Before the Big Bang? (Origins)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 08, 2014, 12:34 (3573 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Tuesday, July 08, 2014, 12:44

Dhw: ...there is no support whatsoever for our shared belief in energy as an eternal cause - let alone your belief that eternal energy is conscious.
DAVID: Not true. The atheistic scientists always point to a virtual quantum vacuum from wich all sprung by a 'perturbation', so it is never something from nothing, and by inference, eternal. Look at Krauss and Stenger.-I was still referring to Davies' article, which devotes a whole page to the meaning of “nothing” and insists that it refers to something that “simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.” You are of course free to extrapolate eternal conscious energy from a “virtual quantum vacuum” (also a nothing), but Krauss and Stenger won't agree, and Paul Davies says he doesn't agree, but according to you he does. This is a frustrating discussion, because I'm with you, that there has to be a “before” and that energy seems like a convincing first cause. Our disagreement here is over your insistence that Davies' article supports you even though it explicitly opposes you.
 
DAVID: For your further education into the scientific society, it is not cool to bring up any sniff of deity.
dhw: If you think Davies is emphatically presenting the case for the opposite of what he really believes, why refer us to this article? Why not give us a quote that really does support you? And why do you now ask us to read an article by a chemist expressing his doubts about macroevolution-DAVID: His doubts about macroevoluiton bring out my point, and the contact I mentioned. It is not cool to have the doubts expressed. [...] Davies is being careful. As I pointd out, he smells like a closet diest, but doesn't dare say so, as shown by many commentaries I have read and what I experienced myself by the contact (mentioned inthge lat post) I received.-So you have quoted Davies telling us explicitly that there is no such thing as “before the big bang” in order to prove that there is such a thing as before the big bang, and you have quoted the chemist to show that some scientists are afraid to say what they really believe. If we are to take no notice of what Davies says, why quote him? I'm not in a position to pinpoint his religious beliefs or non-beliefs. I'm simply pointing out that the article you recommended argues against your beliefs.
 
dhw: It was you who directed us towards the quantum theory of the origin of the universe, and your version demands a “before”, which Davies rejects. I also believe in a “before”, so perhaps after this failure you can stick to the subject and find some genuine support from the quantum community.-DAVID: I can't because they are afraid to voice it.
Look at this statement from Davies:-"Nevertheless, cosmologists have not explained the origin of the universe by the simple expedient of abolishing any preceding epoch. After all, why should time and space have suddenly “switched on”? One line of reasoning is that this spontaneous origination of time and space is a natural consequence of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that applies to atoms and subatomic particles, and it is characterized by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, according to which sudden and unpredictable fluctuations occur in all observable quantities. Quantum fluctuations are not caused by anything -- they are genuinely spontaneous and intrinsic to nature at its deepest level." 
He is admitting there was a quantum epoch 'before'.-Is he? This passage follows on directly from his dismissal of the natural tendency to envisage a First Cause. Instead, he says: “...cosmologists now invite us to contemplate the origin of the universe as having no prior cause in the normal sense, not because it has no abnormal or supernatural prior cause, but because there is simply no prior epoch in which a preceding causative agency - natural or supernatural - can operate.” Your quote is one of several explanations that cosmologists offer as to how the universe could have sprung from nothing. It is “one line of reasoning”. -The subheading for this article is: There is no such epoch as “before the big bang”, because time began with the big bang, says physicist and astrobiologist Paul Davies, which is a direct quote from the text. In my original response, I commented on what seemed to be a contradiction, but I'm afraid for me that only adds to the confusion. Nevertheless, I'm glad you gave us the article to read, as it's comforting to know that you (and maybe Paul Davies too) are just as confused as I am.