Cosmologic philosophy: proper Big Bang view (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 00:20 (1017 days ago) @ David Turell

It really came from nothing:

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/06/no-free-lunches-bernoulli-is-right-keynes-is-wrong/

"Jacob Bernoulli made a now obvious observation about probability over three-and-a-half centuries ago: If nothing is known about the outcome of a random event, all outcomes can be assumed to be equally probable. Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason (PrOIR) is commonly used. Throw a fair die. There are six outcomes, one for each face of the cube. The chance of getting five pips showing on the roll of a die is therefore one sixth. If a million lottery tickets are sold and you buy one ticket, the chances of winning are one in a million. This reasoning is intuitively obvious.

***

"In analysis of fine tuning, No Free Lunch Theorems and conservation of information, Bernoulli’s PrOIR is foundational. In thermodynamics, uniform distributions correspond to maximum entropy. In the absence of air currents or thermal gradients, the temperature is the same in the middle of the room as it is in the corners.

"Those who disagree with Bernoulli’s PrOIR consistently misapply the principle. They don’t appreciate the definition of “knowing nothing.” The concept of “knowing nothing” can be tricky. The sentences “knowing nothing means knowing something” and “knowing nothing means knowing nothing” are both curious puns.
"To illustrate the ease that entrenched suppositions can be innocently introduced, consider the Big Bang account of the ex-nihilo creation of the universe from nothing. The illustration is not related to the problem of Ganymede cities, but to the difficulty of assuming nothing.

A common visualization of the classic Big Bang model starts with a big empty space where a type of explosion happens.

"No. This is wrong. “A big empty space” is something, and nothing existed before the Big Bang.

"With some imagination, the “big empty space” can be removed from the visualization. Often the next description, with the idea of space removed, is that suddenly there was an explosion. No. This doesn’t work either. “Suddenly” assumes time, and time is something. Nothing, including time, existed before the creation. (Biblical references to “In the beginning” and “before the beginning of time” are congruent.) So we are left with trying to understand Big Bang ex-nihilo creation void of space and time. Imagining the existence of nothing can be difficult. Doing so can tax the imagination.

"Hidden biases easily sneak in when dealing with either Bernoulli’s PrOIR or Big Bang creation.

"Assuring you know nothing can be difficult. Critics might say “Supporters of Bernoulli’s PrOIR know nothing.” The statement might be an insult, but the pun, properly interpreted, is accurate."

Comment: If we are sure the universe had a beginning, therefore we have absolute proof of God. The space-time we live in had to have a cause. God's proof then relies upon whether one believe the Big Bang really happened, We all know the BB is not proven, but what if it is? Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.