Evolutionary Cosmology

[tdgesq]

No, I did not say those words, Alec did…

Cosmic inflation is strongly supported by the evidence… do you have any evidence that would suggest otherwise?

I should also add

P (existence of Christian God|eternal inflation) = low…

So how do you challenge the first two assumptions? It seems that the probability of eternal inflation is high to me (but Alec quoted Hawking to question it).

Lol. I didn’t see anything about eternal inflation (future) in those other posts. Tell me, what kind of empirical data exists for this. Tell me how Linde can demonstrate that inflation will last forever, or, in the alternative, that it will somehow exist outside of time. What shall the test be? Also, please give the data for the existence of other universes - not a mathematical construct that is theoretically possible and solves some of the problems of other mathematical constructs.

Two problems that make it difficult for folks to take you seriously. You strictly demand that empiricism be the only standard for knowledge, then you disregard it at a whim because it doesn’t fit in with your pet theory. Instead, you accept something that is purely a being of reason. Second, you don’t answer the posts that seriously challenge your views - almost without fail. Why do you act that way? Maybe you don’t want to know the answers.

 

[noma]

No, it is not virtual particle pairs that created the multiverse; the most plausible hypothesis is eternal inflation.

Most cosmologists would not agree with the idea of eternal inflation; they would hold it to be unlikely.

I am curious how you defend that view, however.

 

[ribozyme]

Lol. I didn’t see anything about eternal inflation (future) in those other posts. Tell me, what kind of empirical data exists for this. Tell me how Linde can demonstrate that inflation will last forever, or, in the alternative, that it will somehow exist outside of time. What shall the test be? Also, please give the data for the existence of other universes - not a mathematical construct that is theoretically possible and solves some of the problems of other mathematical constructs.

Two problems that make it difficult for folks to take you seriously. You strictly demand that empiricism be the only standard for knowledge, then you disregard it at a whim because it doesn’t fit in with your pet theory. Instead, you accept something that is purely a being of reason. Second, you don’t answer the posts that seriously challenge your views - almost without fail. Why do you act that way? Maybe you don’t want to know the answers.

I summarised the argument for eternal inflation…

We can infer inflation from actual observations, but if inflation predicts eternal inflation, then the universe is eternal. The other universes IS an untestable prediction of inflation, but we can infer their existence from other confirmed predictions of inflation. Since many models of inflation involve eternal inflation, it might be reasonable to say it is eternal.

Of course, this argument relies on the second supposition (i.e. if inflation is true, then eternal inflation is likely). The inflationary multiverse argument can be destroyed if the second supposition is not valid, but it seems that inflation is eternal.

 

[noma]

We can infer inflation from actual observations, but if inflation predicts eternal inflation, then the universe is eternal. The other universes IS an untestable prediction of inflation, but we can infer their existence from other confirmed predictions of inflation. Since many models of inflation involve eternal inflation, it might be reasonable to say it is eternal.

The problem, though, is that the eternal inflation models involve a certain fine-tuning, and the best effective field theories used involve non-renormalizable interactions, except for large-region fields, and for these large-region fields the renormalization causes the eternal field theory to cease being eternal [Laila Alabidi and David H. Lyth, 2005].

Currently this is considered only a problem with the theory (it is not fatal to the theory by a long shot), as String Theory does not need to be renormalizable (a corollary of supersymmetric “no-ghost” theorem [Schwarz, Green, Witten]), and as a consistent theory of Quantum Gravity (maybe with its own unique renormalization group) may remove the difficulty.

However, these difficulties have caused most cosmologists (and many high-energy theorists even) to view eternal inflation with extreme skepticism at this time. None that I work with would describe eternal inflation as likely.

But even if it turns out to be likely, its happening would only mean that God has created an even more complex beginning from a single eternal cause.

If the universe is eternal, then the Cosmological argument is made even more valid, for the original cosmological argument, proposed by Aristotle in his Metaphysics Lambda, requires the universe to be eternal.

 

[ribozyme]

The problem, though, is that the eternal inflation models involve a certain fine-tuning, and the best effective field theories used involve non-renormalizable interactions, except for large-region fields, and for these large-region fields the renormalization causes the eternal field theory to cease being eternal [Laila Alabidi and David H. Lyth, 2005].

Currently this is considered only a problem with the theory (it is not fatal to the theory by a long shot), as String Theory does not need to be renormalizable (a corollary of supersymmetric “no-ghost” theorem [Schwarz, Green, Witten]), and as a consistent theory of Quantum Gravity (maybe with its own unique renormalization group) may remove the difficulty.

However, these difficulties have caused most cosmologists (and many high-energy theorists even) to view eternal inflation with extreme skepticism at this time. None that I work with would describe eternal inflation as likely.

But even if it turns out to be likely, its happening would only mean that God has created an even more complex beginning from a single eternal cause.

If the universe is eternal, then the Cosmological argument is made even more valid, for the original cosmological argument, proposed by Aristotle in his Metaphysics Lambda, requires the universe to be eternal.

I thank you for your imput and your thoughtful response.

It seems that you actually know what you are talking about, unlike myself who parrots Linde and Guth. I hope you do not say that same about me when I am discussing biochemistry.

I only found this: arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0510/0510441.pdf

Could you give me the arXiv preprint for: “[Schwarz, Green, Witten]”

I want to ask you if you met Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, or Alexander Vilenkin. Maybe in conferences. I only asked that question because I wonder how these people are personally.

 

[freesoulhope]

I do not like it. I have to now learn and accept that our universe was just one of millions of bazillons and that each universe evolved to form another until we came about. My other thread was unclear but basically I am having a problem with this subject. Where is God in all of this? Is this even a morally permissable theory to believe? I have to of course wirte about it as a trUe theory in order to get the grade but I am really skeptical of it. What does everyone else think about the theory of multiple universes evolving and therefore taking God even further out of the picture. Finally, if this theory is true then how ias God even still necessary for our existence? I don’t like this theory at all.

I dont like it either, it stinks. They cant prove that are univeres is eternal, so they wanna make up some wild speculation about there being many univerese’s.

Even if there is a multiverse, they still follow the laws of cuase and effect, since they are manifestations of eachother needing a first cuase to logicaly justify the continued cuase-and-effect of each existing universe’s that comes in to being. Therefore the multiveres theory is a load rubbish. Even if its true, you cannot disprove god by pushing the first cause of everything futher away from the universe in which we exist. Its wolf in sheeps cloths. There’s nothing wrong however speculating the possibility of a multivere’s, aslong as its based on the grounds of logic, not just some cheesy attempt to attack the existents of God.

 

[steveandersen]

I do not like it. I have to now learn and accept that our universe was just one of millions of bazillons and that each universe evolved to form another until we came about. My other thread was unclear but basically I am having a problem with this subject. Where is God in all of this?

Why would multiple universes be a problem for God?

Is this even a morally permissable theory to believe?

theories are not things to be believed in or not. You just compare how the evidence supports them.

I have to of course wirte about it as a trUe theory in order to get the grade but I am really skeptical of it.

Theories aren’t “true” they are just supported by more or less of the data.
If you don’t like it and have to write a paper then try to point out its technical flaws. If that is beyond the scope of the class or your current level or expertise then just use it as the basis for your work. It is not a profession of faith after all; it is just a technical paper.

What does everyone else think about the theory of multiple universes evolving and therefore taking God even further out of the picture. Finally, if this theory is true then how ias God even still necessary for our existence? I don’t like this theory at all.

It is an interesting theory (although theory is probably too strong a word for it)
I’m no physicist but my limited understanding is that it is a product of the mathematics and helps resolve larger issues without there being direct evidence for the other universes yet.
It’s kind of like Limbo.

But why would you think it would eliminate the need for God?

 

[steveandersen]

I do not like it. I have to now learn and accept that our universe was just one of millions of bazillons and that each universe evolved to form another until we came about. My other thread was unclear but basically I am having a problem with this subject. Where is God in all of this?

Why would multiple universes be a problem for God?

Is this even a morally permissable theory to believe?

theories are not things to be believed in or not. You just compare how the evidence supports them.

I have to of course wirte about it as a trUe theory in order to get the grade but I am really skeptical of it.

Theories aren’t “true” they are just supported by more or less of the data.
If you don’t like it and have to write a paper then try to point out its technical flaws. If that is beyond the scope of the class or your current level or expertise then just use it as the basis for your work. It is not a profession of faith after all; it is just a technical paper.

What does everyone else think about the theory of multiple universes evolving and therefore taking God even further out of the picture. Finally, if this theory is true then how ias God even still necessary for our existence? I don’t like this theory at all.

It is an interesting theory (although theory is probably too strong a word for it)
I’m no physicist but my limited understanding is that it is a product of the mathematics and helps resolve larger issues without there being direct evidence for the other universes yet.
It’s kind of like Limbo.

But why would you think it would eliminate the need for God?

 

[wjp984]

After today’s lecture, when the professor claimes he was going to provide the scientific evidence on multiple universes, her did not offer one ounce of sceinetific fact of this theory. It was all a bunch of hypothesis. Therefore, I think this whole multiverse theory is nonsense. Basically, they can’t explain how a one in more than 2 google of chance universe can arise without divine intervention and a creator so they made this multiple universe theory up since there has to be an explanation. The atheist had to be able to maintain their beliefs. The whole theory seems worthless since it is not falsifiable. They say we can create our own universe with the right conditions but it will expand in a way that we never will be able to see it. Seems like a bunch of nonsense in an effort to disprove God. They can say there are multiple universes all they want but I highly doubt it is true.

 

[noma]

I only found this: arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0510/0510441.pdf

Could you give me the arXiv preprint for: “[Schwarz, Green, Witten]”

I want to ask you if you met Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, or Alexander Vilenkin. Maybe in conferences. I only asked that question because I wonder how these people are personally.

 

[ribozyme]

Noma, I am curious about your opinion on hybrid inflation. Linde himself said most versions of it are not eternal.

 

[steveandersen]

… Seems like a bunch of nonsense in an effort to disprove God. They can say there are multiple universes all they want but I highly doubt it is true.

I’m still not sure why you think multiple universes are somehow incompatible with the existence of God.

 

[steveandersen]

…Seems like a bunch of nonsense in an effort to disprove God. They can say there are multiple universes all they want but I highly doubt it is true.

I’m still not sure why you think multiple universes are somehow incompatible with the existence of God.

 

[steveandersen]

… Seems like a bunch of nonsense in an effort to disprove God. They can say there are multiple universes all they want but I highly doubt it is true.

I’m still not sure why you think multiple universes are somehow incompatible with the existence of God.

 

[wjp984]

well it is not that I think they are incompatible but more so think that anyone can do it if and you don’t need to be omnipotent or omnipresent. Obviously we don’t have the technology yet but in theory we could start a universe and then through the process of evolution and multiple universes, our creation will turn into something fertile through the process of trial and error and evolution. This does not seem like a process God would use. In fact, I don’t even think God is necessary for it like I already mentioned, which is why I am so concerend about it. However, I do not believe this theory. I do not know anything about this other than what my professor has lectured on oe wrote about since we use his book. So if you know about this multiple universe theory and believe God is compatible with it then please state how. I don’t believe this to be the case but have great faith in God’s existence. Therefore I do not believe this theory.

 

[tdgesq]

The other universes IS an untestable prediction of inflation . . . ."

Whoa. If it is untestable, then it isn’t science. By your own empirical standards, GAME OVER for multiple universes.

but we can infer their existence from other confirmed predictions of inflation.

It doesn’t matter how many times a scientific model explains some observable phenomona. It doesn’t mean that every mathematical possibility that is predicted by the model is the case. Especially if it isn’t testable, as you’ve just admitted. And this is doubly true for a skeptic like you. You are inferring that based upon equations, universes will spawn other universes. But you don’t believe in causality, remember? Maybe you could come up with a correlation, but there isn’t anything to correlate! Nobody has observed another universe besides ours. EVER.

Since many models of inflation involve eternal inflation, it might be reasonable to say it is eternal.

There are a lot of voices here that say that eternal inflation is bunk. If it’s the number of models, theories or voices that matter, then you have failed again.

Of course, this argument relies on the second supposition (i.e. if inflation is true, then eternal inflation is likely). The inflationary multiverse argument can be destroyed if the second supposition is not valid, but it seems that inflation is eternal.

You are wrong. You already destroyed the inflationary multiverse argument when you said it is an untestable inference from another part of the theory. Untestable. untestable. untestable. Until you are willing to back up and live by your own epistemology and also come up with viable explanation for causality, you cannot make this theory work.

 

[ribozyme]

Whoa. If it is untestable, then it isn’t science. By your own empirical standards, GAME OVER for multiple universes.

It doesn’t matter how many times a scientific model explains some observable phenomona. It doesn’t mean that every mathematical possibility that is predicted by the model is the case. Especially if it isn’t testable, as you’ve just admitted. And this is doubly true for a skeptic like you. You are inferring that based upon equations, universes will spawn other universes. But you don’t believe in causality, remember? Maybe you could come up with a correlation, but there isn’t anything to correlate! Nobody has observed another universe besides ours. EVER.

There are a lot of voices here that say that eternal inflation is bunk. If it’s the number of models, theories or voices that matter, then you have failed again.

You are wrong. You already destroyed the inflationary multiverse argument when you said it is an untestable inference from another part of the theory. Untestable. untestable. untestable. Until you are willing to back up and live by your own epistemology and also come up with viable explanation for causality, you cannot make this theory work.

No, I most certainly believe in causality… I do not deny causality exists, but I merely state that one cannot prove causuality beyond ALL POSSIBLE doubt. All we observe is corelation, not causality. For example, I do not possess proof that HIV causes AIDS, but there is a strong correlation that HIV is associated with AIDS, and any attempt to inhibit the HIV virus (e.g. protease and reverse transcriptase inhibitors) show a correlation as these drugs mitigate HIV.

There are a lot of voices that endorse eternal inflation too, such as Sean Carroll, Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, Leonard Susskind, Andrei Linde, and Max Tegmark.

I do not think you can prove eternal inflation… I am interested in whether inflation infers eternal inflation. I argued it is likely based on the writings of Guth and Linde, but hecd2 and noma provided coherent counterarguments. Do you have an additional argument to challenge the assumption that inflation infers eternal inflation. I must add that I never argued that if inflation is true, then the probability of eternal inflation is 100%, I merely stated that it would be high based on Linde and Guth.

 

[trth_skr]

Quote from Arno Penzias (attributed as co-discoverer of the CMB) in Galileo Was Wrong:

….My argument [regarding points in the big bang theory] is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole…

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[wjp984]

I think I realize I am unecessarily worried over the situation. While the theories are not yet proven true, at one time people thought the world was flat and the things we condsider fact were once theories. Therefore, I think it is quite possible at least one of these multiverse theories are true. However, it should not change my faith or anyone else’s faith in God. It is sure beyond my conmprehension of why God would use such a process that seems so simple and not requireing much intelligence or effort, but God knew what he was doing no matter which theory is the tre one and I will leave it at that.

 

[noma]

Noma, I am curious about your opinion on hybrid inflation. Linde himself said most versions of it are not eternal.

Most of the work on field-theoretic models of inflation are guess-work. Hybrid inflation is called so because it is a mix between the chaotic inflation scenario, and the first-order phase transition from the vacuum state. If the potential is bounded (as is likely in this scenario, since Hybrid inflation is constructed as a perturbation off of the first-order transition), then there is no eternal inflation.

One could argue that hybrid inflation would then be the most likely, because it is often the case that one finds a mix of two ideas, instead of purely one or the other. I work in string phenomenology, so this is not something I have seriously considered. But my hunch (and it corresponds with what most cosmologists I’ve talked to think) is that the inflation is likely a first order phase transition, plus something no-one understands (but not what we yet have).

Physicists, for the most part, are skeptical of theories that produce untestable results. But just because some of the results of chaotic inflation are untestable does not mean that all of them are, and if the testable portions of this theory do turn out to be solid, then people should accept chaotic inflation.

The theological aspects:

First-order phase transition and most hybrid models: God created the universe via a big bang, or few multiple big bangs. (Kalam cosmology)

Eternal inflation: The universe has lasted forever, in a sense, always expanding at the event horizon into new and new universes. God exists as the prime cause, attracting all these things to happen ultimately through love. (Aristotle’s cosmology)

Either way, one can make an argument for the necessity of a God, from teleology even more with the eternal inflation model (for things would not be driven by efficient causality, but rather drawn toward an ultimate purpose).

This certainly means nothing about “game over” for theists (this would be impossible, as the assertion that God exists is not an assertion of natural science, but theological science, and so is not principally testable). I will say, though, that how this turns out will give us a new insight into the nature of God, and may end up throwing out the Kalam argument for God.

This would remove one of St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways.

I hope this helps.

(Oh, and by the way, the Shwarz, Green, and Witten monographs would have to be checked out of the library. An explanation of the effects of the string hypothesis, the no-ghost theorem, and supersymmetry on making a field theoretic model non-critical can be found at arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802109%5D )