Evolutionary Cosmology

[wjp984]

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.

 

[Nullasalus]

Keep in mind that my degree was in political science, and my job has nothing to do with science - but I’ve been reading up a lot on quantum physics and the like. www.polkinghorne.org is a site you may like, by the way, though he’s an anglican.

However, when it comes to MWI - I’m assuming this is what you’re talking about - honestly, I just find it a bit ridiculous, at least if we’re expected to take it as fact at this stage of the game. Insofar as how it relates to God, though… first, I find it hard to see how the theory could do that, even though it’s often hefted around as proof that our fine-tuned universe was inevitable and therefore the precision in cosmological constants and the like are all a big accident. Actually, that’s half the problem when it comes to most scientific observations; it isn’t the observation itself which is damning to God or religion - Catholicism in particular - but the extraneous philosophical interpretation it’s given by others. It’s akin to arguing that the discovery of the synapse is a hammerblow to Catholic theology, because neurology renders concepts of the self or soul (itself kind of a nebulous term) wrong. I’m sure someone can do it, but the validation of their argument doesn’t rest on the science they’re citing. (Look up Sir John Eccles on the wikipedia, for example.)

Go ahead and look many worlds interpretation up on the wikipedia as well while you’re at it. I just read your other thread with you saying your professor arguing that MWI is true and he can prove it - if he does, tell him to let the Nobel committee know, because they’d toss an award around his neck and a check into his pocket if he honestly managed to prove it. As it stands, it’s one theory alongside others (including my favorite, ‘consciousness causes collapse’, at least insofar as quantum physics goes.)

 

[ribozyme]

I will say this, if the hypothesis in this paper is correct (stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf ), then it is GAME OVER for Christianity.

My argument for eternal inflation has been challenged, not by a Christian, but by a non-believer.

My previous argument relied on this (Bayesian notation):

P (inflation| WMAP results) = high

P (eternal inflation| inflation) = high

He challenged the second assumption though…

 

[noma]

Nullasalus is absolutely correct.

The science itself, in terms of evolutionary cosmology, merely adds to the realm of philosophy by saying “it is very likely that the universe had a beginning a very long time ago.”

Though this is a mere revelation with respect to the Catholic faithful, to some agnostic scientists (specifically the two who founded Evolutionary Cosmology) it was a huge wake-up call.

Both of these scientists (Fr. Lamaitre and Dr. deSittur) went into a deeper monastic life after the postulation of the Big Bang. Both of them were Christian. One of them was Catholic.

The person who postulated stardust forming our solar system was a Christian.

Much of cosmological evolution reaches at the ‘fritters of the robe of God’.

It is truly a beautiful study, illustrating from the bare scientific facts within our universe that it did indeed have an origin. And this suggests an Author.

 

[noma]

I will say this, if the hypothesis in this paper is correct (stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf ), then it is GAME OVER for Christianity.

A strong statement not even slightly made by the paper.

Even if the theory is true, it does not equal “game over” for Christianity.

Just because something is “eternal” in the sense of cosmological evolution does not mean that it has lasted forever, or that it does not need a cause.

It just means that the “big bang” involved an infinite (or near infinite) number of events in a very short amount of time.

 

[MrWhy]

It’s not a theory. It’s speculation, conjecture, maybe a hypothesis, but it is interesting. In all our discoveries there always seems to be more in the direction we look. Smaller leads to smaller. Our view of earth changed from being the center of everything to one of many orbiting bodies. Our view of the stars turned into a galaxy, and then just one of 3,000 visible galaxies and billions extimated to exist.

Current theory is one universe, but It should not surprise us if it turns out there are many. Things with good evidence are accepted as theories, but any theory is provisional. It may be recognized as the best available theory until it is finally superseded by a better one, or is found false by new facts. Doubt and skepticism is how knowledge advances.

 

[ribozyme]

A strong statement not even slightly made by the paper.

Even if the theory is true, it does not equal “game over” for Christianity.

Just because something is “eternal” in the sense of cosmological evolution does not mean that it has lasted forever, or that it does not need a cause.

It just means that the “big bang” involved an infinite (or near infinite) number of events in a very short amount of time.

How can you reconcile the idea of a “personal God” who created the universe for the purpose of generating humanity with Linde’s ideas?

 

[Nullasalus]

How can you reconcile the idea of a “personal God” who created the universe for the purpose of generating humanity with Linde’s ideas?

The better question is, why do Linde’s ideas do away with the concept of a God, even a personal one who has a particular care and concern for humanity?

Which would be a stronger philosophical argument for God: A universe where human life (or existence close to it) was unbelievably unlikely, or one where it was practically certain? You can advance good arguments for both. You can also take both cases and use them as arguments against God if you so choose.

I’m very skeptical on MWI, as are a whole lot of actual credentialed physicists. But even if it were proven true, the argument would advance to this:

Atheists: See? This universe is one of many. We’re not special at all, just like we’ve said all along.

Theists: See? There’s existence outside of our universe. Just like we’ve said all along.

 

[ribozyme]

The better question is, why do Linde’s ideas do away with the concept of a God, even a personal one who has a particular care and concern for humanity?

Which would be a stronger philosophical argument for God: A universe where human life (or existence close to it) was unbelievably unlikely, or one where it was practically certain? You can advance good arguments for both. You can also take both cases and use them as arguments against God if you so choose.

I’m very skeptical on MWI, as are a whole lot of actual credentialed physicists. But even if it were proven true, the argument would advance to this:

Atheists: See? This universe is one of many. We’re not special at all, just like we’ve said all along.

Theists: See? There’s existence outside of our universe. Just like we’ve said all along.

Professor Linde’s ideas make an anthropic universe a certainity; no designer is required to set anthropically acceptable constants. His ideas make our universe a mere byproduct of another universe that has undergone inflation, and when our universe underwent inflation, it creates more universes, and those universes create other universes ad infinitum.

 

[Nullasalus]

Professor Linde’s ideas make an anthropic universe a certainity; no designer is required to set anthropically acceptable constants. His ideas make our universe a mere byproduct of another universe that has undergone inflation, and when our universe underwent inflation, it creates more universes, and those universes create other universes ad infinitum.

As I said: If our existence was a certainty, why is that automatically evidence that it wasn’t intended? That’s not what the science is saying - that’s what the person’s philosophy is interpreting the science to say.

Why is our universe, by that description, a ‘mere’ byproduct? That word has connotations that have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with personal attitude. It’s akin to arguing that humanity was ‘merely’ the result of evolution. To some (you, possibly), that means that humanity is not special at all; we’re the result of a long process that (coincidentally or inevitably - take your pick) resulted in humanity. To someone else - me, for example - we were an intentional result of a very amazing, purposeful process. Which one of us is right? Good question. I think the discoveries favor my view, you think they favor yours. Proving philosophy is sadly difficult.

 

[ribozyme]

As I said: If our existence was a certainty, why is that automatically evidence that it wasn’t intended? That’s not what the science is saying - that’s what the person’s philosophy is interpreting the science to say.

Why is our universe, by that description, a ‘mere’ byproduct? That word has connotations that have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with personal attitude. It’s akin to arguing that humanity was ‘merely’ the result of evolution. To some (you, possibly), that means that humanity is not special at all; we’re the result of a long process that (coincidentally or inevitably - take your pick) resulted in humanity. To someone else - me, for example - we were an intentional result of a very amazing, purposeful process. Which one of us is right? Good question. I think the discoveries favor my view, you think they favor yours. Proving philosophy is sadly difficult.

When I said certainity, it meant that an anthropically acceptable universe is inevitable and will happen an infinite number of times without any direct creative action by God.

I explained what I meant by “mere byproduct”; if Linde is correct, our universe is not a product of an act of God, but the result of future-eternal eternal.

 

[noma]

How can you reconcile the idea of a “personal God” who created the universe for the purpose of generating humanity with Linde’s ideas?

I reconsile it in that I would accept (should his ideas be accurate) that God used the method of an infinite-ordered fractal expansion as the way to make this universe (these universes) and humanity within it (them).

 

[Nullasalus]

When I said certainity, it meant that an anthropically acceptable universe is inevitable and will happen an infinite number of times without any direct creative action by God.

I explained what I meant by “mere byproduct”; if Linde is correct, our universe is not a product of an act of God, but the result of future-eternal eternal.

Exactly - I knew what you meant by certainty. The point still stands.As per noma’s reply - if the result of our life is certain by the rules of the universe, does that mean there was no design to it? Or only that the design was brilliant? Read up on Freeman Dyson for more on this kind of view.

The theme of the point I’m going with here is that the science - even Linde’s theory - does not disprove or prove God. You can interpret the data one way. But then, you can also interpret it another. Which way is more valid? That’s another fight. But it’s one outside of the realm of science, typically - and I’d say certainly, in this case.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi wjp 984

Science arguments can never prove nor disprove God. Creationist can not explain conscious, souls, thought development, or many scientific anomalies. Any one who thinks otherwise is not a scientist. Science is the study of what is; not who made it. The big bang theory has to be revised. In the instant before the big bang the “great density” had to exist. But science is clear on this issue, the great density must have cause- A body at rest will remain at rest until acted upon- so you can choose between God or a false theory. As for the ever expanding universe well this is funny see this only makes sense if God did it. If God did not do it this is the umph recycle. If God did it then it makes sense he did not need the earlier forms.

I would say that those plants are to earth as humans are to angels (or giants). Just as angels did not create an issue for humans these other universes create no problem for earth(us) .

 

[ribozyme]

Exactly - I knew what you meant by certainty. The point still stands.As per noma’s reply - if the result of our life is certain by the rules of the universe, does that mean there was no design to it? Or only that the design was brilliant? Read up on Freeman Dyson for more on this kind of view.

The theme of the point I’m going with here is that the science - even Linde’s theory - does not disprove or prove God. You can interpret the data one way. But then, you can also interpret it another. Which way is more valid? That’s another fight. But it’s one outside of the realm of science, typically - and I’d say certainly, in this case.

I’ll say this too… if Linde is incorrect and there is no multiverse, it is GAME OVER for various agnostics and atheists. Is that fair?

I argue that the future-eternal inflationary mechanism does not convey any sense of teleology, but rather the opposite.

 

[Nullasalus]

I’ll say this too… if Linde is incorrect and there is no multiverse, it is GAME OVER for various agnostics and atheists. Is that fair?

I argue that the future-eternal inflationary mechanism does not convey any sense of teleology, but rather the opposite.

While I appreciate the gesture (or the guts , I honestly don’t think it’s that simple either way.

I’ve come to realize that while there may be evidence consistent with various views - some stronger than others - absolute game-ending proof of the kind you’re speaking about is extremely elusive. If there were a 2000 year old continent-sized ‘JESUS IS LORD’ written on the moon, there would be great arguments about why that’s meaningless insofar as Christianity goes. Obviously, that message was written just a few years before, and that Christ fellow opportunistically changed his name.

 

[tdgesq]

I will say this, if the hypothesis in this paper is correct (stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf ), then it is GAME OVER for Christianity.

Ribozyme! Didn’t we just agree today that Linde doesn’t assert past eternal inflation? If something changed between now and less than twelve hours ago, please let me know what it is. You are incorrigible. I mean that in a nice way btw.

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme;1707681:

I will say this, if the hypothesis in this paper is correct (stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf

), then it is GAME OVER for Christianity.

Ribozyme! Didn’t we just agree today that Linde doesn’t assert past eternal inflation? If something changed between now and less than twelve hours ago, please let me know what it is. You are incorrigible. I mean that in a nice way btw.

Yes, past eternal inflation is not likely, but it has not been disproven.

However, I brought up the issue that if future-eternal inflation is correct, which is what some inflationary cosmology think is an almost inevitable feature of inflation, it would seriously conflict with the notion of the Christian God. I wanted to discuss **future-eternal **inflation.

 

[wjp984]

well my professor never said he was going to show proof but only that he was going to show the scientific evidence for its probability to become fact in the near future. I just don’t know if I can believe this theory as a believer. I accept the Big Bang. I even accept the fact that we are all made of stardust and that evolution occurred. This multiple universe thing just goes to far for me though. I am worried that it will be proven a true theory though. I don’t think God is necessary for creation in a multiple universe theory which scares me. I think I already upset or if not upset, he certainly did not like an e-mail I sent him about why I think God is necessary and that all the things he taught only further prove this. Here is what really scares me. I am a strong in my faith yet this argument shakes it. There are probably others in that class of almost 200 students (it is the most popular class in the school) who are not as strong in their faith and quite possibly might be convinced there is no God because of this class and especially this evolutionary cosmology multiple universe theory.

 

[Nullasalus]

well my professor never said he was going to show proof but only that he was going to show the scientific evidence for its probability to become fact in the near future. I just don’t know if I can believe this theory as a believer. I accept the Big Bang. I even accept the fact that we are all made of stardust and that evolution occurred. This multiple universe thing just goes to far for me though. I am worried that it will be proven a true theory though. I don’t think God is necessary for creation in a multiple universe theory which scares me. I think I already upset or if not upset, he certainly did not like an e-mail I sent him about why I think God is necessary and that all the things he taught only further prove this. Here is what really scares me. I am a strong in my faith yet this argument shakes it. There are probably others in that class of almost 200 students (it is the most popular class in the school) who are not as strong in their faith and quite possibly might be convinced there is no God because of this class and especially this evolutionary cosmology multiple universe theory.

Again, I’d suggest you read up on this topic on your own. And keep us informed, why don’t you - but I’ve read many (atheist, in fact) scientists who regard MWI with contempt as essentially unfalsifiable. Here’s a link to one page of a professor who disagrees:

mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XII

Note: I am not saying the above is correct. I’m merely pointing out that this subject is contentious, and there’s more going on than simple research. Various people are attached to one theory or the other for reasons that sometimes go beyond the science itself.

Learn from my mistakes: In studying quantum mechanics and general cosmology, you are going to come across many people who talk about untested hypotheses as if they were established facts. Just because they are professors, even scientists, does not mean that they are detached from pride and personal attachment when it comes to these subjects. Remember Einstein’s problem of accepting quantum mechanics? The man was brilliant, but he refused to accept the results of QM, largely because he did not like the results philosophically.

What I’d really like to hear, though, is why you think this theory - if it were true - would eliminate God. Personally, from what I understand of it, I don’t think it does even if it were true - and again, that’s far from being proven. For what it’s worth, I understand your worries; it breaks my heart to see people’s faith shaken when it comes to science, but in my experience it always has to do with what they’re told (‘If evolution is true, then your God doesn’t exist!’) rather than what is actually going on with the facts. In this case - and correct me if I’m wrong - it sounds more like you’re reacting to your professor’s assertion that this theory eliminates God than you are to the theory itself.