s dynamic core hypothesis, Pribham’s holonomic brain theory). All together science can lay claim to a rather extensive description of reality, but the description is neither coherent not comprehensive. I believe that God’s mechanism of creation is both coherent and comprehensive and can only be deduced at the ground of reality.

Happy Easter,
Yppop

 

[yppop]

|And where would the contimuum hypoothesis fit in ?

Sid
The continuum hypothesis as formulated by Gregor Cantor states that there are no infinite sets between aleph(0) and aleph(1).

Aleph(0) defines the infinity associated with the rational numbers; aleph(1) defines the infinity associated with the real numbers.

Rational numbers define a discrete arrangement of points; real numbers define a continuous arrangement of points. So, the continuum hypothesis (the last I heard, it remains unproven) is the mathematical basis I rely on to claim that there are two kinds of space: discrete and continuous.

As you might know: aleph(1) is derived as a power set of aleph(0):

(2)^[aleph(0)] = aleph(1) and

aleph(1) – aleph(0) = aleph(1)

In other words, you can remove all of the points in space associated with aleph(0) without diminishing the number of points associated with continuous space aleph(1) in the least. My contention is that God is associated with the greater infinity aleph(1). (Cantor believed that there was an infinite number of aleph’s and at the end was God the ultimate infinite, but I don’t want to get into that, Cantor spent a lot of time in mental institutions thinking about infinity). To build a model that describes the ground of reality, we can utilize this mathematical duality to build a model of reality that includes both material and spiritual aspects.

Happy Easter
Yppop

 

[yppop]

How do you know that there was not a physical state before the intitial singularity?

Itinerant1

Of course, I don’t know.

All I can do is apply what passes for reason to the problems associated with finding the meaning of life, which has been my long standing quest.

Here is my reasoning: The intellectually dishonest cosmologists derive multi-verse or quantum fluctuation hypotheses to eliminate the obvious “beginning” of the universe because a beginning implies a creation event and creation events imply God. Intellectual honest scientists when asked what came before the big bang can only answer “nothing”. That gets us right to creatio ex nihilo. So I merely found a way to satisfy both science and my religion by postulating the “cosmologist’s nothing” = “religion’s nihilo” = “my view of the singularity as an enormous number (10exp137) of discrete points immersed in an infinite sea of continuous space-like substance I call infinite nothingness”.

Anyone see the significance in the number 137?

Happy Easter,
Yppop

 

[twinc]

nowhere in Scriptures did Augustine read some of the phony things he postulated so presumably he got it from the same sort of phony science that was abroad in his day - btw many if not most things in Scripture cannot be read literally as scientifically correct.Where,however,Scripture touches on science or history it is scientifically and historically correct for how could it be otherwise from the creator of scientists and historians and science and history - it seems Augustine accepted,contrary to Scriptures that the first living thing to appear was the first man,followed by plants,animals and the first woman.His ideas certainly suggest something like the science of ‘spontaneous generation’[Daylight No.6] - twinc

it seems,as I read it,there is no real or good evidence for the big bang.In fact evidence that falsifies the big bang was published in Astrophysical Journal on 10th February 2005 and comes from observations of quasars with extreme red shifts that appear physically linked to galaxies with much lower red shifts.This strongly suggests that the red shift has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe as the big bang theory asserts[Pamphlet No.356] - more later - twinc

 

[Just_Lurking]

Sid
The continuum hypothesis as formulated by Gregor Cantor states that there are no infinite sets between aleph(0) and aleph(1).

This isn’t quite right. The aleph’s are defined as:

aleph(0) = smallest infinite cardinality = cardinality of the integers = cardinality of the rationals.

aleph(1) = next smallest infinite cardinality after aleph(0) = cardinality of the countably infinite ordinals.

aleph(2) = next smallest infinite cardinality after aleph(1).

… and so on.

Now, 2**aleph(0) = cardinality of the power set of aleph(0) = cardinality of the reals.

The continuum question is which aleph is 2aleph(0), that is, for which n does 2aleph(0) = aleph. The continuum hypothesis is that 2**aleph(0) = aleph(1).

The status of the continuum question is that the standard axioms of ZFC set theory do not settle the continuum hypothesis. That is, it is consistent to add an additional axiom to ZFC that 2aleph(0) = aleph(1), but it is also consistent to add an additional axiom to ZFC that 2aleph(0) = aleph(2), for example.

 

[sidbrown]

Sid
The continuum hypothesis as formulated by Gregor Cantor states that there are no infinite sets between aleph(0) and aleph(1).

Aleph(0) defines the infinity associated with the rational numbers; aleph(1) defines the infinity associated with the real numbers.

Rational numbers define a discrete arrangement of points; real numbers define a continuous arrangement of points. So, the continuum hypothesis (the last I heard, it remains unproven) is the mathematical basis I rely on to claim that there are two kinds of space: discrete and continuous.

As you might know: aleph(1) is derived as a power set of aleph(0):

(2)^[aleph(0)] = aleph(1) and

aleph(1) – aleph(0) = aleph(1)

In other words, you can remove all of the points in space associated with aleph(0) without diminishing the number of points associated with continuous space aleph(1) in the least. My contention is that God is associated with the greater infinity aleph(1). (Cantor believed that there was an infinite number of aleph’s and at the end was God the ultimate infinite, but I don’t want to get into that, Cantor spent a lot of time in mental institutions thinking about infinity). To build a model that describes the ground of reality, we can utilize this mathematical duality to build a model of reality that includes both material and spiritual aspects.

Happy Easter
Yppop

I believe that it is this duality of space at the ground of reality, that allows the physical to commingle with the spiritual at the explicate level of reality.

But if the contimuum hypothesis is not settled, then the implication would be, according to your reasoning, that the physical - spiritual duality would not be settled. . Further in mathematics a duality translates structures in one domain to structures into the other domain in a one to one fashion. This is not the case for the physical world versus the spiritual world.

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant1

Of course, I don’t know.

All I can do is apply what passes for reason to the problems associated with finding the meaning of life, which has been my long standing quest.

Here is my reasoning: The intellectually dishonest cosmologists derive multi-verse or quantum fluctuation hypotheses to eliminate the obvious “beginning” of the universe because a beginning implies a creation event and creation events imply God.

There is in fact an anti-theological motive found in the writings of cosmologists who speculate about multiverse. On the scientific level, multiverse is meaningless because science must deal with that which is verifiable, either actually or at least in principle.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which in effect claims that which cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly (uncertainty principle), has been illegitimately extended to the macro level in which cosmologists fantasize about entire universes popping into existence out of nothing.

All of this is a spin-off of Heinsenberg’s nonsensical claim that he conclusively disproved the law of causality.

On the other hand, if a cosmologist believes that Heisenberg’s disproved the law of causality, then by logical extension of Heisenberg’s quantum fluctuations, it must apply to the cosmologist himself who then only exists, as anything else does according to Bohr, when it “collapses into existence”. This collapse into existence of the cosmologist can only happen when another person perceives the cosmologist. And this event must be synchronized with the perceiver’s collapse into existence, and so on…

The utter nonsense entailed in the idea that nothing exists until it is perceived leads to the belief that physics does not actually study reality; rather than physics being about reality, it is only about the theorems in the mind of the physicists.

Intellectual honest scientists when asked what came before the big bang can only answer “nothing”.

This is where you have made an unwarranted leap in logic. The scientist cannot say “nothing”. He can only say he does not know. There is a monumental difference between the two answers.

Furthermore, not only must the scientists say he does not know, he must maintain that science “cannot” know.

If in fact there was “nothing” before the initial singularity, science cannot affirm that idea because the “nothing” can never be an object of scientific knowledge.

There is an infinite gap between “nothing” and “something”, between being and non-being, between existence and non-existence.

That gets us right to creatio ex nihilo. So I merely found a way to satisfy both science and my religion by postulating the “cosmologist’s nothing” = “religion’s nihilo” = “my view of the singularity as an enormous number (10exp137) of discrete points immersed in an infinite sea of continuous space-like substance I call infinite nothingness”.

I am not sure I understand this phrase “an infinite sea of continuous space-like substance I call infinite nothingness”. Modern cosmological thinking gets fuzzy and anti-metaphysical when it asserts that nothing is something. Accordingly, on what grounds do you refer to a supposedly existing substance as nothing? Is this not the same logical and ontological error made by many modern cosmologist who blur the line between non-existence and existence.

Anyone see the significance in the number 137?

?

 

[itinerant1]

nowhere in Scriptures did Augustine read some of the phony things he postulated so presumably he got it from the same sort of phony science that was abroad in his day - btw

Oh, the hubris of moderns! What would have been your view of the world had you lived in 400 A.D.? Attempt an answer, if you will.

many if not most things in Scripture cannot be read literally as scientifically correct.

Especially the idea that the world is 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Where,however,Scripture touches on science or history it is scientifically and historically correct for how could it be otherwise from the creator of scientists and historians and science and history -

Where does Scripture teach science?

it seems Augustine accepted,contrary to Scriptures that the first living thing to appear was the first man,followed by plants,animals and the first woman.His ideas certainly suggest something like the science of ‘spontaneous generation’[Daylight No.6] - twinc

You don’t have a clear and correct idea of what St. Augustine taught about creation. And I suppose one can compare creatio in rationis seminalis with spontaneous generation, but the comparison is limited.

The order you mention is incorrect, but then again thereexists a real problem with order if one takes Genesis 1 as “teaching” the actual historical order in which things were created. Such a manner of interpretation has only generated innumerable and unresolvable problems, which Augustine knew only too well. For instance, how can light exist before the existence of the those cosmic bodies that generate light?

When one understands Genesis 1 as intended to be a parable or metaphor about the Sabbath, then the psuedo-problems vanish.

 

[itinerant1]

it seems,as I read it,there is no real or good evidence for the big bang.In fact evidence that falsifies the big bang was published in Astrophysical Journal on 10th February 2005 and comes from observations of quasars with extreme red shifts that appear physically linked to galaxies with much lower red shifts.This strongly suggests that the red shift has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe as the big bang theory asserts[Pamphlet No.356] - more later - twinc

The few galaxies that appear as anomalies are not, in themselves, conclusive observations and interpretations. However, anyone that does not like Big Bang cosmology puts more weight on these apparent anomalies.

Still, there are other models of the universe, other than Big Bang, that can also account for the appearances, but what model is your preference?

 

[StAnastasia]

TStill, there are other models of the universe, other than Big Bang, that can also account for the appearances, but what model is your preference?

How about the omphalic model? Everything was created last Thursday, as it appears today.

 

[itinerant1]

How about the omphalic model? Everything was created last Thursday, as it appears today.

Exactly what time on Thursday did all of this happen?

 

[StAnastasia]

Exactly what time on Thursday did all of this happen?

It could have been any time. Tree rings would have been created, 100,000 years of apparent glacial deposition, seven billion years of apparent galactic distance…

 

[sidbrown]

How about the omphalic model? Everything was created last Thursday, as it appears today.

The worlds war created last Thursday?
Are you saying that Our Divine Lord did not appear on earth 2000 years ago?
So the whole Catholic Church and all Christians are wrong about this?