The Big Bang (Origins)
I'm taking this off the "Laetoli footprints" thread because, as George says, this discussion has nothing to do with the original subject.-GEORGE: Talk about what happened "before the big bang" is just meaningless, as the article by Paul Davies points out. There was no "before". The origin of space was also the origin of time.-DAVID: Absolutely on point. George and I agree on more than we disagree. His conclusions are just not mine, due to a different mind set.-There seems to be a general scientific consensus on the Big Bang theory, and as a non-scientist I have no reason to disbelieve it. However, just like the theory of evolution, it may be sound in its basic thrust, but it's far from complete in its details, and it's also wide open to different interpretations. Once again, George and David draw opposite conclusions from the same material, and yet strangely they agree on one aspect of the theory, which is George's authoritative statement that there was no "before".-This may fit in snugly with the materialist vision of the universe, as it appears to shut the door on further discussion. What we see is what we have, and what we have is what we see (though we can't see 95% of it). But can the theory of "no before" be tested? Is it any more logical than, for instance, the theory that there has been an endless cycle of bang ... expansion ... contraction ... bang...? One might argue that it doesn't make much difference to us either way, but why utter such statements in the first place? If you can say you don't know whether there are other universes, and you don't know whether there is life elsewhere, why can't you say you don't know if there was anything before? My question is not unconnected with the closed door metaphor, as you will see.-David's support of George's statement surprises me. If you argue that there was nothing before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang must have created the God you believe in. If it didn't, then the universal intelligence which you believe designed our universe must have existed before the Big Bang, in which case there's no limit to what else may have existed before it. (To believe that the Big Bang actually chanced to create a supreme intelligence would, of course, make the chance creation of Life on Earth seem an absolute doddle, so one needn't bother with God at all ... but I don't think anyone has ever proposed that theory!) Belief in a supreme intelligence that CAUSED the Big Bang doesn't solve the problem of where that intelligence came from in the first place, but at least it offers a "before" in which a designer could operate, and it allows for a power that can exist independently of the material world we know. That is why I talked of George's statement closing the door: if the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, there's no place for God. I'm not offering an opinion either way myself ... I'm simply railing against the definitive statement that there was no "before". No-one can possibly know that.
The Big Bang
by David Turell 
, Friday, April 23, 2010, 02:31 (5117 days ago) @ dhw
> I'm taking this off the "Laetoli footprints" thread because, as George says, if the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, there's no place for God. I'm not offering an opinion either way myself ... I'm simply railing against the definitive statement that there was no "before". No-one can possibly know that.-Yes they can, theoretically. Guth Borde & Valenkin presented a theorum in 2002 which was represented by Guth in the 60th birthday party symposium for Stephen Hawking: simply there is no before, before the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang is a theory of what happened after the 'origin', whatever that was. To quote Guth (pg. 750 in the book)*, " the theorem...does show that any inflating model that is globally expanding must be geodesically incomplete in the past". His guess was: a beginning is some type of quantum event. Andrei Linde (multiverse proponent) agreed the theorem was correct. (Mike Martin 'Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology, Vol. 3,No. 5, Jan. 2003)-* "The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, 2003, Cambridge U. Press
The Big Bang
I maintain that no-one can possibly know that there was nothing before the Big Bang.-DAVID: Yes they can, theoretically. Guth Borde & Valenkin presented a theorem in 2002 which was represented by Guth in the 60th birthday party symposium for Stephen Hawking: simply there is no before, before the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang is a theory of what happened after the 'origin', whatever that was. To quote Guth (pg. 750 in the book)*, " the theorem...does show that any inflating model that is globally expanding must be geodesically incomplete in the past". His guess was: a beginning is some type of quantum event. Andrei Linde (multiverse proponent) agreed the theorem was correct. (Mike Martin 'Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology, Vol. 3,No. 5, Jan. 2003)-* The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, 2003, Cambridge U. Press-I find most of the above pretty confusing. If someone can know something "theoretically", you may as well argue that anyone can advance any theory and claim that theoretically they know what happened. A theory does not constitute knowledge. A theorem may do, but then it has to be derived from proven facts, and here I'm afraid I need help in understanding the meaning and relevance of your quote. In particular, how does "incomplete in the past" mean there was nothing before the Big Bang, and why "geodesically"? One of the many theories concerning our universe is that it is flat. You can't claim truth for a theorem if it's based on an unproven theory, but I'm genuinely asking for clarification here ... I'm in unfamiliar territory. -The statement "simply there is no before, before the Big Bang" is precisely what I'm complaining about. And if we don't know what the 'origin' was, but we do know or believe that there was a Big Bang, then the 'origin' must have been whatever caused the Big Bang, and a cause comes BEFORE an effect. Finally, I don't understand how Guth's "guess" constitutes knowledge.-Perhaps I may also be allowed a quote. Prof. Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology says: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything ... or if there was, what it was." This is from an article entitled Hints of 'time before Big Bang' on -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm-I'm afraid that in any case none of the above solves the conundrum of how a designer could design the universe if he didn't exist before it came into being.
The Big Bang
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Friday, April 23, 2010, 20:10 (5117 days ago) @ dhw
As I understand the term "big bang" it refers to the observational evidence that we can trace the evolution of spacetime back to a point of origin, or very close to such a point. This is what the evidence shows. By saying that "before" has no meaning in this context I was merely stating a tautology.-You can of course elaborate on the evidence by making all sorts of speculations, that time might have existed in some form before the instant of the big bang. In fact there are all sorts of theories of just such a nature. The question that I was asked is what do I "believe" is the case. My answer is that I base my belief on what seems to me to be the most probable solution given the available evidence.-Anything else is speculation or science fiction. Personally I find the idea that the universe of space-time came from nothing, quite philosophically and aesthetically and mathematically satisfying. The alternative view that time can be traced back infinitely is surely no longer tenable. Even theories that extend back beyond the big bang must surely at some point encounter the philosophical problem of an origin for time. So why not accept that the origin is indeed where it appears to be?
--
GPJ
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Saturday, April 24, 2010, 00:23 (5117 days ago) @ dhw
I maintain that no-one can possibly know that there was nothing before the Big Bang. > > I find most of the above pretty confusing. If someone can know something "theoretically", you may as well argue that anyone can advance any theory and claim that theoretically they know what happened. A theory does not constitute knowledge. A theorem may do, but then it has to be derived from proven facts, and here I'm afraid I need help in understanding the meaning and relevance of your quote.-Theoretical physics involves an advanced form of math with theorems bsed on the facts in the standard model. Although based on facts, much of the standard model is still theory. Proof, absolute for dhw, is impossible. We can only go back to Plank time, 10^-43 of a second after the BB. The origin will always be hidden.-> > The statement "simply there is no before, before the Big Bang" is precisely what I'm complaining about. And if we don't know what the 'origin' was, but we do know or believe that there was a Big Bang, then the 'origin' must have been whatever caused the Big Bang, and a cause comes BEFORE an effect. Finally, I don't understand how Guth's "guess" constitutes knowledge.-Guth is guessing the cause. His theorem does not guess at it, simply declaring there is nothing behind the BB in time. George's immediately preceding discussion accurately and adequately covers the subject. Again George and I agree. But he is happy with a description that sounds like a creation to me, but he accepts something from nothing. Again cross interpretations.- > > I'm afraid that in any case none of the above solves the conundrum of how a designer could design the universe if he didn't exist before it came into being.- Then he must have existed! All the old Greeks declared there had to be a First Cause.
The Big Bang
The dialogue so far: George believes that the universe of space-time came from nothing, i.e. there was nothing before the Big Bang. David agrees, but regards this as evidence that a conscious intelligence has designed the universe. -I hope this is a fair summary, and no doubt George and/or David will correct me if it isn't. George's belief in the theory that a universe can spring from nothing is consistent with his belief that life can assemble itself without any guiding intelligence. While this seems to me no more and no less fantastic than the theory that a superintelligent designer can spring from nothing, where I struggle to find consistency is in David's position, and so let me risk an interpretation
o you mean that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, but there was a conscious intelligence (God) that organized it? If so, there has to be a temporal "before", since a cause must precede an effect, and the something that existed before was God (your "First Cause"). If my interpretation is correct, quite apart from the insurmountable problem of where God sprang from, we are left with the image of a conscious intelligence that has no beginning, stuck nowhere/nowhen until 13.7 billion years ago it suddenly hits on the idea of creating a universe out of nothing. Far be it from me, as a non-scientist, to push other theories, but I'd have thought the bouncing universe concept would at least allow God to be a little less moribund. -For an admirably clear and impartial summary of this and other current theories, see an article by the cosmologist John D. Barrow, Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge University: http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/jan-apr09/bigbang/index.html-On another website I found the following statement by two string theorists, one from Cambridge and one from Princeton, whose theory is summed up as follows: "The Big Bang was not the beginning of time but a bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars and planets." Sounds just as feasible to me as something out of nothing, and removes George's "philosophical problem of an origin for time": no origin - it just stretches back for ever.
The Big Bang
This thread appears to be more of a fizzle than a bang, which surprises me since it's so central to our discussion. I'd drawn attention to an article by the cosmologist John D. Barrow, Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge University http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/jan-apr09/bigbang/index.html-which deals very lucidly with some of the current theories. What strikes me quite forcibly is that there is absolutely no consensus on anything except the fact that the universe is expanding. "Big Bang" itself could be a complete misnomer, as there may have been no bang, and the argument that the universe sprang from nothing is no less speculative than any other theory.-As physics is a foreign country for me, perhaps someone can tell me why the expansion cannot be caused by an unknown source that continues to produce new energy and matter, which in turn forces old matter further and further apart. Why would this be less feasible than, for instance, a single violent event creating something out of nothing, or an endless process of expansion and contraction?
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Friday, April 30, 2010, 15:15 (5110 days ago) @ dhw
This thread appears to be more of a fizzle than a bang, which surprises me since it's so central to our discussion.-It is not a fizzle. I've been away for several days. > > What strikes me quite forcibly is that there is absolutely no consensus on anything except the fact that the universe is expanding. "Big Bang" itself could be a complete misnomer, as there may have been no bang, and the argument that the universe sprang from nothing is no less speculative than any other theory.-Current theory, which fits ovservations very well, is that the BB was a very hot BB. Expansion theory fits observations to a "t". > > As physics is a foreign country for me, perhaps someone can tell me why the expansion cannot be caused by an unknown source that continues to produce new energy and matter, which in turn forces old matter further and further apart. Why would this be less feasible than, for instance, a single violent event creating something out of nothing, or an endless process of expansion and contraction?-This proposal does not fit the observations of cosmologists. Sir Fred Hoyle poopooed the BB for years, and in fact named it derisively, yet as most every observation fit it, he came on board.
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Friday, April 30, 2010, 15:05 (5110 days ago) @ dhw
> George's belief in the theory that a universe can spring from nothing is consistent with his belief that life can assemble itself without any guiding intelligence.-Here is a discussion of chirality of amino acids from a math probability view that totally negates George's theory, using math, a field of George's expertise:-http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/04/27/homochirality_and_darwin.thtml-> > Do you mean that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, but there was a conscious intelligence (God) that organized it? If so, there has to be a temporal "before", since a cause must precede an effect, and the something that existed before was God (your "First Cause").-An eternal first cause, not in time, as we perceive it. The UI always exists, and creates universes at will. No other concept fits my view. The big Bang is a 'first event' in a new universe creating space and time (as we view it). there is no time without space before the BB. > > For an admirably clear and impartial summary of this and other current theories, see an article by the cosmologist John D. Barrow, Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge University: > http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/jan-apr09/bigbang/index.html-A good presentation of all the extraneous theories. The Big Bang/Big Crunch theory is pretty well disposed of: space is essentially flat, and the expansion is continuing at an increasingly faster rate. > > On another website I found the following statement by two string theorists, one from Cambridge and one from Princeton, -String theory is a bad place to look for help, since it does not explain current cosmology. Just a pile of beautiful math going nowhere expect some very local
The Big Bang
George has argued that our universe of space-time came from nothing, and there was no "before", i.e. there was literally nothing in existence before the Big Bang. David appears to agree, except that George's concept does not, of course, include the presence of a universal intelligence. David describes this as follows:-"An eternal first cause, not in time, as we perceive it. The UI always exists, and creates universes at will. No other concept fits my view. The Big Bang is a 'first event' in a new universe creating space and time (as we view it), there is no time without space before BB."-What I'm about to say is meant solely as an attempt to get clarification, because I find your agreement with George confusing. First of all, even if we're not talking in terms of space-time as we perceive/view it, why not at least in terms of before and after the Big Bang? Your suggestion that BB was a "first event in a new universe" is very different from George's claim that nothing existed before it. If a UI created a new universe, then logically the UI existed before it, as did/do other universes you say God creates at will (unless ours marked his debut). If I believed in an eternal UI, I would certainly expect him to have done something else before he came up with us and our universe, but this is the opposite of George's belief that nothing preceded the BB. It is also the opposite of your earlier scepticism ... again in agreement with George ... concerning the multiverse theory, which you were not prepared to accept without evidence. George says that talk of "before" is meaningless. He may be right, but it seems to me that without a "before" you can't have a UI.-The dislocation in my own thinking is very apparent when I struggle to come to terms with what for me is the inconceivable idea of an eternal UI, and then read the article you recommended on http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/04/27/homochirality_and_darwin.thtml -This once again demonstrates how equally inconceivable is the idea of a self-assembled mechanism for life.
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Sunday, May 02, 2010, 14:48 (5108 days ago) @ dhw
> "An eternal first cause, not in time, as we perceive it. The UI always exists, and creates universes at will. No other concept fits my view. The Big Bang is a 'first event' in a new universe creating space and time (as we view it), there is no time without space before BB." > > Your suggestion that BB was a "first event in a new universe" is very different from George's claim that nothing existed before it.. George says that talk of "before" is meaningless. He may be right, but it seems to me that without a "before" you can't have a UI.-Sure I can. The UI does not exist in time. He is timeless and eternal. George is right. I prefer a UI, and he is an atheist. They prefer nothing. Time can exist only when a universe is created. Those multiverses are part of a dying theory about membranes and stringiness. We can know nothing about them if they exist,or existed, as we are totally contained in our universe. Either way, we can only know that we live in a single universe, going on our lonely way until our universe ends in heat death, stretched out to God knows where. (pun intended) > > The dislocation in my own thinking is very apparent when I struggle to come to terms with what for me is the inconceivable idea of an eternal UI, and then read the article you recommended on > > http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/04/27/homochirality_and_darwin.thtml > > This once again demonstrates how equally inconceivable is the idea of a self-assembled mechanism for life.-And that is exactly my point. The article I presented logically insists that the information in the genetic mechanism in every level of life smacks of a super-intelligence. The mass of info can only have been formulated from mental activity. Matt wishes we could know everything about the universe before making that conclusion, but that is very obvously, not necessary. The only conclusion, using everything we curently know, is a UI started this universe. It is a parsimonious statement. And Sir William would agree with me!
The Big Bang
David believes in an "eternal first cause, not in time, as we perceive it. The UI always exists, and creates universes at will."-At the same time, David, you argue that multiverses "are part of a dying theory about membranes and stringiness. We can know nothing about them if they exist, or existed, as we are totally contained in our universe."-I remain confused by your belief that God creates universes (plural), and your description of the multiverse theory as dying. I don't think you can have it both ways. Why not confine your own theory to God creating our universe, and leave it at that? The only reason I can think of for not doing so is the fact that this would leave God idle before the Big Bang, but you are not prepared to accept that there might have been a "before". -As for belief in a "timeless and eternal" UI, it's tempting to use your multiverse argument: that we can't know if a UI exists or existed, let alone know anything about it, as we are totally contained in our universe of space, time and matter. From there, it's equally tempting to argue that our universe of space, time and matter is all there is. That is the basis of the atheistic approach, and although our hero William would not have agreed theologically, he might have found it a bit more difficult nowadays to disagree philosophically. But of course ... as no doubt he would have pointed out ... there are gaps in the argument, which we've discussed over and over again: the complex mechanisms of the universe and life, and human experiences that appear to defy the restrictions of time, space and matter. That is why I resist the philosophical temptation.-You've concluded this section of your post with a summary that I would like to expand on slightly: "...we can only know that we live in a single universe, going on our lonely way until our universe ends in heat death, stretched out to God knows where (pun intended)." Whether it will end in heat death, a big freeze, a big crunch, a big bounce or a big rip (depending, presumably, on God's master plan), I wouldn't like to forecast, but the phrase that strikes a resounding chord in me is: "going on our lonely way". Whether God exists or not, I see no evidence of any concern for his creatures in the world he may or may not have created. This raises another of those crucial questions: if indeed he is not concerned about us, why should we be concerned about him?
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Monday, May 03, 2010, 14:40 (5107 days ago) @ dhw
David believes in an "eternal first cause, not in time, as we perceive it. The UI always exists, and creates universes at will." > > At the same time, David, you argue that multiverses "are part of a dying theory about membranes and stringiness. We can know nothing about them if they exist, or existed, as we are totally contained in our universe." > > I remain confused by your belief that God creates universes (plural), and your description of the multiverse theory as dying. I don't think you can have it both ways. -The multiverse theory of 10^500 comes from the String math. The multitude surround us. I cannot know what God does, but I do have faith ( I cannot know) that God created this universe. Since He is eternal, I assume He creates one now and then to stay active. Could He be interested in 10^500? Yes, but we will never know. > > As for belief in a "timeless and eternal" UI, it's tempting to use your multiverse argument: that we can't know if a UI exists or existed, let alone know anything about it, as we are totally contained in our universe of space, time and matter. From there, it's equally tempting to argue that our universe of space, time and matter is all there is. -More than tempting. It is all we can know. We must argue from our factual limits.- > > This raises another of those crucial questions: if indeed he is not concerned about us, why should we be concerned about him?-Is he concerned? You are in a thought trap. We can never know how concerned He is, if at all. This is where faith and hope, and Pascal's leap appears, and always will appear. The one obvious fact is just this: God requires faith, pure and simple. Relying on supposed miracles to 'prove' His existence is intellectually dishonest.-As an aside, science brings newly discovered complexity all the time to reproductive processes at the cellular level, epigentics in plants:-http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nrc/bot/2009/00000087/00000006/art00017
The Big Bang
DHW: [..] if indeed he [God] is not concerned about us, why should we be concerned about him?-DAVID: Is he concerned? You are in a thought trap. We can never know how concerned He is, if at all. This is where faith and hope, and Pascal's leap appears, and always will appear. The one obvious fact is just this: God requires faith, pure and simple. Relying on supposed miracles to 'prove' His existence is intellectually dishonest.-This is a misunderstanding of the problem. It's not a matter of wanting miracles to prove his existence, but of recognizing the system he has set up if he does exist. Long before humans came on the scene, the principle of survival through competition was established ... competition for food, territory, sex, all of which involve selfishness, cruelty and pain ... together with random diseases and disasters caused by factors totally beyond the control of the creatures exposed to them. These are the roots of all suffering, and humans have inherited this system, which constantly results in the punishment of the innocent. Some religious people may seek to blame it on humans, and unquestionably part of it is our own fault, but if a God who is powerful enough to create a universe also creates a system of life based on pain, I find it difficult to embrace a "pure and simple" faith that he is concerned about us. If the suffering he has inflicted on his creatures doesn't bother him, it would be intellectually and emotionally dishonest of me to say, "Never mind, I believe in him and the rest doesn't matter." It does matter to me, and it lends potent support to the argument that, in your own words, we are "going on our lonely way" ... either because there is no God, or because God doesn't care.
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 17:51 (5106 days ago) @ dhw
> Long before humans came on the scene, the principle of survival through competition was established ... competition for food, territory, sex, all of which involve selfishness, cruelty and pain ... together with random diseases and disasters caused by factors totally beyond the control of the creatures exposed to them. These are the roots of all suffering, and humans have inherited this system, which constantly results in the punishment of the innocent. -All of this is true and brings us to the area of theodicy. In evolution eaters have to eat. So we have the eaters and the eaten. Only vegetation avoids this problem, to a degree. There are plant viruses, plant parasites, etc. Among animals it gets worse. But if we consider Frank's approach, God set up a basis plan for evolution and has let it run. It is the most probable theory, based on what we know.-But as I pointed out in my book, we have been given a giant brain with the ability to research and combat many ills. We can't stop earthquakes, but we can analyze quake zones and seemingly are learning to issue warnings beforehand. It appears that to develop a planet for life those zones are necessary. The same is true for disease and medical care. This tells me we have a tough-love God who challenges us to compete with the problems and solve as many of them as we can. If we can plan to shoot down asteroids to save the Earth, we can do much more than that in other areas of nature's threats.-Evil in humans is because we have free rein to do as we wish. God has no control over that aspect of your problem. God wishes us to make mistakes in relations with other humans and learn from them. Again tough love. -I can only believe in a God where I find good reasons to help describe Him. Religious descriptions are of no help, just being fanciful wishes. I can wish also for easier challenges in living, but I have been given the gift of life, and I vowed to myself to make the most of it, and I am enjoying what I have done and how I have lived.-A friend of mine just sent me the following thought: -"I fully believe that changes come from the individual in pursuit of knowledge ... communicating the knowledge learned by example; verbal communication and goodness towards all. I, as an individual, have the obligation, as a child of God, to bring my best to everyone that crosses my path. And if I keep true to this cause then those who cross my path may bring my offerings to their circle of friends and family. And that is how an individual can make a difference .... groups are too easy to hide in and difficult to be true to who you really are and what you believe in. Listening to others is also the key to this learning cycle. Our entire life should be dedicated to this end .... so many of the Founders of this Country were on this path and sacrificed much. The Bible gives me hope that this can be done ... Moses and Job are favorites ... and Jesus who walked the hillside, spreading His Father's words ... and Paul, who never met Jesus but was so faithful to His teachings and so true to the Gospel. I often wonder if I will or can be as strong as they .... God says we can .... but we have to be faithful in our walk with Him." This is an excellent way to live a life!
The Big Bang
by BBella , Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 08:15 (5105 days ago) @ David Turell
If intelligence was before the BB (as I believe there has always been, maybe not as we view intelligence, but intelligence nonetheless, of that which we are formed from, at least), possibly that intelligence was (and remains) something akin to the biblical word "spirit." This intelligence was without form or matter, similar to what you, dhw, would like to return to in your ultimate reality wish after death (I've thought a lot about this and now understand why). -"Spirit" intelligence could be what was before the BB. Then, after the BB, we have spirit then beginning to work with matter. Like a learning curve. Why create physical matter? Why not? Isn't matter just energy vibrating faster (showing my ignoranace here)? That wouldn't be creating something from nothing, it would be spirit (non-matter) inhabiting matter possibly in an evolutionary way..learning restraint or expanding abilities that couldn't be had any other way, who knows?-Spirit, before it enters matter, like in dhw's ultimate reality, would be unfettered and have complete free reign to be. But once spirit enters or inhabits matter, it would be a real challenge to a free spirit. Possibly, that's all we are...spirit intelligence having an experience chained within matter, expanding our abilities. Whether by choice or not would be the real question, but I would like to believe so. Or, if spirit reincarnates, maybe it moves up the ladder as it evolves. Some religions do believe this.-Just some thoughts,-bb
The Big Bang
In the case of Creatures v. Creator, David is acting as Defence Attorney for the Creator:-"We can't stop earthquakes, but we can analyze quake zones and seemingly are learning to issue warnings beforehand. It appears that to develop a planet for life those zones are necessary. The same is true for disease and medical care. This tells me we have a tough-love God who challenges us to compete with the problems and solve as many of them as we can." -I don't know why a God capable of creating universes "at will" should be unable to develop a planet for life without earthquakes and diseases, not to mention floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, droughts etc. But as an agnostic I admit that I have no answers to any of the fundamental questions. My ignorance extends to my inability to imagine how the victims of all these God-made disasters might find any consolation in the suggestion that they have failed to meet God's tough-love challenge. We must, of course, make the best of what we've been given, and there's no doubt that we learn and even benefit from certain types of suffering, but personally I find it easier to accept these and other totally irrevocable, destructive injustices from a blind, impersonal Nature than from a conscious and supposedly loving intelligence. -DAVID: I have been given the gift of life, and I vowed to myself to make the most of it, and I am enjoying what I have done and how I have lived.-DAVID'S FRIEND: I, as an individual, have the obligation, as a child of God, to bring my best to everyone that crosses my path. And if I keep true to this cause then those who cross my path may bring my offerings to their circle of friends and family. And that is how an individual can make a difference...-I share all these sentiments, and love life just as you do. Your friend is welcome, of course, to the hope and encouragement he derives from the Bible, but I would like to point out, as a child of Man and Woman, that I feel precisely the same obligation to "bring my best to everyone that crosses my path". This admirable principle is the bedrock of humanism, which doesn't require let alone embrace the concept of a power that sets tough-love tests and punishes failure with suffering and/or death.
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 16:45 (5105 days ago) @ dhw
In the case of Creatures v. Creator, David is acting as Defence Attorney for the Creator: > > "We can't stop earthquakes, but we can analyze quake zones and seemingly are learning to issue warnings beforehand. It appears that to develop a planet for life those zones are necessary. The same is true for disease and medical care. This tells me we have a tough-love God who challenges us to compete with the problems and solve as many of them as we can." > > I don't know why a God capable of creating universes "at will" should be unable to develop a planet for life without earthquakes and diseases, not to mention floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, droughts etc. -All I can do is refer you to the book: "Rare Earth" By Ward and Brownlee, which gives the impression that the only type of life-creating planet that can be made from the original 92 elements is the Earth will all its dangers. Wishing for a God who removed all those dangers follows religions' reasoning that God is all-powerful. We don't know that. What He is capable of is what we see, nothing more. That is an obvious statement. Don't be confused by religious wishfull thinking.
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, May 06, 2010, 20:13 (5104 days ago) @ David Turell
> > George's belief in the theory that a universe can spring from nothing is consistent with his belief that life can assemble itself without any guiding intelligence. > > Here is a discussion of chirality of amino acids from a math probability view that totally negates George's theory, using math, a field of George's expertise: > > http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/04/27/homochirality_and_darwin.thtml &a... -Ah. I now know why I had an english teacher proclaim that "Pasteur proved that evolution didn't happen." -I know that's not what the site said, but good god that guy could learn how to condense his writing. I'll analyze the math later.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Friday, May 07, 2010, 03:05 (5103 days ago) @ xeno6696
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/04/27/homochirality_and_darwin.thtml &a... > > > Ah. I now know why I had an english teacher proclaim that "Pasteur proved that evolution didn't happen." > > I know that's not what the site said, but good god that guy could learn how to condense his writing. I'll analyze the math later.-Delighted you are back. I await the analysis
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 23:49 (5099 days ago) @ David Turell
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/04/27/homochirality_and_darwin.thtml &a... > > > > > > Ah. I now know why I had an english teacher proclaim that "Pasteur proved that evolution didn't happen." > > > > I know that's not what the site said, but good god that guy could learn how to condense his writing. I'll analyze the math later. > > Delighted you are back. I await the analysis-Well, the mathematics are pretty weak. Meaning, they don't discuss how they got their numbers, so it's more than a little vague. -So if life has spontaneously been created twice, there is a 50% chance of finding mirror life.-There's 4Bn+ years and far too many assumptions made here to give this claim any real validity. But theoretically, you'd have a p(1/2) chance of finding life in this instance. -If it has been spontaneously created three times, there is a 75% chance of finding mirror life.-There's two ways to interpret this. Life is created 3 times, and both L-R pairs are created every time. Or, life is created in one chirality once, and subsequently the other creation events are all the other hand. I use this second case because that's where his math goes down the s**tter. If life was created 3 times, and two of the times life was mirrored, than it's a 66% (total) chance of finding mirror life, not 75%. p(2/3). How he further extrapolates that to 88% boggles the mind. You'd need p(7/8) to get that. And at this point life would be exclusively "other-handed" in terms of chirality. -This guy's talking out of his blowhole. If the racemic nature of this chemistry is an equal 50/50, your chance of finding it is *always* p(1/2). It's a pure coin toss every time. If every time you get an L-R pair, the probability never changes. This is also of course, assuming that there isn't some property that favors one chirality over the other. -They're ultimately stating that abiogenesis is impossible due to chirality alone. Far too simplistic to be taken seriously--which considering how much writing is here, they could have condensed this. -Ultimately it's basing its argument on raw organic chemistry, and not the "pidgin" chemistry one would expect to find in the actual abiogenesis event. It's a strawman: "If we just toss a bunch of chemicals together, voila! We don't get life!"-Very unimpressed.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Thursday, May 13, 2010, 00:36 (5098 days ago) @ xeno6696
> They're ultimately stating that abiogenesis is impossible due to chirality alone. Far too simplistic to be taken seriously--which considering how much writing is here, they could have condensed this. > > Ultimately it's basing its argument on raw organic chemistry, and not the "pidgin" chemistry one would expect to find in the actual abiogenesis event. It's a strawman: "If we just toss a bunch of chemicals together, voila! We don't get life!" > > Very unimpressed.-OK, agreed, but chirality is a major issue in OOL.
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, May 13, 2010, 03:50 (5097 days ago) @ David Turell
> > They're ultimately stating that abiogenesis is impossible due to chirality alone. Far too simplistic to be taken seriously--which considering how much writing is here, they could have condensed this. > > > > Ultimately it's basing its argument on raw organic chemistry, and not the "pidgin" chemistry one would expect to find in the actual abiogenesis event. It's a strawman: "If we just toss a bunch of chemicals together, voila! We don't get life!" > > > > Very unimpressed. > > OK, agreed, but chirality is a major issue in OOL.-Don't worry, I read Shapiro this summer.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, May 10, 2010, 20:31 (5100 days ago) @ David Turell
Sorry I'm late responding to this: "Here is a discussion of chirality of amino acids from a math probability view that totally negates George's theory, using math"-That article is just the same old same old whirlwind in a junkyard argument. What Pasteur showed was that life, in the form of grubs or flies, do not emerge by spontaneous generation. He did not show that chiral molecules cannot emerge from series of series of chemical reactions over long time periods and under many changing environmental conditions. Once life was established, using molecules of particular chirality, then of course it continued to reproduce molecules of the same chirality. That is what reproduction means.
--
GPJ
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 13:47 (5099 days ago) @ George Jelliss
edited by unknown, Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 14:05
That article is just the same old same old whirlwind in a junkyard argument. > What Pasteur showed was that life, in the form of grubs or flies, do not emerge by spontaneous generation. He did not show that chiral molecules cannot emerge from series of series of chemical reactions over long time periods and under many changing environmental conditions. Once life was established, using molecules of particular chirality, then of course it continued to reproduce molecules of the same chirality. That is what reproduction means.-I would just love to see the article in a biologic journal that shows a mechanism whereby chirality can be totally shifted from left to right or back again by any biologic process, when the coding that controls life's processes is so specifically one way. Evolution cannot explain why amino acids in life are left-handed and nucleic acids are all right-handed, 100%, or why that need be so through natural selection. Handedness describes fittedness? Great just-so story.-Another aspect of evolution by reproduction and natural selection is the human retina is backwards. Is backwards more fit, or terrible design by the designer, as judged by Darwinists? We already know that this design provides the greatest amount of energy for the cells. Now we see that the backward cells actually refine vision!-http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i15/e158102
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, May 13, 2010, 03:59 (5097 days ago) @ David Turell
That article is just the same old same old whirlwind in a junkyard argument. > > What Pasteur showed was that life, in the form of grubs or flies, do not emerge by spontaneous generation. He did not show that chiral molecules cannot emerge from series of series of chemical reactions over long time periods and under many changing environmental conditions. Once life was established, using molecules of particular chirality, then of course it continued to reproduce molecules of the same chirality. That is what reproduction means. > > I would just love to see the article in a biologic journal that shows a mechanism whereby chirality can be totally shifted from left to right or back again by any biologic process, when the coding that controls life's processes is so specifically one way. Evolution cannot explain why amino acids in life are left-handed and nucleic acids are all right-handed, 100%, - I have to interject here, David. This is because evolution explains life AFTER life got here, not origins. Evolution makes no claim whatsoever about origins. You're barking at the wrong tree. (And so is George, if that's what he means.) -or why that need be so through natural selection. Handedness describes fittedness? Great just-so story. > -You've stated yourself the fact that life is one-handed. While I still don't take this as evidence of creation, since all life either came from -1. the same ancestor -OR-2. the same process (in many different places) -Then clearly, all life preserves the nature of what brought it into existence, whatever it is. - > Another aspect of evolution by reproduction and natural selection is the human retina is backwards. Is backwards more fit, or terrible design by the designer, as judged by Darwinists? We already know that this design provides the greatest amount of energy for the cells. Now we see that the backward cells actually refine vision! > > http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i15/e158102
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Thursday, May 13, 2010, 15:32 (5097 days ago) @ xeno6696
That article is just the same old same old whirlwind in a junkyard argument. > > > What Pasteur showed was that life, in the form of grubs or flies, do not emerge by spontaneous generation. He did not show that chiral molecules cannot emerge from series of series of chemical reactions over long time periods and under many changing environmental conditions. Once life was established, using molecules of particular chirality, then of course it continued to reproduce molecules of the same chirality. That is what reproduction means. > > > > I would just love to see the article in a biologic journal that shows a mechanism whereby chirality can be totally shifted from left to right or back again by any biologic process, when the coding that controls life's processes is so specifically one way. Evolution cannot explain why amino acids in life are left-handed and nucleic acids are all right-handed, 100%, > > > I have to interject here, David. This is because evolution explains life AFTER life got here, not origins. Evolution makes no claim whatsoever about origins. You're barking at the wrong tree. (And so is George, if that's what he means.) > > or why that need be so through natural selection. Handedness describes fittedness? Great just-so story. > > > > You've stated yourself the fact that life is one-handed. While I still don't take this as evidence of creation, since all life either came from > > 1. the same ancestor > > OR > > 2. the same process (in many different places) - Your reasoning is based on a false assumption about my thoughts re' George. He is clearly using chemical evolution to get to one-handedness. I won't and can't do that. What you keep missing is that to have stable life that reproduces itself accurately, there are layers upon layers of control over DNA/RNA with microRNA, histones, etc. There are oodles of enormous molecules called enzymes that key-lock molecules to force extremely rapid reactions, that otherwise would take thousands or millions of years to potentiate. And then pile on the issue of chirality. Complex? Irreducibly complex. One part cannot work without the other. All have to be set up at the same time. Hoyle's 747 is an exact description of what is reqired, with all the jeering that George does. Don't denegrate Hoyle's intellect. He went to pan-spermia because he couldn't accept that the whirlwind did it here and here alone. Upset his atheism. All pan-spermia does is hide it elsewhere and not solve the problem of how it happened.
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Thursday, May 13, 2010, 17:32 (5097 days ago) @ David Turell
Need to add a point. Read carefuly the final sentence of this article:-http://www.physorg.com/news192882557.html -The authors presume full-blown life from the beginning.
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, May 14, 2010, 15:21 (5096 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Friday, May 14, 2010, 15:30
David, > > > Your reasoning is based on a false assumption about my thoughts re' George. He is clearly using chemical evolution to get to one-handedness. I won't and can't do that. What you keep missing is that to have stable life that reproduces itself accurately, there are layers upon layers of control over DNA/RNA with microRNA, histones, etc. There are oodles of enormous molecules called enzymes that key-lock molecules to force extremely rapid reactions, that otherwise would take thousands or millions of years to potentiate. And then pile on the issue of chirality. Complex? Irreducibly complex. One part cannot work without the other. All have to be set up at the same time. Hoyle's 747 is an exact description of what is reqired, with all the jeering that George does. Don't denegrate Hoyle's intellect. He went to pan-spermia because he couldn't accept that the whirlwind did it here and here alone. Upset his atheism. All pan-spermia does is hide it elsewhere and not solve the problem of how it happened.-You say I keep missing the layers of DNA/RNA, but my point has been (for about the last year) that THIS kind of argument of yours assumes -1. Life as it exists today is functionally AND structurally identical to life at the time of origins. -2. All processes we see now MUST have been in place PRIOR to the origin of life.-These are assumptions David, and not facts. We reason according to 1 because its easier. I've recently argued that its time to stop reasoning this way. We won't find the origin of life by studying life. We'll only find it by trying to build life. Right now ANY version of life that we can synthesize is better than what we have now. 1 has its place (and shouldn't be discarded, as it is the basis for conservation of information) but the AND statement should be removed. -As for 2, this is simply the core component of traditional ID reasoning. The human body as we see it now is very complex, (sometimes too much so) and you make the mistake here by asserting that we can apply what we know to humans in the here and now all the way back to life at the very beginning when we KNOW for a FACT that life was definitely simpler than what we see now. -One of the other things suggested by my Linux post, is the fact that genes have a 1:M relationship with function. One gene has many functions. This is antithetical to human-design as we tend to build things in a 1:1 relationship because its easier to build AND maintain. Generally speaking, when a programmer builds a program from the 1:M paradigm, eventually he gets a program that works MOST of the time, but because of how convoluted the program is, no one (even the designer/programmer) can untangle the web to find where the problem is. I think this scenario explains alot about what we DON'T understand about life, and provides support for a non-designed (or poorly-designed) view of life.-[EDIT] As an addition to my paragraph on 1, I posit that life is only functionally similar today. Not necessarily structurally.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
Matt is against the assumption that life "as it exists today is functionally AND structurally identical to life at the time of origins." He goes on to argue that it's "time to stop reasoning this way. We won't find the origin of life by studying life. We'll only find it by trying to build life."-No doubt David will answer for himself, but in the meantime I have a slight problem with this. It seems to me that our approach has to depend on our prime interest, and for me the leading question is: How did we get here? As a self-centred human, I want to know what were the processes that led to my thinking, feeling, imagining, inventing, reasoning species inhabiting this lump of rock. Darwin's theory is that we go back to one or a few very simple forms of life that over a long period of time evolved into us. Those are the forms that interest me most, and it is their origin I would like to know. If scientists were to build a different form of life, or to find a different form on another planet, it would be of enormous interest, and we would no doubt learn a great deal from it. I'm all in favour of such research. But if, for argument's sake, the different form was capable only of reproducing itself, and was unable to adapt, to innovate, to evolve, then there would still be aspects of our own life on Earth that remained unexplained. Building life won't tell us whether or not there were different structures at the time of origin, and I'm not even sure that it matters. What matters, at least to me, is how we came to have OUR structures. I don't think the study of these is irrelevant to the search for their origin. Nor of course is the search for extraterrestrial life or for the means to create life ourselves. We should explore every avenue, and although you say that life as it exists today "has its place" and you have qualified your stance at the end of your post ("life is only functionally similar today. Not necessarily structurally"), I don't see why building life constitutes the only possible approach. But perhaps the origin of life as it exists today, which after all is the only form we know, is not your main focus of attention. -As for the question of design v. poor design v. accident, I suspect that the same argument will be going on long after all of us have disappeared into...whatever we disappear into.
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Monday, May 17, 2010, 18:59 (5093 days ago) @ dhw
Matt is against the assumption that life "as it exists today is functionally AND structurally identical to life at the time of origins." He goes on to argue that it's "time to stop reasoning this way. We won't find the origin of life by studying life. We'll only find it by trying to build life." > > the origin of life as it exists today, which after all is the only form we know, is not your main focus of attention. > > As for the question of design v. poor design v. accident, I suspect that the same argument will be going on long after all of us have disappeared into...whatever we disappear into.-The key fact we do have is that the reproductive system of the single cell is very exact in reproduction. Error is rare and can cause mutational change, which usually is harmful, and therefore the aberrant organisms will usually die out. This exactness, which is built into every single cell, whether as a single-celled organism or a complex multi-celled organism, in general, guarantees the living stay the same. Cells constantly rerpoduce, bacteria every 20 minutes, in our bodies more slowly. It is my firm belief that what we see now is what was present in bacteria, when the apparatus was somehow initiated 3.6 byo. and its design is NOT poor
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Monday, May 17, 2010, 14:26 (5093 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Monday, May 17, 2010, 14:33
> You say I keep missing the layers of DNA/RNA, but my point has been (for about the last year) that THIS kind of argument of yours assumes > > 1. Life as it exists today is functionally AND structurally identical to life at the time of origins. > > 2. All processes we see now MUST have been in place PRIOR to the origin of life.-Without question. Bacteria, I repeat have been here since the beginning of life, essentially as they (Archaia) always were. The point you always miss is the extreme complexity of the simplest one-celled organism we can study. > > what we know to humans in the here and now all the way back to life at the very beginning when we KNOW for a FACT that life was definitely simpler than what we see now.-IF multicellular. Single cells are as complex as ever. > > One of the other things suggested by my Linux post, is the fact that genes have a 1:M relationship with function. One gene has many functions.-No. Only by RNA modification in another layer of complex chemistry operating on its own program. See these:- http://www.physorg.com/news192282850.html-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/... > [EDIT] As an addition to my paragraph on 1, I posit that life is only functionally similar today. Not necessarily structurally.-What does this mean???
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, May 23, 2010, 23:57 (5087 days ago) @ David Turell
David, > > http://www.physorg.com/news192282850.html > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428093929.htm > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7294/full/nature09000.html-At this point I think we're just at a divide. The researcher responsible for biochemical gene path mapping has given several lectures on this topic. Jim Rogers is his name. He worked as a biochemist during the 90's when drug companies were trying to map genome functions. The complexity on these biochemical pathways was arising because they rapidly discovered that it isn't the case that 1 gene maps to 1 function. If you shut down one gene in a particular pathway, a different gene often takes up its place. So essentially, there's a great many genes inside of all living things that can be used, co-opted, whatever you want to call it--in order to acheive similar if not identical results. This shattered the bubble of early to mid-90's biotech investment and since then investors are wary. -New work on mapping genome to protein pathways is using the sophistication of computers to map these pathways so that for particular diseases we'll be able to find knockouts that will actually work. -> > > > [EDIT] As an addition to my paragraph on 1, I posit that life is only functionally similar today. Not necessarily structurally. > > What does this mean???-It means that one possibility to entertain is that what we observe now in terms of structure and function in relationship to genes may have been warped several times over so that although the same function(s) of life are being served, the structures that create those functions are different.-Is that any better? (Not sure myself.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Monday, May 24, 2010, 00:19 (5087 days ago) @ xeno6696
> At this point I think we're just at a divide. So essentially, there's a great many genes inside of all living things that can be used, co-opted, whatever you want to call it--in order to acheive similar if not identical results. > > > > > > > [EDIT] As an addition to my paragraph on 1, I posit that life is only functionally similar today. Not necessarily structurally. > > > > What does this mean??? > > It means that one possibility to entertain is that what we observe now in terms of structure and function in relationship to genes may have been warped several times over so that although the same function(s) of life are being served, the structures that create those functions are different. > > Is that any better? (Not sure myself.)-I don't know if you are correct. To have, what we recognize as life, requires the complexity we see, with multiple gene functions, for each gene, as mediated by miRNA's. That way 20K genes do the work of 100K. What simplistic genetic structures preceded life as we now know it, is one problem. We know nothing of it. But we do know what structures are necessary for exact reproduction for true life once it appeared, and from what we are learning, that hasn't changed much, and gets more and more complicated as research rolls on.
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, May 06, 2010, 20:07 (5104 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > Do you mean that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, but there was a conscious intelligence (God) that organized it? If so, there has to be a temporal "before", since a cause must precede an effect, and the something that existed before was God (your "First Cause"). If my interpretation is correct, quite apart from the insurmountable problem of where God sprang from, we are left with the image of a conscious intelligence that has no beginning, stuck nowhere/nowhen until 13.7 billion years ago it suddenly hits on the idea of creating a universe out of nothing. Far be it from me, as a non-scientist, to push other theories, but I'd have thought the bouncing universe concept would at least allow God to be a little less moribund. > -Or there's the other interpretation, the one everyone here hates, that states that if the universe before the big bang was a single qubit (as Seth Lloyd discusses) and it was in a state of quantum flux (indeterminancy) than this means that there is no solution to the problem of cause; for in quantum mechanics the act of observing a system destroys the system. Like Buddhists of old, we simply recognize that no solution exists and carry on our way...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, May 06, 2010, 20:00 (5104 days ago) @ David Turell
> > I'm taking this off the "Laetoli footprints" thread because, as George says, if the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, there's no place for God. I'm not offering an opinion either way myself ... I'm simply railing against the definitive statement that there was no "before". No-one can possibly know that. > > Yes they can, theoretically. Guth Borde & Valenkin presented a theorum in 2002 which was represented by Guth in the 60th birthday party symposium for Stephen > Hawking: simply there is no before, before the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang is a theory of what happened after the 'origin', whatever that was. To quote Guth (pg. 750 in the book)*, " the theorem...does show that any inflating model that is globally expanding must be geodesically incomplete in the past". His guess was: a beginning is some type of quantum event. Andrei Linde (multiverse proponent) agreed the theorem was correct. (Mike Martin 'Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology, Vol. 3,No. 5, Jan. 2003) > > * "The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, 2003, Cambridge U. Press-I'm late to the game here, so forgive me if I tread ground already traveled. -The big bang is a model that assumes a beginning and therefore precludes any talk of a before. Some models (String Theory) actually work to give some explanation on what would have caused the big bang, but where we're at now with the Standard Model--the only "real" answer is "we don't know." You can work the theorems back theoretically, but lets not forget that physics at this level completely ignores gravity, and therefore is incomplete. So, reasoning with an incomplete model, we can somehow say "nothing at all existed?" -The only way this makes sense is if you consider that the universe at time 0,0,0 to be one and only one quantum bit in superposition. But something had to have happened; wavefunctions don't collapse without some kind of "observation." There's still an explanation needed for what caused the first qubit to have inflated into the universe we see today.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Big Bang
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 14:21 (4965 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 14:41
> The only way this makes sense is if you consider that the universe at time 0,0,0 to be one and only one quantum bit in superposition. But something had to have happened; wavefunctions don't collapse without some kind of "observation." There's still an explanation needed for what caused the first qubit to have inflated into the universe we see today.-The LHC has been up and running and now interesting observations are beginning to appear:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19485-large-hadron-collider-spies-hints-of-infant-universe.html-Another report of LHC activity. Note the diffrence in tone of the two articles:-http://www.physorg.com/news204290256.html
The Big Bang
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 19:58 (4965 days ago) @ David Turell
Good science is building a theory that fits with the data, not trying to make the data fit the theory, and the ability to make predictions about future events that will be empirically supported by data gathered. The big bang is a case of the latter, and more and more, it is losing its footing by not living up to its predictions when compared to the Plasma(Electric) universe model.-Electric Universe Predictions Proven-Predictions Pending