Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

Zillah

Edit: Clarification clarified!

What he's saying is that it actually changes, not that it was wrong all along. Welcome to the wacky world of physics.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll have to read the paper again but it's way beyond my knowledge. To be honest I'm going mostly by the quotation from Vilenkin's book i.e.

With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

The thing is though that they had already faced the problem of a cosmic beginning and that hadn't led them to belief in the supernatural

I had heard the hypothesis of past-eternal universes but I don't think it was ever accepted as the leading theory. No one really knows. The possibilities are not as simple as eternal universe or god exists

kelly1 wrote: »

How can the model change before and after the big-bang? Is that what you're saying? I'd say the model needs modification, not that it changes.

Say you want to describe a ball rolling down a hill. You could develop a model that describes it's increasing velocity based on its air resistance, weight, objects in the way, the slope of the hill etc. Basically you account for all the factors involved

But if you want to describe the same ball bouncing down the hill, your rolling model doesn't work anymore and you have a whole new set of factors to account for.

My understanding is that the normal model describes an expanding universe only but 'before' the big bang it wasn't expanding so the model that only works if it's expanding doesn't work anymore.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

More seriously, Noel, do you see how the Uber-Space idea can suggest that God is not an inevitable conclusion even if we know the universe as we know it had a beginning?

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe? If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

All the scientific evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past. So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment. Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too. Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics. A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no? This doesn't prove that God exists of course but the God hypotheses is a much better explanation for the origin of the universe than any of the naturalistic explanations. I'd concede that even if I didn't believe in God.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe? If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

All the scientific evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past. So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment. Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too. Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics. A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no? This doesn't prove that God exists of course but the God hypotheses is a much better explanation for the origin of the universe than any of the naturalistic explanations. I'd concede that even if I didn't believe in God.

Ah the cosmological argument. I repeat, that argument is:

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah the cosmological argument. I repeat, that argument is:

I didn't read all the posts in this thread so if would be so kind as to direct me to where you destroyed the cosmological argument or just repeat it again here for little old me please

Sam Vimes

If you want me to go point by point:

Soul Winner wrote: »

If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can

No one said "from nothing". Just because it's not what we define as matter does not mean it's nothing. An unfounded assumption.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe)

The word causer makes it personal, which it need not be. Also we have no reason to believe that what we know as cause and effect even applied before the big bang, or even that the word 'before' applied

Soul Winner wrote: »

then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal.

immaterial, timeless and space-less only to our extremely limited understanding. There is nothing to suggest that it's personal

Soul Winner wrote: »

Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment.

As we know it

Soul Winner wrote: »

Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too.

As we know it

Soul Winner wrote: »

Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

Baseless wishful thinking. I can see no connection between "something happened" and "it must be a personal being". Stuff happens all the time that does not require a personal being

Soul Winner wrote: »

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it.

Baselss assumption

Soul Winner wrote: »

No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature,

As we know it

Soul Winner wrote: »

just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics.

As we know them/baseless assumption

Soul Winner wrote: »

A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no?

No, you say God had a son called Jesus and doesn't like homosexuality. I see no connection. At most it suggests "creator"


Basically you're applying 21st century understanding, and not even well schooled 21st century understanding to something that is far beyond our comprehension and making assumptions that cannot be made to come to a conclusion that it is currently impossible to logically come to

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

How can the model change before and after the big-bang?

For the same reasons that you decide to paint a room blue instead of red -- because it suits better.

I have to say that you're making very, very heavy weather of the main point here (which isn't all that difficult). Out of interest, have you read a book on cosmology that's written by a cosmologist, rather than a religious person?

I suspect that a lot of the difficult that you're having is that you're making a sincere effort to synchronize what people like Craig have told you with what cosmologists (and ourselves) are telling you. I have a fairly good suspicion that this is actually impossible. So if you want to understand what cosmologists are really saying about the big bang, I would recommend that you put Craig's book back on the shelf and read a book about cosmology that's written by a cosmologist.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe?

For now they're all baseless guesses. We should mock and ridicule anyone who takes any of these guesses seriously.

If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

Nothing. "Miracle" is a stupid code for "I don't understand".

The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past.

The universe as we know it began to exist at a finite point in the past. That doesn't mean that there can't be some greater universe above and beyond what we can detect, such as the Uber-Space.

So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause

Why? Do you have knowledge of the nothing before cause and effect as a principle came into being? Who are you to so baselessly assert that the concept of cause and effect needs a cause?

Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

I'm having trouble fathoming just how wrong this logic is. Why, by Odin's wise ravens, would it have to be personal? This is so retardedly circular. It must be personal because it chose to do something and it had to choose to do it because its personal...

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics.

You seem to know a lot about the nature of the pre-big-bang non-space for some guy on the internet. You should send your paper that explains the nature of cause and effect in a non casual timeless nothing to MIT, I'm sure they'd be quite appreciative.

Goduznt Xzst

Soul Winner wrote: »

I didn't read all the posts in this thread so if would be so kind as to direct me to where you destroyed the cosmological argument or just repeat it again here for little old me please

I fear this will be like telling my nephew that his invisible friend does not exist and for my nephew to then request to see the body before accepting it.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

All the scientific evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past. So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment.

Sam Vimes

You and me both acknowledge that what we perceive as the beginning of the universe is beyond our comprehension but the difference between our positions is you say that it must by definition be supernatural with all the connotations that that word brings (ie God must have done it because the rules don't apply to him) and I'm saying we don't know enough about the universe to make that assumption. IT could be 'natural' but our understanding of natural could be wrong. Basically it doesn't have to be a god

I'd go as far as to say that just because the rules of the universe as we understand them don't apply to something does not mean it's a God. So it would technically be supernatural, as in outside nature, but without all the attached connotations like hearing prayers etc. String theory says there are 11 dimensions but we can't perceive anything outside out normal 4 (the 4th being time). That does not automatically mean these things are gods

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want me to go point by point:

No one said "from nothing". Just because it's not what we define as matter does not mean it's nothing. An unfounded assumption.


The word causer makes it personal, which it need not be. Also we have no reason to believe that what we know as cause and effect even applied before the big bang, or even that the word 'before' applied


immaterial, timeless and space-less only to our extremely limited understanding. There is nothing to suggest that it's personal


As we know it

As we know it


Baseless wishful thinking. I can see no connection between "something happened" and "it must be a personal being". Stuff happens all the time that does not require a personal being


Baselss assumption


As we know it


As we know them/baseless assumption


No, you say God had a son called Jesus and doesn't like homosexuality. I see no connection. At most it suggests "creator"


Basically you're applying 21st century understanding, and not even well schooled 21st century understanding to something that is far beyond our comprehension and making assumptions that cannot be made to come to a conclusion that it is currently impossible to logically come to

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

pts

Soul Winner wrote: »

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

No it doesn't, do you know why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING (sorry for the bolding and caps, but so many people have patiently explained their counter arguments so often in this thread, just to have them ignored that I felt it was justifed)

"God did it" does not in any way explain anything!

Sam Vimes

A better way of putting it:

i can see why the cosmological argument seems convincing (except for the personal bit. I don't follow it). The creation of the universe seems impossible to us and the only thing we know of that can do the impossible is a god.

But the important word there is 'seems'. We have no idea what's possible and impossible on a universal scale, our limited understanding simply cannot be applied to it. And just because something appears to break the laws of nature or even if it does break the laws of this particular universe, does not mean we should automatically assign it the title of god, with all the connotations that brings such as omnipotence, omniscience and most importantly the bible

The cosmological argument is not as valid as any other hypothesis because it makes a number of assumptions that cannot logically be made and some others that make no sense, such as the personal part

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

1 - We have no good hypotheses yet, let's just stick with "I don't know" until we have more information.
2 - It is worse than other hypotheses because of the amount of assumptions and logical jumps required.

The most egregious of which are the assertions that it must be all powerful, benevolent, personal and intelligent. Even if we accept the concept of a supernatural creator of some sort, that creator doesn't need to be all powerful, it needs to be exactly powerful enough to cause a big bang, nothing more. It doesn't need to be intelligent, it just needs to trigger a big bang for any or no reason. It doesn't need to be benevolent because...well it just doesn't, at all, it could be evil beyond belief. Nor does it need to be personal, once again, simply because that isn't required, it's a baseless assertion.

And this doesn't even come anywhere near the whole Jesus/praying/heaven stuff either.

JC 2K3

Soul Winner wrote: »

if it had a cause then it must also have a causer

Stop there.

Why?

eoin5

Soul Winner wrote: »

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

It contains a contradiction that invalidates it completely. Everything has a cause and yet the original creator doesnt?! At least some others are consistant within themselves like the serial multiverse hypothesis. I think its reasonable to hold the belief where there is an original creator as its still anyones guess but wouldnt "I believe an original creator did it because thats what I want to believe untill the evidence is in?" be much better than contradictory logic?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe?

Why?

Given the disconnect between how humans tend to view the universe and how the universe actually is, I find it highly unlikely that a human like concept of an intelligence creating something for some purpose to be a probable explanation to the formation of this universe.

The only reason such a hypotheses is appealing is because it is pleasing to our way of thinking, it has nothing to do with how likely it is.

If we ever do find out what process, if any, formed the universe as we understand it, I would imagine (going on past discoveries) that it will be mind bendingly unnatural and difficult for humans to imagine or think about.

You can see this already with theories such as M-Theory (a wider field encompassing string theory), where dimensions jump to much higher numbers and you start viewing the universe in very weird ways.

To say that it is likely that all this around us comes down to a human like intelligence doing a human like thing for a human like reason (thus making it easy for humans to understand and process) would seem wishful thinking on an extreme level.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

Depends on how you define a miracle.

Do you accept that mircles could happen without a god producing them? If not then you are just setting up a circular argument (that was a miracle, miracles can't exist without God, therefore God exists), which supposes things you can't determine (such as miracles cannot happen without God)

If you can accept that miraclous things can happen without needing a god then you obviously don't need a god for them to take place.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past.

But time began to exist also, so a finite time in the past becomes some what of a troubling concept.

In fact it is possible that the universe formed due to something that happened after the universe formed, given that time may not be linear.

You can say that something in the future cannot cause something in the past to happen, but that is simply human experience. We don't know if that is true and certain models appear to work where it isn't true.

So if you ask What causes the universe to be created? and the answer The universe (more specifically something that happened in the universe, say 2 microseconds after the universe was formed) how does that work in terms of the probability of a creator? How does that work with humans visualising and thinking about the formation of the universe.

Such models, while not been demonstrated accurate enough to be called theories, certain would lead me to my conclusion above, that what ever took place to form the universe I find it highly unlikely that it is going to be some easy to understand and relate to event such as Intelligence X created Universe Y for reason Z

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal.

That is all a bit of a leap. What do you mean by "causer". That to me would imply a human like intelligence, and at the moment you have presented no real reason to believe that this is what must have caused the universe.

If the universe was caused by two higher dimensional branes collapsing into each other (an idea from M-theory) would you call these a "causer", considering they are "just" fields of interdimensional energy with no purpose or intelligence behind them? They didn't choose to create the universe, they just did.

Your assumption that the causer must exist "outside" of the universe it caused is also rather unfouned. For a start "outside" starts to have little meaning beyond rather complex mathematical models. There is certainly no outside as we would imagine it.

Also, as I stated above, it is possible (though whether or not likely is unknown) that an event inside the universe, which took place after the universe formed, "caused" the universe to form.

This is mathematically possible with some versions of physics models.

So basically all your assumptions fall out the window when we start applying them to very alien events such as the Big Bang. These are not events that human intuition about the universe and how it should work can help us with. Again this to me would suggest that it is rather unlikely that any answer we discover is going to fit a nice human idea of how things happen.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics. A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no?

No, actually it doesn't sound anything like what you would call God, which is my whole point.

What you call "God" is a human like being that does human like things for rather human like reasons, which makes him relatable to humans (surprisingly enough).

What reason is there to think that a fundamental force would be anything like a human, which is ultimately what this boils down to. Not like a god, since are gods as a concept, are simply powerful versions of humans, but like a human.

(the answer that God made us like him is circular and avoiding the issue since you can't demonstrate that without supposing that God exists in the first place)

We have a desire to view things as human like simply because that makes them easier to understand. In the case of things like the Big Bang, a huge amount easier to understand.

But if physics has taught us nothing in the last 100 years it is that the universe is not actually human like. Day to day we see a very particularly view of the universe framed in a very particularly way which is actually very restrictive in what is exposed to us.

How we think the universe works is not how it works. This has causes a lot of problems for scientists over the last 100 years but realising this has also opened up secrets of the universe that we could not have possibly imagined before we started looking properly.

So I've no idea that fundamental process produced the universe, but I can be almost certain that it will not turn out to be human like, it will not turn out to be something humans can easily understand and relate to. It is going to be something that we all sit back and look at and go "Wow, that is really really freaking weird"

Sam Vimes

In light of the above cogent arguments I would like to refer the honorable gentleman to my previous statement on the matter:

That argument is:

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer,

Lightning has a cause.... So which thunder god do you believe in? (I like Thor, he has a big hammer)

Soul Winner wrote: »

and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment. Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too. Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

How do you know the part in bold? How do you know that the causer made a free choice? (just assuming there was a causer). How do you know the causer wasn't restricted in some way?

Zillah

And so the believers retreat once again, skulking back to the cliff top Cathedral Fortress where they shall plot their next attempt to overthrow the sceptical hegemony. "Curses!" they grumble, "I was sure we had it that time! Proof of God was in our grasp!" Bitter, they sit around the great black table, moonlight pouring across the stone walls and the stony faces. "We'd have gotten away with it too, were it not for those bothersome Atheists!" they spit into the darkness. "Hold, brothers!" one cries. "What if we were to observe that the cosmological constants were precisely tuned for life?" A wicked grin spreads across their faces. "Yes, of course. This time!" they chuckle. "This time!" And their empty laughter echoed into the empty sky.

Sam Vimes

you can't leave us hanging man :eek:

What happened next!?!??!?

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What happened next!?!??!?

Turned out to be a dark and stormy night...

defendthefaith

pts wrote: »

Not really, since it would imply that God has to have a beginning too.

This is incorrect. Anything that exists outside of time not only does not have a beginning, but could not. If God is the First Cause of the universe, then he must be separate from the universe, and therefore outside of space and time. If he is outside of time, then he is eternal and does not have a beginning, by definition.

I've often heard that "God doesn't require a beginning, he (it?) was always there" however if you take that to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense. Why would you be willing to say that a God can appear from nowhere, but matter can not?

The only reason matter cannot "appear from nowhere" is because the universe had a beginning, which implies that there must have been a cause to its existence.

Zillah

It'd be just super if you read the thread rather than just posting something that has been said and rebutted innumerable times.

Also if you could give us a link to your astrophysics thesis on the nature of non-temporal causality that would also be super. Finally, a link to a news article about when you were awarded the Nobel Prize for your work on pre-big bang super-physics that would be great. Odd we hadn't heard about you earlier, it would have saved us a lot of argument if we knew there was someone in our midst who had access to knowledge from before the big bang!

eoin5

defendthefaith wrote: »

This is incorrect. Anything that exists outside of time not only does not have a beginning, but could not. If God is the First Cause of the universe, then he must be separate from the universe, and therefore outside of space and time. If he is outside of time, then he is eternal and does not have a beginning, by definition.

The only reason matter cannot "appear from nowhere" is because the universe had a beginning, which implies that there must have been a cause to its existence.

A Zillah has said this argument has been refuted but I'd like to add that the word eternal is meaningless in a timeless domain, a bit like discussing the height of the goalposts in tennis.

defendthefaith

Zillah wrote: »

It'd be just super if you read the thread rather than just posting something that has been said and rebutted innumerable times.

Also if you could give us a link to your astrophysics thesis on the nature of non-temporal causality that would also be super.

Why does it have to be something that I personally wrote? How about this article from the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

Philosphers have recognized that causes do not necessarily have to precede their effects temporally. If you claim that the above argument for God has been refuted "numerous times," you should already be aware that the idea of non-temporal causality is not a valid objection to the argument.

defendthefaith

eoin5 wrote: »

A Zillah has said this argument has been refuted but I'd like to add that the word eternal is meaningless in a timeless domain, a bit like discussing the height of the goalposts in tennis.

But that does not negate the fact that anything outside of time does not have a beginning, so it does not affect the argument at all.

JC 2K3

Defining "outside time" would be a good start to explaining what exactly you're on about.

defendthefaith wrote: »

The only reason matter cannot "appear from nowhere" is because the universe had a beginning, which implies that there must have been a cause to its existence.

I don't agree that it implies that there must have been a cause. Why do you say this?

eoin5

defendthefaith wrote: »

But that does not negate the fact that anything outside of time does not have a beginning, so it does not affect the argument at all.

It does if you want to use the word eternal.