What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe

[warpspeedpetey]

Where did I say physical? A cube is a mathematical object. An eternal cube is an object with beginnings and ends in the three space dimensions but neither beginning nor end in the time dimension

.

then it is not real. it doesnt exist outside of your mind, if it does, please ship me one

Your definition of eternal as without “beginning” is incorrect.

its not my definition, it is common to several different sources

It would be better phrased as without “beginning in time”. The “in time” part is precisely my point.

thats the problem, none of the definitions include the “in time” part, and most, including the technical definition, specifically exclude a relationship with time. and the ones that dont exclude anything with a ‘beginning’, not a beginning “in time”, why? because the two concepts are unrelated, by definition.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why not, a definition of eternal is “existing through all time”. If time started at the same instant as the universe then the universe meets this definition of eternal.
rossum

Yes, from a Gods eye veiw of things, there is such a thing as a finite-eternity. Yes, if the BigBang theory is correct, then the universe has existed as long as there as been time; since they are one and the same. However this does not change the fact that there is a point beyond which there is no flow of time. You can’t get around that. Time has a beginning. Also; if we are to take into consideration the forth dimension, then we must except that all of time and space exist as a whole and therefore exist as a static un-moving entity. Does that therefore move the universe outside the definition of time or eternity? I think not; and yet the universe as a whole has no succession in time.
I see no logical problem in suggesting that all physical dimensions are eternally caused into being by a timeless non-dimensional entity of some sort.
Science is no better off at giving an explanation. Any physical account of creation would also result in one postulating a first cause that is eternally causing all other objects into being.

However; a physical cause is not a sufficient cause, since you can always ask what caused it; and neither does it explain itself and all things. One can only terminate the chain of causality, or rest in an explanation, when one transcends time as space alltogether, thus transcending the chain of affects; leading us to a simple ultimate sufficient cause. An eternal personal will.

 

[rossum]

Yes, from a Gods eye veiw of things, there is such a thing as a finite-eternity.

No need for God here, an eternal 1 metre cube is eternal in time but finite in space.

Yes, if the BigBang theory is correct, then the universe has existed as long as there as been time; since they are one and the same.

Only for some values of “Big Bang theory”. There are many cosmological theories, all of which incorporate the Big Bang and some of which extend time back before the Big Bang. String Theory is one such example.

However this does not change the fact that there is a point beyond which there is no flow of time.

As I have pointed out before, do not rely on science to justify this position. Science changes with the evidence; as is indicated in the OP of this thread. There are theories in which there is no beginning of time, such as an oscillating universe.

Science is no better off at giving an explanation. Any physical account of creation would also result in one postulating a first cause that is eternally causing all other objects into being

A first cause is only required in a universe that has a beginning. Science has no problem per se with a beginningless universe. Currently we do not have enough evidence to decide whether or not the Big Bang was a beginning or a change of state in a longer lasting universe.

However; a physical cause is not a sufficient cause, since you can always ask what caused it; and neither does it explain itself and all things. One can only terminate the chain of causality, or rest in an explanation, when one transcends time as space alltogether, thus transcending the chain of affects; leading us to a simple ultimate sufficient cause.

If you have transcended time then how do you distinguish between cause and effect? You are not allowed to say that the cause comes before the effect, because “before” is contingent on time, and you have disallowed time. It is not possible to distinguish between cause and effect in the absence of time.

An eternal personal will.

What is your logical justification for the use of the word “personal” here? Why not “object” or “force” or “impersonal entities”? What is your logical justification for the use of the word “eternal” here? How can we determine if someting is eternal or not in the absence of time? Once the cause has started the effect there is no logical requirement for the cause to be present any longer. Indeed logic would indicate that the cause of the universe must no longer be in existence, otherwise we would see new universes constantly being caused.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No need for God here, an eternal 1 metre cube is eternal in time but finite in space.

by what mechanism does this occur? there is no such thing as eternal in time. eternal is defined as always existing apart from all relations to time, not subject to change. isnt that the metaphysical definition?

so how can there be a cube ‘eternal in time’ since time has a beginning then the cube couldnt be eternal, further the definition seems to exclude any relation ship betwixt the two concepts.

there seems to be at least two unique reasons why there could be no such thing as an eternal cube.

how do you propose that an ‘eternal’ cube may exist in light of these problems?

Only for some values of “Big Bang theory”. There are many cosmological theories, all of which incorporate the Big Bang and some of which extend time back before the Big Bang. String Theory is one such example.

im sorry, but my understanding is that string theory has been long discredited as an accurate representation of reality, and all derivative theories are still yet to be generally accepted by the scientific community at large, haven’t those theories also undergone permutations from superstring to supergravity to membrane theory to quantum loop, etc. haven’t they also changed the number of dimensions thought to be existent multiple times? dont they also have to add ‘fudge factors’ in order for these theories to be more acceptable?

further, my understanding of the calculations you refer to as extending back through the big bang do not do so, rather conditions were postulated concerning any possible pre-big bang environment and then the data was progressed through the big bang. not as you say, ‘extended back through’ or regressed from current observed conditions. so essentially those calculations were derived from postulations(guesses) about what might have been previous to the big bang, not what we actually know about those conditions, and they were done so in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion? so aren’t they unreliable and methodologically questionable? aren’t they really guesses based on guesses, rigged to reach a desired conclusion?

wouldn’t a simpler regression from what we know from current observations of the universe provide a more accurate picture than wild postulations meant to reach a certain conclusion? i wouuld think so.

As I have pointed out before, do not rely on science to justify this position. Science changes with the evidence; as is indicated in the OP of this thread.

true, but shouldn’t we then refrain from making any argument concerning science in any way, as the evidence may change, or new evidence be introduced?

There are theories in which there is no beginning of time, such as an oscillating universe.

as i understand it a closed system tends toward entropy if there are no other (name removed by moderator)uts, as such from where would the energy necessary to reverse entropy come? doesn’t that mean that an oscillating universe would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics?

as such shouldn’t that be put aside in favor of a simpler regression from the conditions that we observe?

A first cause is only required in a universe that has a beginning.

yet the only model of the universe that is not essentially one big guess, reflects a universe with a beginning, so a sufficient first cause would seem to be necessary, wouldn’t it?

Science has no problem per se with a beginningless universe.

i assume then that it also would have no problem with a created universe, is that correct?

Currently we do not have enough evidence to decide whether or not the Big Bang was a beginning or a change of state in a longer lasting universe.

it would seem that the only evidence we do have, current observations, does point to a universe with a beginning. only speculative theories, with no observational support, that i know of, postulate a ‘change of state’. given that doesnt it behoove us to consider that the universe indeed had a beginning, at least until suffiecient contradictory evidence can be introduced?

If you have transcended time then how do you distinguish between cause and effect? You are not allowed to say that the cause comes before the effect, because “before” is contingent on time, and you have disallowed time. It is not possible to distinguish between cause and effect in the absence of time.

which would bring causality to an end, at least thats what i think MoM means.

How can we determine if someting is eternal or not in the absence of time?

i assume MoM is using the actual definition of eternal, which excludes any relationship with time. something that is eternal is so in the absence or presence of time. they have no relationship to each other, you may be confusing an artifact of the english language as such a relationship though.

Once the cause has started the effect there is no logical requirement for the cause to be present any longer

.

nor would there seem to be one that it not be present, each seems logically valid

Indeed logic would indicate that the cause of the universe must no longer be in existence, otherwise we would see new universes constantly being caused.

why, what nessecitates that a the conditions would be right again for new universes to form?

 

[yppop]

Hello, This is my first post anywhere, I am too old to be dancing on the head of a pin, but I stumbled on this discussion and found it interesting even though it doesn’t seem to be making progress. So, I thought I would add a little conundrum for all you angels to contemplate:

God is nothing;
Nothing exists;
therefore, God exists.

If you think deeply enough about the premises, you might find the answers to all the questions raised by your discussions including what came before the big bang and more importantly what lies beyond.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hello, This is my first post anywhere, I am too old to be dancing on the head of a pin, but I stumbled on this discussion and found it interesting even though it doesn’t seem to be making progress. So, I thought I would add a little conundrum for all you angels to contemplate:

God is nothing;
Nothing exists;
therefore, God exists.

If you think deeply enough about the premises, you might find the answers to all the questions raised by your discussions including what came before the big bang and more importantly what lies beyond.

welcome aboard,

thats cute

but the premise is something is nothing
a self contradictory statement

progress will be made eventually

 

[rossum]

by what mechanism does this occur?

God made it. Now deal with the object as specified - eternal in time but finite in space.

im sorry, but my understanding is that string theory has been long discredited as an accurate representation of reality,

Not so. Many scientists are unhappy with string theory because we cannot yet measure in enough detail to determine whether or not the predictions of the theory are correct or not. There are other theories as well as string theory which extend time back before the Big Bang. See Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang for a simple discussion.

and all derivative theories are still yet to be generally accepted by the scientific community at large, haven’t those theories also undergone permutations from superstring to supergravity to membrane theory to quantum loop, etc. haven’t they also changed the number of dimensions thought to be existent multiple times? dont they also have to add ‘fudge factors’ in order for these theories to be more acceptable?

This is an area of active ongoing research and where data is scarce, with new data being jumped on as soon as it is available. You are merely describing the scientific process in action. As we slowly collect more data we will begin to get a better picture of what is going on.

yet the only model of the universe that is not essentially one big guess, reflects a universe with a beginning, so a sufficient first cause would seem to be necessary, wouldn’t it?

A first cause is only required for models where a) the universe has a beginning and b) causality is original to the universe and not introduced at a short time after the beginning. The second part is not trivial as in the quantum arena causality is not a simple thing at all, since time can easily be run backwards. With a Big Bang model of the start of the universe, quantum effects are significant.

i assume then that it also would have no problem with a created universe, is that correct?

Yes. Many religious scientists believe exactly that.

it would seem that the only evidence we do have, current observations, does point to a universe with a beginning. only speculative theories, with no observational support, that i know of, postulate a ‘change of state’. given that doesnt it behoove us to consider that the universe indeed had a beginning, at least until suffiecient contradictory evidence can be introduced?

We know certainly that the Big Bang was a beginning. We do not know that it was the beginning yet. There is uncertainty on both sides - as I said there is not a great deal of data and we are still in the data-collection phase. You cannot be certain that the Big Bang was the beginning as opposed to a beginning. You need to accept that any argument that you make on that basis may only be temporary.

which would bring causality to an end, at least thats what i think MoM means.

In the absense of time causality becomes irrelevant. This is part of the problem at the quantum level I referred to above. Since we can easily run quantum interactions backwards in time, we cannot cay whether the “cause” is before the “effect” or the “effect” is before the “cause”. A photon can cause an electron positron pair; an electron positron pair can cause a photon. Which is cause and which is effect?

nor would there seem to be one that it not be present, each seems logically valid

MindOverMatter had jumped from “cause” to “eternal personal will” without justifying the jump logically. I was asking for the logical justification for that jump.

why, what nessecitates that a the conditions would be right again for new universes to form?

If the cause is present, then the effect must occur. If the cause is always present then the effect must always occur. If the effect is a single event then the cause can only be present for that instant of time, otherwise it is like a machine gun with the trigger held down, the effect repeats over and over again. If the effect only happens once then there is a logical requirement that the cause is no longer present. That may just mean that the cause changed from a causing state (trigger pressed, ammunition available) to a non-causing state (trigger not pressed and/or no ammunition). In either case the cause is no longer causing the effect, so it should properly be known as the former cause.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

No need for God here, an eternal 1 meter cube is eternal in time but finite in space.

You would need a Gods eye view of things to know that there were any infinite successions of time.

In any case; what sense does it mean to say that there is an infinite “number” of contingent objects or past events?

Only for some values of “Big Bang theory”. There are many cosmological theories, all of which incorporate the Big Bang and some of which extend time back before the Big Bang. String Theory is one such example…

It’s not a theory, it’s a hypothesis. And its one that “Lee Smolin”(a person who has personally worked on these ideas, and was recently on “hard talk” doubting them) has a problem with, because it makes no “testable” predictions. Einstein’s Theories (you know the guy?) makes testable predictions; that’s why they are accepted.

As I have pointed out before, do not rely on science to justify this position.

Then don’t use science to justify yours.
The Big bang theory points to a singularity, a point where the universe gets so small that it cannot possibly exist beyond it; and yet we see the universe expanding from that point. A point where time begins.

Science changes with the evidence; as is indicated in the OP of this thread.

Its unlikely that the Big Bang Theory will change in any significant degree.
And even if it does, it’s beside the point. The theory we have now, points to a beginning of everything. One is therefore not unreasonable in supposing that physical reality is not the ultimate reality. In any case; in order for any thing to take place, there must first be such a thing as existence. It seems to me that existence is the first principle of all things, and is therefore both transcendent in nature and permanent in relation to any dimensional being, including time. Therefore a space less, timeless, dimensionless “Existence” is the cause of time; regardless of any infinite duration—time is not the cause. And if your claim that something can come from nothing; then why something rather then nothing?

There are theories in which there is no beginning of time, such as an oscillating universe.

A hypothesis that is not accepted or supported by testable experiment. You are talking about rather desperate speculative fringe ideas about spaces within spaces and bubbles of time within bubbles of time. Therefore you have no right to use those as arguments.

A first cause is only required in a universe that has a beginning.

This universe looks like it has beginning, and there is evidence pointing to that fact.

Science has no problem per se with a beginning less universe.

Correction; some “scientists” have no problem with a beginning-less universe. In any case it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is where the evidence is pointing. The evidence is pointing to a beginning.

Currently we do not have enough evidence to decide whether or not the Big Bang was a beginning or a change of state in a longer lasting universe.

Infinite density is not a state, it is a point which makes no sense in terms of physical reality.

If you have transcended time then how do you distinguish between cause and effect?

It is simultaneous. A transcendent being is in an eternal state of causing the universe. Metaphysically speaking, its a hierachical cause; not a time bound one.

You are not allowed to say that the cause comes before the effect, because “before” is contingent on time, and you have disallowed time.

The name of this thread is one big opportunity to invent a big straw man that you or someone else set up to knock down.

To say that something is transcendent is not the same as saying that something has come before time. God is Supreme Being. Supremacy is a matter of hierarchy, not time. So when somebody applies the term “before” to “God”, they only mean to say that the universe is ultimately a simultaneous manifestation of Gods nature.

It is not possible to distinguish between cause and effect in the absence of time.

Yes it is possible. Something can be an eternal simultaneous cause to a time bound effect. For example; there is such a thing as time, only because there is such a thing as existence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

What is your logical justification for the use of the word “personal” here?

There are two reasons.

1. A natural effect has no actuality until it has been caused by something else. In other words, physical reality is inert, and is in motion because something ultimately put it into motion. A physical effect cannot be the cause of its self or give rise to an effect unless itself is being caused; and even if its being in motion is not caused in the same sense as everything else; that does not mean it has no cause. You cannot get something from nothing. So it seems unreasonable to me to suppose that the ultimate cause of all things is a physical being.

Why is it in motion in the first place? Even if you refuse to explain it; the theist is not barred from explaining its logical consequence.

1. When i look at all the qualities of the world there are some meaningful realities that are not caused, but rather accompany the world; such as beauty. Among other things, this leads me to the conclusion that there are many things in the world that accommodate the existence of mind, and only makes sense in respect of mind. This is only sufficiently explained, for me, if God is the ultimate ground of all being.

That being the case; I think it is only commonsense to conclude that there is more to reality then space time and energy.
Once one sees that; only somebody who is trying to escape the clutches of God is going to take naturalism seriously.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

God made it. Now deal with the object as specified - eternal in time but finite in space.

you made it up in your mind, but it cant actually exist because there is no such thing as as something that is eternal in time. i refer you back to the metaphysical definition of eternal, you have dreamed up an object that is a logical contradiction in its nature, something like a black white, or a pregnant woman who is not pregnant. it cannot exist. the cube must be either eternal or temporal, it cannot, by definition, be both.

Not so. Many scientists are unhappy with string theory because we cannot yet measure in enough detail to determine whether or not the predictions of the theory are correct or not.

that would seem to prove the point, string theory has mutated and formed new models several times in the last thirty years, no scientist i know is completely happy with any of the models.

There are other theories as well as string theory which extend time back before the Big Bang. See Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang for a simple discussion.

did you read all of this? the speaker makes my point, pre big bang data is all conjecture meant to reach the universe we have now, it is not extended back through the big bang. it is progressed through it from postulations, we have no way of making any better than a guess. he even admits that none of it is settled.

i think that site supports my position more than yours.

This is an area of active ongoing research and where data is scarce, with new data being jumped on as soon as it is available. You are merely describing the scientific process in action. As we slowly collect more data we will begin to get a better picture of what is going on.

and thats exactly why those theories shouldn’t be used metaphysically, in comparison to the regression from current conditions.

A first cause is only required for models where a) the universe has a beginning and b) causality is original to the universe and not introduced at a short time after the beginning.

unfortunately it seems as that the only model that we have any evidence of, current conditions, does require a first cause. even other models require a cause. as the universe is not eternal.

The second part is not trivial as in the quantum arena causality is not a simple thing at all, since time can easily be run backwards. With a Big Bang model of the start of the universe, quantum effects are significant.

sure time can technically run backwards, yet we don’t actually ever see it happen on a macro scale. time moves relentlessly forward regardless of the possibility that it may not.

Yes. Many religious scientists believe exactly that.

why only the religious ones?

We know certainly that the Big Bang was a beginning. We do not know that it was the beginning yet. There is uncertainty on both sides - as I said there is not a great deal of data and we are still in the data-collection phase. You cannot be certain that the Big Bang was the beginning as opposed to a beginning. You need to accept that any argument that you make on that basis may only be temporary.

that it was the beginning is all the observable data currently supports. the rest is just wild conjecture desperately seeking a way to deny a creator. but as the speaker said on the site in this post, the universe “just doesn’t look natural”

fact is, based on what we currently know Creation is a highly likely scenario.

you need to accept that any argument is temporary, any argument of any kind is subject to revision.

In the absense of time causality becomes irrelevant. This is part of the problem at the quantum level I referred to above. Since we can easily run quantum interactions backwards in time, we cannot cay whether the “cause” is before the “effect” or the “effect” is before the “cause”. A photon can cause an electron positron pair; an electron positron pair can cause a photon. Which is cause and which is effect?

whichever one comes first in the direction of flow is the cause the second, the effect. but thats not even right, because we can make time run backwards conceptually, but it has never been observed to actually happen on the macro scale. we have no problem with cause and effect on in the real world.

If the cause is present, then the effect must occur. If the cause is always present then the effect must always occur. If the effect is a single event then the cause can only be present for that instant of time, otherwise it is like a machine gun with the trigger held down, the effect repeats over and over again. If the effect only happens once then there is a logical requirement that the cause is no longer present. That may just mean that the cause changed from a causing state (trigger pressed, ammunition available) to a non-causing state (trigger not pressed and/or no ammunition).

in the classical model, the only one we have actual observational evidence for, your argument would seem to support the idea of a independent actor if the first cause was indeed not an independent actor, then we should see repetitive big bangs. yet we have no evidence of this. the only other option is that the cause itself is an independent actor.

you may not have noticed, but we keep creeping closer and closer to G-d, at what point will you cross that thresh hold?
when you do what will be your response? the box keeps closing down upon you, closer and closer, soon there will be no more room to run, as a purely spiritual matter, it seems to me as if G-d is calling you. maybe you should answer Him.

 

[rossum]

In any case; what sense does it mean to say that there is an infinite “number” of contingent objects or past events?

It means that the objects or events can be put into a one-to-one relationship with one of the aleph numbers. If time is quantised then the relationship is with aleph-zero and the counting numbers can be used: 1, 2, 3, … If time is continuous then one of the higher aleph numbers will be required.

It’s not a theory, it’s a hypothesis. And its one that “Lee Smolin”(a person who has personally worked on these ideas, and was recently on “hard talk” doubting them) has a problem with, because it makes no “testable” predictions. Einstein’s Theories (you know the guy?) makes testable predictions; that’s why they are accepted.

Agreed, it would be better to call it the “String Hypothesis”, but the other name has become more common. It does make testable predictions, but our current instruments are not sensitive enough to measure at the scale required.

Then don’t use science to justify yours.
The Big bang theory points to a singularity, a point where the universe gets so small that it cannot possibly exist beyond it; and yet we see the universe expanding from that point. A point where time begins.

I do not have a position, I am merely pointing out the weakness of using some very uncertain science to underpin an argument for the existence of God.

Its unlikely that the Big Bang Theory will change in any significant degree.

One of the points I have been trying to get across is that you should not refer to “Big Bang Theory” but to “Big Bang Theories”. There is much scientific evidence for the Big Bang so it is pretty much universally accepted. There are many scientific theories built around the available evidence: String Theory, Multiverse Theory, Quantum Gravity and so forth.

The theory we have now, points to a beginning of everything.

The theories we have now point to a beginning. We cannot yet konw if that is also the beginning rather than just a change in a larger pre-existing entity.

One is therefore not unreasonable in supposing that physical reality is not the ultimate reality. In any case; in order for any thing to take place, there must first be such a thing as existence. It seems to me that existence is the first principle of all things, and is therefore both transcendent in nature and permanent in relation to any dimensional being, including time. Therefore a space less, timeless, dimensionless “Existence” is the cause of time; regardless of any infinite duration—time is not the cause.

You are reifying “existence” here. I reject all attempts are reification. Existence is contingent, just as is everything else.

And if your claim that something can come from nothing; then why something rather then nothing?

I make no such claim. Cause and effect is contingent on time; in the absence of time we cannot determine which is cause and which is effect. An eternal universe requires no cause. A non-eternal universe may have a cause if it arises within time. A universe that arises simultaneously with time cannot be said to have a cause.

This universe looks like it has beginning, and there is evidence pointing to that fact.

Agreed. There is a difference between a beginning and the beginning. Currently we are not in a position to say.

It is simultaneous. A transcendent being is in an eternal state of causing the universe. Metaphysically speaking, its a hierachical cause; not a time bound one.

How can cause and effect be simultaneous? Cause must come before effect, otherwise how can you tell the difference? Any being that caused our universe must be changing, which requires engagement with time - change is defined in terms of time. An unchanging cause looks like:On the first day God said “Let there be light.” On the second day God said “Let there be light.” On the third day God said “Let there be light.” …
A changing universe requires a changing cause. Anything that changes requires time, hence any changing cause is contingent on time.

Something can be an eternal simultaneous cause to a time bound effect.

Here we disagree, an unchanging cause acts like a Hollywood machine gun (with infinite ammunition) as in the “God said…” example above.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There are two reasons.

1. A natural effect has no actuality until it has been caused by something else.

Every effect has a cause, if it didn’t have a cause then it would not be an effect. What you are saying here is “Everything which has a cause has a cause.” This is true, but being a tautology it is not particularly useful.

In other words, physical reality is inert, and is in motion because something ultimately put it into motion.

Gravity can put two static masses into motion. I do not see gravity as requiring the description “personal”.

A physical effect cannot be the cause of its self or give rise to an effect unless itself is being caused;

Agreed, every effect has a cause. We can agree on a tautology.

Why is it in motion in the first place? Even if you refuse to explain it; the theist is not barred from explaining its logical consequence.

Gravity is God?

Nothing you have said so far seems to justify the use of “personal”.

1. When i look at all the qualities of the world there are some meaningful realities that are not caused, but rather accompany the world; such as beauty.

Reifying “beauty” is not going to convince me. Beauty is a human mental construct, which has no objective measure. What one person finds beautiful another person may find ugly or neutral. There is no beauty apart from the person making the assessment. There is a scientific joke about the unit of measurement of beauty, the milliHelen. A milliHelen is defined as “the amount of beauty required to launch a single ship”. Judged by that standard, the Queen of England is the most beautiful woman in the world.

Among other things, this leads me to the conclusion that there are many things in the world that accommodate the existence of mind, and only makes sense in respect of mind.

You are reifying mind as well as beauty.

This is only sufficiently explained, for me, if God is the ultimate ground of all being.

God does not provide a satisfactory explanation for me.

That being the case; I think it is only commonsense to conclude that there is more to reality then space time and energy.

As a Buddhist I have no problem with there being more to reality than space, time and energy. I do have a problem with personalising the non-ST&E part of the world. To me God is just another reification, this time of the alpha-male father figure.

rossum

 

[rossum]

that would seem to prove the point, string theory has mutated and formed new models several times in the last thirty years, no scientist i know is completely happy with any of the models.

That is how science works. Different models are proposed and they are tested against reality. The models that are left standing after testing are accepted, provisionally, as the best available descriptions we have. In cosmology we have a lot of models, all of which include the Big Bang. Because of a lack of data we still have a number of models standing. At this point it is not possible to tell which model is going to come out best.

he even admits that none of it is settled.

Exactly my point. You are assuming one version of the Big Bang, I am pointing out that there are others.

and thats exactly why those theories shouldn’t be used metaphysically, in comparison to the regression from current conditions.

All theories are “regressions from current conditions”. If a theory did not predict current conditions then it would be rejected out of hand. Currently we know that the answer is 42. We do not know yet if the correct theory is 20 + 22 = 42 or 13 + 29 = 42 or many other possibilities.

sure time can technically run backwards, yet we don’t actually ever see it happen on a macro scale.

At the time of the Big Bang the entire universe was on a very micro scale and quantum effects were very important. That is precisely why I posited that cause and effect may not have been in operation for the start of the universe and only began operating at some subsequent time. When the whole universe is smaller than an electron it is imperative that quantum effects are allowed for.

time moves relentlessly forward regardless of the possibility that it may not.

Not on the quantum scale; entropy is a macroscopic, statistical, phenomemon which is not aplicable on small scales. If there is only one molecule of oxygen in a room then it is easy for half of the room to be without oxygen; if there are trillions of molecules then the chances are negligible.

whichever one comes first in the direction of flow is the cause the second, the effect. but thats not even right, because we can make time run backwards conceptually, but it has never been observed to actually happen on the macro scale. we have no problem with cause and effect on in the real world.

As I said above, the macro scale does not apply to the initial moments of the Big Bang. That is why General Relativity fails at that point, it does not account for quantum effects. We need a quantum gravity, while GR is a non-quantum gravity.

in the classical model,

What meaning of “classical” are you intending here? Classical physics is know to be incorrect in both the quantum and relativistic limits.

the only one we have actual observational evidence for, your argument would seem to support the idea of a independent actor if the first cause was indeed not an independent actor, then we should see repetitive big bangs. yet we have no evidence of this. the only other option is that the cause itself is an independent actor.

We only have evidence of a single Big Bang. Hence the cause of that Big Bang is no longer acting. Some possibilities are:* the cause no longer exists.

• the cause has changed from a causing state to a non-causing state.
• a required contributory factor is no longer present.
• further BBs are being created, but elsewherewhere we cannot see them.
• a damping factor is now present, preventing further BBs.

I am sure you can think of others. There is no single conclusion indicated by the available evidence.

it seems to me as if G-d is calling you. maybe you should answer Him.

Don’t hold your breath.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is how science works. Different models are proposed and they are tested against reality. The models that are left standing after testing are accepted, provisionally, as the best available descriptions we have. In cosmology we have a lot of models, all of which include the Big Bang. Because of a lack of data we still have a number of models standing. At this point it is not possible to tell which model is going to come out best.

and still we only have actual evidence for one. a mathematical regression from current conditions

Exactly my point. You are assuming one version of the Big Bang, I am pointing out that there are others.

i am saying there is only one with evidence, the others are far from any stability. i prefer evidence, not conjecture

All theories are “regressions from current conditions”. If a theory did not predict current conditions then it would be rejected out of hand. Currently we know that the answer is 42. We do not know yet if the correct theory is 20 + 22 = 42 or 13 + 29 = 42 or many other possibilities.

exactly how are any of the loop, supergravity, m-theory, etc, 'regressions from current conditions, as i understand it they are conjecture about the cause of certain quantum phenomenon, entirely competitive with one another and conjectural in nature, as there is only one logical truth, all the others are wrong.

At the time of the Big Bang the entire universe was on a very micro scale and quantum effects were very important. That is precisely why I posited that cause and effect may not have been in operation for the start of the universe and only began operating at some subsequent time. When the whole universe is smaller than an electron it is imperative that quantum effects are allowed for.

we have already established there is no evidence of a monobloc. we know that time and therefore causality started approximately 1x10(-35) seconds after the big bang. so all we really know of is an expansion. an explosion with no bomb, so to speak. we have no direct evidence of things before nucleosynthesis. all these are just guesses about guesses. so when you say that the universe was at one point a planck entity. you are making guesses about which there is no evidence. until there is evidence of such, quantum effects dont matter.

no matter how many patches for the standard model may be made, they have been and may well likely be insufficient in themselves as a description of creation. there may be no grand unification theory. heaven forbid

Not on the quantum scale; entropy is a macroscopic, statistical, phenomemon which is not aplicable on small scales. If there is only one molecule of oxygen in a room then it is easy for half of the room to be without oxygen; if there are trillions of molecules then the chances are negligible.

and still we have never observed time moving backwards. as it has been tested an almost infinite number of instances, along the space time continuum the possibility becomes closer and closer to nil.

As I said above, the macro scale does not apply to the initial moments of the Big Bang. That is why General Relativity fails at that point, it does not account for quantum effects. We need a quantum gravity, while GR is a non-quantum gravity.

problem is that there is no evidence of the monobloc. at all

We only have evidence of a single Big Bang. Hence the cause of that Big Bang is no longer acting. Some possibilities are:* the cause no longer exists.

that would violate the conservation of mass/energy

• the cause has changed from a causing state to a non-causing state.

that would require some damping effect

• a required contributory factor is no longer present.

that would not then be the first cause

• further BBs are being created, but elsewherewhere we cannot see them.

this also disallows a first cause, making the universe eternal, which it is not.

• a damping factor is now present, preventing further BBs.

given that the first cause predates the universe, no damping factor can exist as a matter of creation

Don’t hold your breath.

you are already here, its not much further… he is patient

 

[rossum]

exactly how are any of the loop, supergravity, m-theory, etc, 'regressions from current conditions

Start with any of those theories and run them forwards, using the relevant equations from that theory. When you reach the present day you will find that the result, from all of those theories, is a universe pretty much like the universe we see around us. For example, one of the early solutions to Einsteins equations for General Relativity was the de Sitter solution. It was interesting for being one of the first solutions proposed, but it was immediately rejected as impractical since that solution resulted in a universe containing no normal matter at all. Modern theories have all been tested against what we see now. They are all regressions from current conditions.

as i understand it they are conjecture about the cause of certain quantum phenomenon, entirely competitive with one another and conjectural in nature, as there is only one logical truth, all the others are wrong.

Yes, they are generally incompatible with one another but they are all compatible with the currently observed universe. The search for dark matter and dark energy is one attempt to dictinguish between these theories, since some of then predict different ratios of normal to dark matter and different amounts of dark energy.

and still we have never observed time moving backwards.

Never on the macro scale. Many times on the quantum scale. Pretty much every time a particle accelerator is run we see reactions that go as easily forward as backwards, as with the electron + positron <-> photon reaction I mentioned.

that would violate the conservation of mass/energy

Why? My grandparents caused me, and none of them now exist. No conservation laws were broken.

that would require some damping effect

No, it merely requires a cause that can change. My mother caused me; she has changed so that she is no longer causing me - she is no longer preganant.

that would not then be the first cause

I was not talking about the first cause, I was talking about the cause of the Big Bang.

this also disallows a first cause,

Again, I am only talking about the cause of the Big Bang.

making the universe eternal, which it is not.

It might make the multiverse eternal as multiple BBs implies multiple universes. You have no information as to whether or not the multiverse is eternal.

given that the first cause predates the universe, no damping factor can exist as a matter of creation

The damping factor would only come into effect after the creation of the universe. Perhaps the cause is only capable of making one universe and no more. Maybe the presence of our universe prevents the origin of a second universe.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

It means that the objects or events can be put into a one-to-one relationship with one of the aleph numbers. If time is quantised then the relationship is with aleph-zero and the counting numbers can be used: 1, 2, 3, … If time is continuous then one of the higher aleph numbers will be required…

Theres no such thing as an actually infinite number. its logically meaningless

It does make testable predictions…

If it did make testable predictions it would be an accepted theory.
It does not.

I do not have a position, I am merely pointing out the weakness of using some very uncertain science to underpin an argument for the existence of God…

You do have a position. You claming the ultimate reality must exist within time, and that time can begin with out itself being caused. You given no good reason for your position other then your failuire the grasp the concept of an eternal cause in which time is rooted

One of the points I have been trying to get across is that you should not refer to “Big Bang Theory” but to “Big Bang Theories”. .

There is only one accepted Big Bang Theory. There are many “hypothetical” speculations which attempt to explain the BigBang, that you try to push are faces as good science.

The theories we have now point to a beginning. We cannot yet konw if that is also the beginning rather than just a change in a larger pre-existing entity…

If space time and energy receed back to an infinitly small point; what sense does it make to say that there other times and spaces beyond that point? There is no such thing as an infintely small dimension of any kind.

You are reifying “existence” here…

What does that mean? If you think my arguement is logically flawed then explain your point of veiw rather then give assertions that only pretend to refute my position.

To be continued

 

[MindOverMatter]

Existence is contingent, just as is everything else…

For everything that beins to exist, there is a cause, therefore in order to suffiently explain the universe, we must posit a being that is uncaused (and thus is not a contingent being in time), and is eternally causing (which means that it is the root cause of all motion and thus is the root of all time energy and matter. The universe is by its nature of being is a dynamic object and thus is one huge effect).

First of all it makes no sense to say that Existence is contigent, Because that would mean that existence could fail to exist, which is logically contradictory to the nature of existing. Inorder for something to fail to exist, there must first be such a thing as that which we call existence; and that must be eternally true.

Secondly, one cannot say that existence is a dimension, even though existence permeates all things; for, a dimension can only be dimensional because there is such a thing as Existence. You cannot say that dimensions are greater (more neccesary) then existence, because that would mean that existence is contingent upon dimension; which makes no logical sense because there must first be such a thing as existence before anything can be any particulor thing. Hieracaly speaking, existence is greater then any dimension, for dimension is contingent upon existing. Therefore it is not reasonable to say that dimension and existence is one and the same in nature, because physical dimensions, so fars they are actual moving bodies, do not have to exist in any particulor sense, and only exist because there is something that causes such things to exist. Out of noting comes nothing. The ultimate reality is not a physical dimension.

In any case, like i said in the first paragraph, in order for anything to come into being in the first place, there must first be something that is ultimate, uncaused, and eternal. In other words, something that cannot fail to be. A neccesary being.
One cannot simply say that a neccesary being is the first being. A neccesary being must also suffienctly explain its own existence by its own nature, and must also sufficiently explain the realities that it produces. It must be incorruptible and uncaused. Thus, and infintely long chain of contingently created beings, can never suficiently explain itself. The nature of “space-time” and energy, does not fit the bill becuase these realitys are contingent on being caused and thus are not sufficient in exlaining why the universe exists. So unless you are willing to say that motion came from nothing, then you must accept that there is a timeless uncaused cause.

I make no such claim. Cause and effect is contingent on time.

Time is contingent on there being such a thing as energy and matter. Time is a measure of motion.

in the absence of time we cannot determine which is cause and which is effect…

We can dertemine that their is an unmoved timeless cause that has utimately given rise to events by virtue of its own nature if we posit that such a cause is not itself made up of space time and energy.

An eternal universe requires no cause. A non-eternal universe may have a cause if it arises within time. A universe that arises simultaneously with time cannot be said to have a cause…

Nothing can come in to being if there is no such thing as existence. Existence transcends space and time and is the cause of it regardless of how many units it is made up of.

How can cause and effect be simultaneous?

If something is spaceless, timeless, and without physical form, then such a cause can exist simultaneous to its effect by virtue of its being; so long as that cuase is a perfect unchanging eternal will; as in God is identical to Gods will.

And by the way; when i call God “he”, it is because i am a man and i relate to God as a man, it is not because i think that God is a man biologically. God created sexuality, or rather is the root of it. And even if God was masculine by nature; this is not a reason to disbelieve.

Here we disagree, an unchanging cause acts like a Hollywood machine gun (with infinite ammunition) as in the “God said…” example above.

If God is personal in some sense, and has a perfect eternal will to create one universe or even many possible universes, then i dont see why your arguement would apply?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Start with any of those theories and run them forwards, using the relevant equations from that theory. When you reach the present day you will find that the result, from all of those theories, is a universe pretty much like the universe we see around us. For example, one of the early solutions to Einsteins equations for General Relativity was the de Sitter solution. It was interesting for being one of the first solutions proposed, but it was immediately rejected as impractical since that solution resulted in a universe containing no normal matter at all. Modern theories have all been tested against what we see now. They are all regressions from current conditions.

if you start from predetermined conditions, you can set the math up however you like, as we dont know that those conditions even exist thats not exactly a scenario for validity.

further if they all came to the same conclusion from the same initial conditions they would all be the same theory, but there are at least 5 or 6. only one can be right. so the others must be wrong.

they dont regress from current conditions they start from initial conditions.

your statements first and last sentence contradict eachother.

Yes, they are generally incompatible with one another but they are all compatible with the currently observed universe. The search for dark matter and dark energy is one attempt to dictinguish between these theories, since some of then predict different ratios of normal to dark matter and different amounts of dark energy.

and still only one can be right. so we should use what we already know , current conditions regressed.

Never on the macro scale. Many times on the quantum scale. Pretty much every time a particle accelerator is run we see reactions that go as easily forward as backwards, as with the electron + positron <-> photon reaction I mentioned.

possible yes, actual no. time runs forward. the particles smack together causing the effect of derivative particle showers.

further, time runs forward as an average of all the particle interactions, at no time have we seen the opposite.

Why? My grandparents caused me, and none of them now exist. No conservation laws were broken.

i guarantee that every particle of every ancestor that either one of us ever had still exists in one form or another.

No, it merely requires a cause that can change. My mother caused me; she has changed so that she is no longer causing me - she is no longer preganant.

which is a damping effect, she changed.

I was not talking about the first cause, I was talking about the cause of the Big Bang.

Again, I am only talking about the cause of the Big Bang.

which is the first cause as far as we know,

It might make the multiverse eternal as multiple BBs implies multiple universes. You have no information as to whether or not the multiverse is eternal.

sure, remember the definition of eternal excludes change, new universes would be a change, beside, MWI isn’t widely held among your peers.

The damping factor would only come into effect after the creation of the universe. Perhaps the cause is only capable of making one universe and no more.

there goes the eternal universe theory

Maybe the presence of our universe prevents the origin of a second universe.

there goes the MWI

all you have stated the last few posts are conjectures, faith in unseen, things

how is that different than our faith?

well its time to visit family, if you celebrate Christmas, Merry Christmas!

 

[mark_a]

Kamionkowski joined graduate student Adrienne Erickcek and senior research associate in physics Sean Carroll to propose a mathematical model . . . .

Didn’t a mathmatical model get us into our current economic woes?

 

[rossum]

further if they all came to the same conclusion from the same initial conditions they would all be the same theory,

Given that some of the theories start feom before the Big Bang, their starting conditions are different - they posit different pre-BB states.

your statements first and last sentence contradict eachother.

Given a set of points there are an infinite number of curves that pass through all of the points. There is no contradiction; all of the theories result in the current universe.

i guarantee that every particle of every ancestor that either one of us ever had still exists in one form or another.

Yet my grandparents no longer exist. They no longer function as a cause. Is Napoleon still alive because we still have some of his hair? Does Ramesses II still live because we have his mummy?

which is a damping effect, she changed.

Yes, if the cause changes to a non-cause then causation ceases.

which is the first cause as far as we know,

All we can know is that it is the cause of the Big Bang. Beyond that is speculation.

sure, remember the definition of eternal excludes change, new universes would be a change,

One universe is a change from no universes to one universe. If a cause can do that then why not also the change from one universe to two universes etc.? I agree that anything eternal cannot change.

beside, MWI isn’t widely held among your peers.

I was merely listing some possibilities.

there goes the eternal universe theory

I do not follow your logic here. How does a cause that is only capable of making one universe prevent that single universe being eternal?

well its time to visit family, if you celebrate Christmas, Merry Christmas!

I do. Merry Christmas to you as well.

rossum