Miscellany: (no Big Bang) (General)

by David Turell , Saturday, October 16, 2021, 17:46 (924 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: inflation, no Big Bang
QUOTE: "Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began.”

dhw: A truly enlightening article. Without any of the complex scientific reasons, this is the view I have been championing throughout our discussions, so thank you for presenting it to us.

DAVID: I've only given his conclusion, not all the early considerations. The materialistic problem remains: what existed before all of this inflation/Bang? Something had to. Something made this happen: either material for a universe always existed in a different but transmutable form or it was created by an eternal mind who/which could engineer all the necessary variables precisely to allow life to appear. The additional need for fine-tuning makes a great case for a required God.

dhw: My agnosticism is based fairly and squarely on those two possibilities (with a vague form of panpsychism in between): either an infinite material universe producing an infinite number of combinations, eventually producing the one that will provide conditions for life and for life itself, or an eternal mind or minds as you describe. I find each of these equally impossible to believe in, even though one or the other must be closer to the truth (with panpsychism providing an uneasy compromise).

DAVID: Tottering on the picket fence. Panpsychism is still a mind/mental state is present.

dhw: I am not tottering. I am stuck! Panpsychism can be millions and millions of different mental states – I call it an “uneasy compromise” because of its vagueness. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am too ignorant to make a decision, but I respect the faith of those who have decided (I include atheists, as they have faith in the powers of chance), provided their beliefs cause no harm to others and they themselves show respect for beliefs that differ from their own.

I would like to repeat my thanks for the article, as I don’t want us to lose sight of its important implications.

Thank you