The Scientific Fairy Tale

Quoting Joe0082

So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway?

Instead of people accepting that they cannot understand, they make-up all kinds of stories for fun and profit. It's been going on for a long time and seems as if it's not going to be stopping any time soon.

It's seems to be what people so best...bullshit.

Quoting Joe0082

Awakening from the scientific trance for a second, one has to say the universe could not expand then coalesce into the vast reality it has become from an infinitely small point Just not possible. In fact ridiculous. Nor could energy expand faster than the speed of light. Not possible. Nor could gravity shape matter and anti-matter into a universe capable of creating and supporting life, even if on just one little planet. No way.

I'm not a physicist, but I have a good background in science. The story does not seem ridiculous or impossible to me.

Quoting Joe0082

I believe it probably really did happen this way, however, am amazed most scientists fail to see the mystery of it.

Quoting Joe0082

So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway?

Why do you believe that "it probably really did happen this way" if you also think that it's "impossible" and that it's all a "mystery?" Who are the mysterians that initiated you into the secrets of the universe? Not scientists, apparently, since they don't know what they are talking about. Then who?

Quoting Joe0082

So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway?

Nonsense. Whatever happens presupposes that it is possible to happen.

Can it be the universe is not really [be] material?

Maybe it is 'more than material' (material+) ... Define material.

If not material, then what?

Physical.

Reply to Joe0082 It's so easy to criticise stuff you haven't understood.

Quoting Joe0082

So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway?

Either it is possible, or, it didn’t happen. There are mysteries of which physicists are aware, but that ain’t one of ‘em.

Reply to 180 Proof Reply to Mww

you missed "given a material universe"

Reply to Joe0082 That must be why I requested of you define material. :roll:

Reply to Joe0082

I’m good. You stipulated material universe, so.....hard to miss.

It wasn’t ‘an explosion’ or ‘a big bang’. Those images are used to convey the idea in layman’s terms, and obviously don’t always work.

Reply to Joe0082 That is why sometimes it's best to say: I don't know

You're right of course, that the Big Bang explanation of the universe - has some very strange implications, but then, the faster than light expansion of the early universe is only impossible by the internal physical laws of the universe. This is interesting because, if correct - and there's some underlying reality with different physical laws, it may have implications for faster than light travel in the future.

We only know the direction from the "point of the big bang" and the approximate time of its beginning. But we do not know (are not sure) that this happened from the "point". Those. we do not know the initial radius of the source. It could very well be (I'm fantasizing) a mega-large neutron star or something.
The rest is quite a reasonable theory.

FTL is only impossible for mass particles not space itself, so no violation of SR occurs in the FTL expansion of the universe (NB: "BB" is outdated by the No Boundary conjecture). Thus, the Alcubierre Warp Drive is not a laughed-out-of-the-building FTL propulsion conjecture. :nerd:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Speaking only philosophically, the Big Bang just deepens the mystery and Kant's antinomy still holds, "That the universe has a beginning in time is impossible; that it has no beginning in time is also impossible."

Quoting counterpunch

the faster than light expansion of the early universe is only impossible by the internal physical laws of the universe.

The explanation of the apparent expansion of the universe at speeds greater than that of light I have heard is that the expansion of the fabric of space-time itself is not subject to the speed limit. Seems like a cheat to me, but people who know more than I do accept it.

Quoting SimpleUser

We only know the direction from the "point of the big bang" and the approximate time of its beginning. But we do not know (are not sure) that this happened from the "point".

It is my understanding the singularity that is talked about at the beginning of the universe or in a black hole is a mathematical construct based on the equations of General Relativity, i.e. an undefined point. The interpretation of that as an infinitely small and infinitely dense point is a human interpretation. A metaphor.

Reply to Joe0082 Proof that Kant's transcendental notion of Newtonian "time" & "space" are empty speculations: in Einsteinian terms, the universe is time(space).

Reply to T Clark :up:

Reply to 180 Proof It might be interesting for you to read what Kelly Ross has to say about that https://www.friesian.com/space-2.htm

Quoting Joe0082

Kant's antinomy still holds, "That the universe has a beginning in time is impossible; that it has no beginning in time is also impossible."

That’s exactly the opposite of what the first antinomy says.

FIRST CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS.
THESIS. The world has a beginning in time, and is also limited in regard to space.
ANTITHESIS. The world has no beginning, and no limits in space, but is, in relation both to, time and space, infinite.

The conflict proves the universe has a beginning, and it proves it does not. That’s what makes the conflict an antinomy of reason in the first place. Possibility, and its negation, is not a consideration, under the conditions stipulated in the text.

For accuracy, not antagonism, doncha know.

Reply to Wayfarer Non sequitur.

Reply to Wayfarer

Here's a quote from the website you linked:

Classic quantum mechanics seems to exhibit some of the characteristics that Immanuel Kant described about the relation between phenomenal reality in space and time and things-in-themselves.

Kant's things-in-themselves have been interpreted as analogous to the Tao as described by Lao Tzu. That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me, keeping in mind I have not read a lot of Kant. The concept of the Tao is a metaphysical, not a physical, concept. Quantum mechanics is a physical concept. Any similarity between them is metaphorical. It's a trap many people have fallen into. One of the most prominent is Fritjof Kapra in "The Tao of Physics," which is a bunch of baloney.

Or did I misunderstand your point.

Reply to T ClarkI was attempting a response to

Quoting 180 Proof

Proof that Kant's transcendental notion of Newtonian "time" & "space" are empty speculations

But the page I should have linked to is The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry, where we read that:

The Euclidean nature of our imagination led Kant to say that although the denial of the axioms of Euclid could be conceived without contradiction, our intuition is limited by the form of space imposed by our own minds on the world. While it is not uncommon to find claims that the very existence of non-Euclidean geometry refutes Kant's theory, such a view fails to take into account the meaning of the term "synthetic," which is that a synthetic proposition can be denied without contradiction.

Leonard Nelson realized that Kant's theory implies a prediction of non-Euclidean geometry, not a denial of it, and that the existence of non-Euclidean geometry vindicates Kant's claim that the axioms of geometry are synthetic [Leonard Nelson, "Philosophy and Axiomatics," Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy, Dover, 1965; p.164], as quoted above. The intelligibility of non-Euclidean geometry for Kantian theory is neither a psychological nor an ontological question, but simply a logical one -- using Hume's criterion of possibility as logically consistent conceivability. Something of the sort is admitted with hesitation by Jeremy Gray:

As I read Kant, he does not say non-Euclidean geometry is logically impossible, but that is only because he does not claim that any geometry is logically true; geometry in his view is synthetic, not analytic. And Kant's belief that Euclidean geometry was true, because our intuitions tell us so, seems to me to be either unintelligible or wrong. [Gray, Ibid. p. 85]

If we are unable to visualize non-Euclidean geometries without using extrinsically curved lines, however, the intelligibility of Kant's theory is not hard to find. The sense of the truth of Euclidean geometry for Kant is no more or less than the confidence that centuries of geometers had in the parallel postulate, a confidence based on our very real spatial imagination. If Kant's claim is "unintelligible," then Gray has not reflected on why everyone in history until the 19th century believed that the parallel postulate was true. That is the psychological question, not the logical or ontological one. The sense of ancient confidence can be recovered at any time today simply by trying to explain non-Euclidean geometry to undergraduate students who have never heard of it before. We might say that attempts to prove the postulate show that people were uneasy about it; but the universal expectation was that the postulate was really a theorem, and no one cashed in their unease by trying to construct geometry with a denial of it. Saccheri denied it, but only because he was constructing reductio ad absurdum proofs. Non-Euclidean geometry did not change our spatial imagination, it only proved what Kant had already implicitly claimed: the synthetic and axiomatically independent character of the first principles of geometry.

I don't know for sure, as it's a very difficult issue, but it seems germane to the conversation. But anyway, I linked to the wrong page, my bad. :yikes:

Quoting T Clark

The explanation of the apparent expansion of the universe at speeds greater than that of light I have heard is that the expansion of the fabric of space-time itself is not subject to the speed limit. Seems like a cheat to me, but people who know more than I do accept it.

Not necessarily. Imagine two dots drawn on a balloon, that is then inflated. The dots move apart exponentially as the angle from the radius increases.

Reply to Joe0082

If you're calling the Big Bang a fairytale to describe how ludicrous of an idea we're told to take in, I agree. Not because it is improbable, but because everything from the span of time to magnitude is far beyond what a normal person is capable of comprehending. I suppose it's just as unbelievable as theories about how the universe will end, although there is much more competing theories for that. I don't think the problem of this is that the fact that it is unbelievable, but rather we have nothing more believable to fall back on.

I'm not sure what you mean by "material" universe, but my understanding is that the universe is commonly differentiated into two dimensions of space and time. Useful. I know, but I've heard of arguments about whether time actually flows forwards or backwards and I feel like that's relevant here.

Quoting Wayfarer

But anyway, I linked to the wrong page, my bad. :yikes:

But I liked the page you linked to. It gave me a chance to feel all smart and superior.

Quoting counterpunch

Not necessarily. Imagine two dots drawn on a balloon, that is then inflated. The dots move apart exponentially as the angle from the radius increases.

I agree. As I wrote, I believe it, but it seems like a cheat. God may not play dice, but he cheats at cards.

Reply to Wayfarer

it only proved what Kant had already implicitly claimed: the synthetic and axiomatically independent character of the first principles of geometry.

What do you suppose the character is independent of? What does axiomatically independent really say?

Quoting counterpunch

Not necessarily. Imagine two dots drawn on a balloon, that is then inflated. The dots move apart exponentially as the angle from the radius increases

Hmm. Maybe. Think of yourself at the center (0,0) of a circle of radius R in the plane. One point on the circumference is at (R,0) and the other point is above that in the first quadrant. As the circle inflates the angle, A, between the points from your perspective is constant, but the radius increases as does the arc distance between points. The arc length between points is S=RA Thus the rate of change of S wrt time t is S'(t)=AR'(t). Now, if R'(t)=CS(t), you get exponential change in S(t).

Quoting T Clark

But I liked the page you linked to. It gave me a chance to feel all smart and superior.

Thanks! I barely understand it myself, but overall I'm a fan of Kelly Ross, and I thought it was worth airing a dissenting voice to the standard opinion on that matter.

Nevertheless, I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'. It has often been resisted by scientists because of this very fact. As I've often pointed out on this forum, in the Wikipedia entry on Georges Lemaître, it is noted that:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[34] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[35] [36][16] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[37] Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[37] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.

Quoting Joe0082

Awakening from the scientific trance for a second, one has to say the universe could not expand then coalesce into the vast reality it has become from an infinitely small point Just not possible

You're right. It is impossible for anything inside an infinitely small point to expand into a vast world.

But the theory does NOT state what you ascribe to it. It says the matter in the universe that we know was concentrated in the volume of the size of a thimble. NOT INFINITELY SMALL. You ride on false assumptions, of course it is easy to prove something true wrong when the proof you use is wrong.

Quoting Wayfarer

I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'.

The bing bang theory (a kinder name) does not presuppose or state or claim that the world came from nothing. It says that all the matter existed in a volume the size of a thimble.

Sorry to correct you, but without this correction you seem to make sense, and we can't allow that. :-)

Quoting god must be atheist

The bing bang theory (a kinder name) does not presuppose or state or claim that the world came from nothing. It says that all the matter existed in a volume the size of a thimble.

An atom, actually. Although it is misleading to speak of ‘size’ because there could never be a point outside it to arrive at any judgement of ‘size’.

I’ll get to the point. Religious fundamentalists believe they can use science to prove God exists.

Scientific materialists believe they can use science to prove God doesn’t exist.

They’re both mistaken, in my view.

Quoting Wayfarer

An atom, actually.

No, Wayfarer, for the third time. It was the size of a thimble, not of an atom. Read my lips: thimble.

Reply to god must be atheist Go and look up the English translation of Georges LeMaitre’s original paper proposing the Big Bang.

Quoting Wayfarer

I’ll get to the point. Religious fundamentalists believe they can use science to prove God exists.

Scientific materialists believe they can use science to prove God doesn’t exist.

They’re both mistaken, in my view.

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim. Science can't prove anything.

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof.

Reply to Wayfarer No. I go by the standard that the scientific community accepted.

If you go to the origin, then we should believe Kepler's heliocentric world view, but we know the sun is not the centre of the world.

Maybe this is the source of your erroneous ways. You go back to the UNCORRECTED version of theories, the original ones. Time to dust off those Internet searches, and look for the updated, corrected versions of theories.

Quoting god must be atheist

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim.

Richard Dawkins has written a number of books about exactly that - if not ‘proving’ that God does not exist, then strongly suggesting it:



As you haven’t bothered, the English translation of LeMaitre’s paper was generally referred to as the ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.

Quoting Wayfarer

As you haven’t bothered, the English translation of LeMaitre’s paper was generally referred to as the ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.

But it has been debunked. That does not seem to phase you at all. Your being impervious to facts is a GREAT armor in the field of philosophical discussion.

Reply to god must be atheist Bollocks. LeMaitra’s work was never ‘debunked’. It was elaborated, improved, refined - in exactly the same way as many other foundational papers in 20th C. Cosmology.

Quoting Wayfarer

LeMaitra’s work was never ‘debunked’. It was elaborated, improved, refined - in exactly the same way as many other foundational papers in 20th C. Cosmology.

True. One of the ways it was improved, was the correction of the size of the space that included the matter. You said it yourself here that LM's work was not accepted without refinement and improvements. Get with the times, Wayfarer, incorporate those improvements into your model of the Big Bang.

Quoting Wayfarer

Nevertheless, I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'. It has often been resisted by scientists because of this very fact.

I think I'm well aware of the limits of science. Even so, within those limits, and discounting the arrogance and narrow-minded of many scientists, it works pretty well.

As for creation from nothing, I remember getting in an argument with @apokrisis about virtual particles arising in the quantum vacuum. I said - Isn't that creation from nothing. He said - If it creates something, it's not nothing.

Reply to T Clark Apokrisis is a gun when it comes to this subject.

I'm also interested in Penrose's cyclical cosmology model. One big bang is creation ex nihilo, cyclic cosmology is the Bhagavad Gita ;-)

Quoting T Clark

I said - Isn't that creation from nothing. He said - If it creates something, it's not nothing.

I might have mentioned before David Albert's review of Lawrence Krauss' book Universe from Nothing which makes exactly this point. Krauss also talks a lot about quantum flunctuations and those topics, but his critics tore strips off him for saying that space was 'nothing'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-metaphysical-muddle-of-lawrence-krauss-why-science-cant-get-/10100010

Virtual particles are described as temporary excitations of underlying quantum fields that appear in computations but are not detectable by experiment. It could be that they are examples of mathematics becoming reality. :chin:

Reply to Wayfarer

I read the NYT article. Then fiddling around looking up the author of the review, I came across one of his books, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience," in a downloadable form. Thought you might be interested

http://www.rivercitymalone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/David-Albert-Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-1992.pdf

Reply to T Clark Thanks! I've heard of that book, I will certainly take a look.
Reply to jgill :up:

[quote=Werner Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus]...The inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory...has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts [of existence etc] cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as 'position', 'velocity', 'color', 'size', and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.

During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. 1[/quote]

(Although he qualifies that further down in the speech when he says 'If modern science has something to contribute to this problem, it is not by deciding for or against one of these doctrines; for example, as was possibly believed in the nineteenth century, by coming down in favor of materialism and against the Christian philosophy, or, as I now believe, in favor of Plato's idealism and against the materialism of Democritus. On the contrary, the chief profit we can derive in these problems from the progress of modern science is to learn how cautious we have to be with language and with the meaning of words.')

Quoting god must be atheist

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim. Science can't prove anything.

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof.

I'm an atheist and I hold that (for now) methodological naturalism is our best source of reliable knowledge. There are people who hold philosophical naturalism who have an almost fundamentalist zeal for science's abilities to discern all that is true. (I prefer Laurence Krauss's no doubt cribbed definition of science facts as not being 'true', they are 'not false'.) And there are many religious believers who think of science as doing God's work and that the stories of the Bible, say, are allegories.

Plainly I'm not a physicist, nor do I find the subject particularly interesting. But it is clear that in the knowledge gaps prominent in physics, ideas are assumed by some about consciousness and matter. Speculation is rife and why would it not be? The quantum conundrums have provided an opportunity for a lot of contestable claims to flourish. And, as always, where there are gaps the fallacy from ignorance may bloom. As soon as someone can provide robust evidence (I am still hung up on this word) that our incomplete knowledge of physics definitely leads to, let's say non-dualism or a brave new world of higher consciousness, fine.

Quoting god must be atheist

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof.

Not true. Religions are notorious for dictating what you're obliged to believe. In Christianity, that is the meaning of 'orthodox'. In times past if you promoted wrong belief the punishment was severe. So you can't believe anything you like, you must believe as you're told. (And of course there's no scientific evidence for those beliefs, but asking for scientific evidence misses the point. When the Dawkins of the world insist that there has to be scientific evidence for religious belief, the only people they're arguing against are those who insist on a literal reading of scriptures, namely, fundamentalists.)

Quoting Wayfarer

When the Dawkins of the world insist that there has to be scientific evidence for religious belief, the only people they're arguing against are those who insist on a literal reading of scriptures, namely, fundamentalists.)

I think that's largely true. I think I remember Dawkins saying somewhere that there wasn't much point arguing with progressive believers as their ideas don't do any harm. Somewhat patronizing and evasive, but I get what he means.

Reply to Tom Storm I always say 'fundamentalists argue with rocks'. What I mean is, when they take issue with carbon dating and other forms of empirical science then they're not facing reality. It's kind of tragic - if their beliefs can be derailed by straightforward empirical evidence, then they're based on a flawed reading of the Bible , in my view. (Not that I myself am particularly biblically-oriented.)

On the other hand - your appeals to ‘evidence’ kind of miss the point when it comes to the kinds of questions that are considered in these issues. When you say there’s no ‘evidence’ of divine creation, what this misses is that ‘evidence’ generally pertains to specific outcomes. What causes metal to rust? What causes continents to drift? Those are questions for which evidence can be adduced, because they’re specific questions. A question such as ‘is nature ordered, and if so, how?’ Is not that kind of question. We can all see the same evidence and present conflicting arguments as to why nature appears ordered and there’s no empirical way of differentiating them.

Have a look at this essay on the anthropic principle. It’s from a few years back, and I noticed that because at the end of the essay, which I just read, there’s a reference to the ‘forthcoming’ book - and I went to the book launch! I suspect, although he never says, that the author, Luke Barnes, belongs to a particular Christian type, called ‘muscular Christianity’, which is typical of a certain kind of Australian Anglicanism. BUT, he’s a bona fide PhD, and quite philosophically literate, he’s certainly no fundamentalist nor ID apologist. Nor does he engage in any Christian apologetics either here or in any of his writings that I’m familiar with, but he does seem to have a firm grasp of the so-called fine-tuning arguments.

Quoting Wayfarer

On the other hand - your appeals to ‘evidence’ kind of miss the point when it comes to the kinds of questions that are considered in these issues.

Yep, I am well aware of the... shall we call it contradiction? It's how I am. I am not a nimble thinker. Having hung around many mystics, Buddhists, yoga practitioners and earnest meditators for 20 years - people whose lives were all pretty much riddled with anxieties and status seeking (spiritual rather material) - I throw a jaundiced eye at the benefits of the contemplative life.

Thanks for the tip re Mr Barnes, W. I know Australian Anglicans pretty well as it happens. I enjoy a bit of muscular Christianity every now and then and consider myself, like most Westerners, marinated in the tradition.

The wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
"Ha," he said,
"I see that none has passed here
In a long time."
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
"Well," he mumbled at last,
"Doubtless there are other roads."

Reply to Tom Storm Where's that from?

An image I have contemplated, although not turned into verse, is that of the discovery in some obscure alleyway, in some obscure ancient town, of a pile of rubble. The traveller catches a glimpse of light between the rocks, and so starts to paw them away. Behind, there is more light, and the smell of incense....

(ah, Stephen Crane. Isn't google amazing?)

Dr. Barnes.

Quoting Tom Storm

Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.

Suddenly I get it. Exactly where I'm at right now. But I don't think there are other roads.

Reply to Wayfarer :pray:

Quoting Wayfarer

So you can't believe anything you like, you must believe as you're told.

Wrong. You believe anything you like. But if you advocate some beliefs, religion may frown at it. Nobody can tell you what to believe, and you are a perfect example of it (as am I).

Religions are still another stage of belief... that's the basic idea. Belief, not knowledge. So... what were you saying?