Stephen Hawking's did god Create the Universe discovery documentary

Tanelorn

I agree. I dont want the thread shut down prematurely so lets leave God out of it and discuss whether anything, which is not a part of this Universe, and not a part of the laws of this Universe, is necessary to explain the fact that this Universe came into existance and exists now.

A God of unlimted power could have created this Universe exactly as is just 1 millisecond ago, or any other time, and put in place all the processes that are currently in progress including our own memories and observations. We choose not to accept this because it is not necessary to invent such supernatural forces when simpler natural explanations and alternatives are known to exist.

I believe Cosmologists can now explain all the way back to the very start of the BB and the quantum singularity with natural scientific explanations. However, since we dont have a theory of quantum gravity and an understanding of singularities, I suspect that we are rapidly reaching the point where theories at the first instant are almost as fanciful as alternative supernatural explanations.

Again the question of what is "the first thing" in the cause and effect cycle comes to mind, and whether it is necessary for the BB singularity event to have actually been created at all, or caused from something else? If the BB singularity is created from something else then is this something else outside of our Universe?

Milan Nikolic

That thing should be left to metaphysics, while physics should be interested only for methods that give results. So the story, such as Hawking's or creationists', have no purpose - are completely barren.

Discoveries in physics should produce concrete results to the progress of humanity - energy, technologically, etc. And does not need to tackle the issues of God's existence or nonexistence.

Tanelorn

I am not trying to prove/disprove Gods existence, just whether something unexplicable was required to produce the BB. No more mention of God please for reasons given. thanks.

Milan Nikolic

Condition within the Planck size, is defined with an unknown spaceless and timeless entities. Science will probably never be able to affirm these things.

twofish-quant

Stephen Hawking started it.

The problem with not discussing God is that then you get into "silence equals agreement" problems. I have theological reasons not to talk about God, but if Stephen Hawking makes statements about God and the beginning of the universe, and I don't say anything, then that may get misinterpreted as assuming that I agree with him which I don't.

That's something that I've been thinking a lot about. How can you show that the universe *wasn't* created 1 millisecond ago? Saying that it is unprovable seems to be to be giving up too easily.

The closest thing that I've been able to come up with is the Cartesian counterargument saying that this is irrelevant. Decartes pondered the issue of whether or not we live in a simulation (think Matrix), and his answer was that it's irrelevant. If we live in a simulation, then the simulation becomes "reality." Similarly if the universe was "created" a millisecond ago, then what we are investigating are those simulated memories.

Also, let's suppose that we have to assume that the universe wasn't created a millisecond ago. That opens up another question. What are the minimal assumptions that you have to have to do science?

But there's a problem.....

One of the latest ideas in cosmology is the anthropic principle. We have a problem in that it appears that the constants of the universe are "random." There's no reason why the fine structure constant is what it is. One way out of this is to assuming that there are a huge number of universes, and we happen to be in one that supports intelligent life. At that point, Occam's razor gets really dull. I don't think that you can argue and assuming a large number of alternative universes is "simpler" than saying "God did it." You might be able to invoke another philosophical principle, but it's not Occam's razor.

I don't think we are going to get very far with "pure thought." Medieval theologians (like William of Occam) thought about these topics for several hundred years, and they weren't able to get very far.

twofish-quant

You give up too easily. Unknown is not unknowable.

twofish-quant

One problem with astrophysics is that you end up with lots of "unrepeatable" and "uncontrollable" events. For example, if you are studying solid state physics, you can put a piece of metal in front of a laser. See what happens. Put the same piece of metal in front of a laser. See what happens. Repeat.

You can't do that with the big bang, Also, if you do a table-top experiment, you can be reasonably sure that the rules don't change on you. You can't assume that for the big bang.

But you can still think through stuff and figure stuff out. Curiously astrophysics isn't the only thing in the world with things sorts of problems, and one reason I think that a lot of astrophysicists end up in finance is that a lot of the philosophical issues you have to deal with in describing the big bang are the same philosophical issues that you have to deal with in describing the financial crisis of 2007.

Milan Nikolic

I agree. However, there is a danger that through philosophy, using breakthrough in physics, comes to some kind of religious belief, when also atheism becomes a kind of religion.

It should be understood that neither atheism nor theism should be a matter of science, and that is why I reproach Hawking for his outbursts. While on the other side, anyone can try through a combination of philosophy formulate fundamental questions of physics, only does not make sense is mention of God - because God always should be limited to the notion of belief and some religious community (including atheism), not to science.

Tanelorn

Thanks for very thoughtful replies. I am unable to add anything right now, but may be able to later.

Myself, I cant think of anything off the top of my head that I actually believe as gospel anymore, as they say. I question everything I am told. In fact I sometimes even have trouble with the CMBR leading to the BB theory itself! There we are. One thing that I particularly struggle with is that the Observable Universe is small compared to the whole Universe, which may in fact even be infinite, yet the BB states that the whole universe started as a singularitiy!

Twofish Cosmology and High finance - what a combination. Apparently there is no unemployment amongst Astrophysicists!

Drakkith

It's important to realize that the singularity is most likely a result of our incomplete knowledge of the way physics works at the energy levels and densities of the very very early universe. When you do math and you start to come up with infinities it usually means you aren't using the right rules. I am of the opinion that however the universe came to be, it was not from a singularity.

Milan Nikolic

Does this mean that the universe existed before the Big Bang?

Drakkith

We don't know. We are only able to observe the universe back to around a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. (Which isn't an explosion or anything like that anyways. It is simply the point in time that the universe began to expand and cool off.)

Milan Nikolic

But, isn't it inflationary cosmology go down into the earlier period of evolution of the universe? There talking about small parts of a second after the Big Bang.

Tanelorn

Twofish said, "One of the latest ideas in cosmology is the anthropic principle. We have a problem in that it appears that the constants of the universe are "random." There's no reason why the fine structure constant is what it is. One way out of this is to assuming that there are a huge number of universes, and we happen to be in one that supports intelligent life. At that point, Occam's razor gets really dull. I don't think that you can argue and assuming a large number of alternative universes is "simpler" than saying "God did it." You might be able to invoke another philosophical principle, but it's not Occam's razor."

Yes, I agree with this and suggested similar a few messages ago.

The Universe to me sometimes seems to be almost like a living thing, it was born, grows, matures and dies off. Perhaps there are some parallels to the Gaia priniciple?
Our Universe has an inherent capability of producing ever more deeper compexity, such as life itself.
We dont know how many levels of complexity exist on scales much larger than the Observable Universe. Our Observable Universe could be the equivalent of the microbe level in our daily lives.
Perhaps the physical constants which shape our Universe in a way to be able to create life are the result of something like evolution over many cycles?

All very well and good but it still doesnt explain "the first thing" what ever that was.


Coincidentally Occam's commemeration day is actually on my birthday.

twofish-quant

One point that Hawking makes which I agree with is that when we are talking about events "before the big bang" we are talking about an era in which our concepts of time may make no sense. If there is no such thing as "time", then what does it mean to be "before" or "after" something? It's possible to mathematically define a universe in which time does not exist. It's also possible to define our universe within a larger "system" in which time does not exist and there is no such thing as "before" or "after."

It appears that Hawking seems to think that this is a theological argument against God. Personally, I think this is a theological argument for God. Again we run into a problem. If we were talking about helium abundances in the big bang, we would be arguing with the same philosophical rules. We aren't.

twofish-quant

Then again I could be totally wrong.

There is a very practical reason I don't think about the Big Bang when I think about religious issues. One purpose of a religion is to tell you what you should do. Some beggar asks me for change, do I give it to him or not? Do I go to church or not? I walk past an open window in a tall building, should I jump out of it or not?

I've found cosmology and science to be a *terrible* foundation for this sort of thing. I don't have any clue what happened at 10^-52 seconds after the big bang. But I need to make important life decisions *NOW*. Also physics is uncertain. Without much difficult, I can come up with a great philosophical argument that I should shoot myself. However, I'd rather not do it, because I could come back after lunch and find a flaw in that argument, which case it would be bad if I actually shot myself.

Science is all about the unknown. It would be ridiculous to change my life every thirty seconds, as we find out that everything we thought we knew yesterday was wrong. And if I can come up with a religion or religious philosophy in which what happened at the big bang *doesn't* matter, then well, what happened at the big bang *doesn't* matter.

If it turns out that the universe existed for ever, then I marvel at the fact that the universe existed forever. If it turns out that it didn't, then I marvel at the fact that it didn't.

It could be. Or maybe it isn't. If we don't know, then we don't know, and if we don't know.

One thing that I find interesting is the rhetorical use of the "subjunctive". Someone says we don't know something, and then says "this *could* be true." This happens a lot in finance. Will Greece default? And someone says "I don't know, but it *could* default, and then spends a dozen pages talking about it." I've always wondered what that means rhetorically and linguistically.

Leo Smolin has suggested this.

Why must there be a "first thing"? One thing that is interesting here is that we are also talking about the limits of language and of thought and of imagination. It's possible for me to imagine a universe in which time does not exist, and in which there is no "before" or "after" (Max Tegmark's paper outlines the universe). This brings up a mathematical question. Is it possible to imagine a universe that cannot be described, and I think the answer is yes.

Tegmark and others raising the anthorpic principle is interesting because at that point there are some pretty deep questions about thought. Tegmark argues that unless you live in a 3+1 universe, intelligence is impossible, which brings up the question of whether "intelligence" requires a universe in which there is a "before" and "after".

twofish-quant

One important theological concept is "dogma". A "dogma" is something that you aren't allowed to question. Science considers "dogma" a bad thing, but I've found that "dogma" is useful in things outside of science. Why shouldn't I shoot myself? Well, I just shouldn't.

One definitional issue is "what is the big bang theory?" and "what is the big bang?" Personally, I consider anything before the "pre-inflationary era" to not be part of the "big bang theory."

Also CMBR in some sense *is* the big bang. If you are looking at the CMBR, you are looking directly at the big bang. Something happened, we call that something the big bang. Now based on CMBR, you can infer a lot of stuff.

No it doesn't. You see the big bang from the CMBR, you ask what happens, and you can work out the details up until the inflationary era, and before that it's a big "I don't know". There are several models of cosmology (loop quantum gravity or the epryatoric universe) in which there is no singularity.

There is a terminology issue, because people often refer to the big bang to mean "event zero". I don't. I refer to the "big bang" as "that thing that you see that causes CMBR".

There are also interesting philosophical issues. For example, working in finance makes me doubt philosophical materialism. There is this idea that only material objects are "real". That causes people a great deal of difficulty when dealing with large sums of money.