Eternal Inflation Theory and God
Eternal Inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation) is cosmology’s best model for how the universe came about. It proposes that the origin of the multiverse was a speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment. This speck inflated and quantum fluctuations then caused the inflation process to stop locally, convert into normal matter and form Big Bangs that created each ‘bubble universe’ in the multiverse.
Eternal Inflation is usually presented as an atheist model, so I’d like to present an alternative deist/theist interpretation.
First consider the initial speck of anti-gravity material; it is usually attributed to natural causes; quantum fluctuations. If time is infinite and inflation occurs naturally, there should have already have been an infinite number of separate eternal inflations events. The universe should be full of matter and EMR from these events yet we detect nothing. That suggests either time is finite or inflation is a one-off, non-natural event. Both are augments in favour of God.
The argument can be generalised to argue against any naturally occurring cause of the Big Bang with infinite time; there would be infinite Big Bangs and we have evidence of only one. Gravitational/EMR aspects of previous Big Bangs should betray themselves astronomically but we do not detect anything. So evidence points to finite time or Big Bangs are one-off, non-natural events (IE caused by God).
Eternal inflation is mooted as a mechanism by which the Strong Anthropic Principle is realised (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). The argument is that each bubble universe has different physical laws and a different standard model; the vast majority of bubble universes are not life supporting but we happen to live in one of those that is. Thus the evidence of fine-tuning for life in the universe is explained without the need for God. I do not buy this argument. All of the bubble universes are made from the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all turn out the same (live supporting). In addition, we have a sample size of one indicating universes are live supporting so we have statistical reasons to believe other universes are life supporting. Also any model that evolves a billion-to-one shot coming off (IE we happen to live in one of the few life supporting universes) is suspect. If all universes were life supporting (because all were created by God) that just requires a one-to-one shot.
There is a final point with regards to eternal inflation; it smacks of design. It looks like a very efficient mechanism for creating as much life as possible (creating infinite life supporting universes from nothing). It is the type of mechanism that a God would employ to create a multiverse.
Eternal Inflation is usually presented as an atheist model, so I’d like to present an alternative deist/theist interpretation.
First consider the initial speck of anti-gravity material; it is usually attributed to natural causes; quantum fluctuations. If time is infinite and inflation occurs naturally, there should have already have been an infinite number of separate eternal inflations events. The universe should be full of matter and EMR from these events yet we detect nothing. That suggests either time is finite or inflation is a one-off, non-natural event. Both are augments in favour of God.
The argument can be generalised to argue against any naturally occurring cause of the Big Bang with infinite time; there would be infinite Big Bangs and we have evidence of only one. Gravitational/EMR aspects of previous Big Bangs should betray themselves astronomically but we do not detect anything. So evidence points to finite time or Big Bangs are one-off, non-natural events (IE caused by God).
Eternal inflation is mooted as a mechanism by which the Strong Anthropic Principle is realised (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). The argument is that each bubble universe has different physical laws and a different standard model; the vast majority of bubble universes are not life supporting but we happen to live in one of those that is. Thus the evidence of fine-tuning for life in the universe is explained without the need for God. I do not buy this argument. All of the bubble universes are made from the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all turn out the same (live supporting). In addition, we have a sample size of one indicating universes are live supporting so we have statistical reasons to believe other universes are life supporting. Also any model that evolves a billion-to-one shot coming off (IE we happen to live in one of the few life supporting universes) is suspect. If all universes were life supporting (because all were created by God) that just requires a one-to-one shot.
There is a final point with regards to eternal inflation; it smacks of design. It looks like a very efficient mechanism for creating as much life as possible (creating infinite life supporting universes from nothing). It is the type of mechanism that a God would employ to create a multiverse.
Comments (43)
You can also look at the evidence for the absence of a creator. How much of space is empty? Why is there such a low life to space proportion if we are here intended by some higher being?
You can also look at the pieces of evidence that show that the universe is EVEN NOW forming naturally, with no apparent intelligence behind its formation (thus automatically).
You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism.
That depends on if cause and effect still have meaning outside of time; they might do in which case we could have an eternal (outside of time) God and an eternal universe he created.
Quoting Josh Alfred
I think if you look at it in terms of matter usage; most of the universe is dedicated to stars (power source for life) and planets (living surfaces for life). For me, there is just too much fine-tuning for life in the standard model and big bang to doubt the the existence of a creator.
Quoting Josh Alfred
I am proposing that God created the universe with an initial act and that nature completes the process so I agree the universe should be still forming naturally; it was only the initial act of the Big Bang/Inflation that was unnatural.
I think the way science bends over backwards logically to avoid any consideration of a deity is a mistake. Ultimately it maybe that we have a creator God, so solutions that involve a creator God are worthy of consideration. It's not like I'm proposing magic; it was just the initial creation event was contrived by a creator (God) using natural processes.
I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words.
I don't know how this is even supposed to be conceptualized. Time is a crucial aspect of cause and effect for an obvious reason: These terms are defined in terms of temporal sequences during which some event Y follows some event X given some state of affairs. No time means no cause and effect.
My argument is that it does require a creator. If eternal inflation was a natural event and time is infinite the there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation events. We see only evidence for one. Hence either time is finite (created by the creator) or inflation is not a natural events (caused by the creator).
Quoting MindForged
Maybe God has something else, analogous to time but different that also supports cause and effect.
I think it might be fun though, to link God's personality to the method of creation He chose. @Devans99's God is very lazy, if you ask me.
I don't think he had much of a choice. How would any God go about designing intelligent life? It's surely impossible even for Gods; we are just way too complex to design. So we had to be generated instead; generated by evolution. God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life. The planets are the playing surfaces, the stars the energy sources. If you put yourself in God's shoes, this seems the only feasible approach to creation.
What's the origin of the "speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment"?
Or in other words, as I've pointed out before, and as should be obvious, no matter what we posit, we're stuck on either with "something coming from nothing" or something always existing. There's no way to circumvent that problem, so we might as well just stick with the obvious stuff instead of making up things that don't necessarily make any sense--"god," "quantum fluctuations," whatever.
The theory does not say. A common interpretation of the theory is some sort of natural event like a quantum fluctuation temporarily fluctuates the speck into existence for just long for eternal inflation chain reaction to start. But if time is infinite there should of been an infinite number of such natural, eternal, events and we see no evidence for this (so time is finite or inflation is unnatural).
As to the high energy environment, I'm not sure where that is supposed to come from. Something contrived by the creator I would imagine.
The Borde Guth Vilenkin tells us there was a beginning.
Conway's life is very passive though - you wait for something unexpected to emerge.
Quoting Devans99
Not a problem! I've always fancied creating a more involved version of Conway's where one tweaks the rules in real time. Maybe your God tweaks the universal constants - though let's hope he does this by creating a universe per tweak, rather than changing them in established universes. Especially ours!
A misuse of the theorem? Not according to Vilenkin.
Carroll is wrong. The BGV theorem proves there was a creation event, given a rather broad, realistic, and empirically established criterion.
Carroll was quoting one of the authors of the theorem. You have no idea what the BGV theorem actually says, nor its limitations (namely, that contrary to what basically every physicist believes, spacetime is treated classically so it runs short of the whole picture). Alan Guth's statement was thus:
"I don't know if the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning. It's very likely eternal but nobody knows."
Don't speak with such certainty, one of the authors of your own source (the BGV theorem) disagrees with your assessment.
no matter how you cut it, you are saying that from nothing - there was something - that was not caused. Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. It seems you are ruling it out as a possibility - simply because you want to rule it out.
No matter how you slice it some rule that applies to existing phenomena is going to go in this limit case for the existence of anything existing. All I've said is that whichever one it is - eternal or finite - doesn't really seem to be in the favor of God being the explanation. If the past is finite, there was a first moment of time and the notion of there being a cause is incoherent because it's a category mistake.
Can you point to any law of physics that mentions causality, or where causality can be inferred?
I agree - but if the universe is finite. By definition it had a first moment. so also by definitnon there was nothing before that. So there was nothing - than there was something. How?
Your answer seems to be, is something cant come from nothing, but it did, so it didn't - I am lost in you logic. And pretty sure it is my fault.
Lazy. There is no causality in any fundamental law of physics.
All laws of physics are time symmetric. So you're wrong.
Maybe you could look up the wikipedia page on Unitarity yourself?
If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause?
Correct, in principle, according to the rules of logic.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Correct, within the same reference frame. While in the Universe, it can be said there was nothing of the Universe before it’s first moment. Nonetheless, both propositions, together or separately, are not sufficient to logically eliminate some other reference frame which suffices to falsify the conclusion “there was nothing before that”.
As long as knowledge is unattainable, pure speculation is allowed. But just because pure speculation is allowed does not serve as warrant to usurp logical or rational rules.
No problem with that at all.
Quoting Mww
Agree, didn't think I did, and if so, not intentionall. What we know, we know. What don't know is a open to a free exchange of ideas. Including, the TPF heresy of such a thing as God
This is what I was saying when I said whatever answer you pick there's an exception we're making because we're at a limit case where our usual standards break down. There cannot be a "how" the beginning of existence, because "how" implies something like causality, but we've agreed there couldn't be anything so no cause and effect. But if you take an eternal universe you have to ditch the assumption that there's a reason for everything as well, because there's no explanation for why the sequence of cause and effect doesn't terminate.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I didn't say something could not exist uncaused (I do not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason). What I'm saying is that the reason we are stumped by the idea that something can't come from nothing is that we're generalizing from the behavior of parts of the universe and assuming that applies to the set of everything that has ever existed. And I think that assumption has absurd consequences like I mentioned earlier.
I think I would basically agree with TP here, just pick one because it's obviously going to be one of these answers, counter-intuitive as they may be in their own right:
Quoting Terrapin Station
There's no need for it, and no evidence for it.
Anything you say about a god for this purpose you can simply say about the universe sans any gods.
They actually posit nonsense like "it came from quantum fluctuations," and then completely ignores how we get to there being quantum fluctuations.
Excellent question, just an entire world full of fools I guess.
That being said, and if I was forced to think about it, which I would have to be, I might wonder how you would arrive at this: “....kind of thought if the world is finite, it lent some weight to the concept of an un-created - creator, or a non-contingent being...”, if you weren’t being, shall we say......overly speculative?
Edit:
I see you spoke of this: “Something like a necessary being is a possible answer as well.” Assuming “possible answer” applies to some causality for that which is theorized as having a finite duration, I suppose there really is no good refutation of such a statement. I certainly don’t have one, even if I could soundly argue we’d never know it, if there was such a thing.
Pre, very very very early Big Bang, science has no knowledge or even anything it would even elevate to a formal definition of theory.
Everything you or me or Steven Weinberg says is some degree of speculation
If the creation event had no cause; it must be a naturally occurring event like quantum fluctuations. If it is a naturally occurring event, it should have occurred infinite number of times (if time is infinite) but we have evidence of only on. So the creation event was not natural and had a cause (without resorting to causality) or time is finite (IE it would need a non-natural cause).
Let's call that cause God. Then there is the chicken and egg problem (who created God). The creation of God can't be a natural event else conservation of energy is violated (and we'd have an infinite number of Gods with infinite time). So we can either make God timeless (beyond cause and effect) or we can make time circular (God can create himself).
Quoting Inis
How about 'every action has an equal opposite reaction'? Causality I think is essential to physics and everyday life. Causality is required by common sense in any case (which trumps physics).