Origin of Universe: God <vs> Big Bang/Non-God theories

[darkbeaver]

I'v read two of the books on D Slidrule Sinisters list and heard Hawkings and Prenrose interviewed a few times. Interesting stuff, Hawkings is very close to a miracle, a living testament to the power of human spirit, his disease should have killed him many years ago.:wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

I'v read two of the books on D Slidrule Sinisters list and heard Hawkings and Prenrose interviewed a few times. Interesting stuff, Hawkings is very close to a miracle, a living testament to the power of human spirit, ALS (the disease) should have killed him many years ago.:wave:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter give us a sentence or two about dark matter will ya.:wave:

A sentence or two? Jeez, whole books have been written about it... For instance, there's In Search of Dark Matter by Ken Freeman and Geoff McNamara, published last year, which I'm currently about halfway through reading. That one says that about 96% of the material in the universe is dark matter and energy (I've seen other--and older--estimates in the 70-80% range), detectable largely by its gravitational influences on other galaxies. Nobody knows quite what it is, whether it's hot or cold, or even exactly where it is, though the evidence suggests it's in halos surrounding galaxies, not within the interstellar spaces in the galaxies themselves. The observational evidence is subject to large uncertainties, as it's based largely on observed rotation rates of stars around galaxies and the behavior of galaxies in clusters. That's accelerated motion, according to both Newton and Einstein, and the observed accelerations cannot be accounted for by the amount of visible matter: galaxies ought to be flying apart. The accelerations, however, are *very* small, and another possibility is that there's no dark matter or energy at all, it's just that Newton's and Einstein's equations break down at very small accelerations, in much the same way Einstein showed Newton's do at very large ones. That's the argument of last resort though; physicists are extremely reluctant to give up theories that have worked so well for so long. At some point though, they'll have to, because relativity and quantum theory are fundamentally inconsistent; they can't both be right, in their present form. String theory at the moment offers the best hope of unifying them.

Mysticism, just to tie up any possible loose ends, offers nothing.

 

[darkbeaver]

A sentence or two? Jeez, whole books have been written about it... For instance, there's In Search of Dark Matter by Ken Freeman and Geoff McNamara, published last year, which I'm currently about halfway through reading. That one says that about 96% of the material in the universe is dark matter and energy (I've seen other--and older--estimates in the 70-80% range), detectable largely by its gravitational influences on other galaxies. Nobody knows quite what it is, whether it's hot or cold, or even exactly where it is, though the evidence suggests it's in halos surrounding galaxies, not within the interstellar spaces in the galaxies themselves. The observational evidence is subject to large uncertainties, as it's based largely on observed rotation rates of stars around galaxies and the behavior of galaxies in clusters. That's accelerated motion, according to both Newton and Einstein, and the observed accelerations cannot be accounted for by the amount of visible matter: galaxies ought to be flying apart. The accelerations, however, are *very* small, and another possibility is that there's no dark matter or energy at all, it's just that Newton's and Einstein's equations break down at very small accelerations, in much the same way Einstein showed Newton's do at very large ones. That's the argument of last resort though; physicists are extremely reluctant to give up theories that have worked so well for so long. At some point though, they'll have to, because relativity and quantum theory are fundamentally inconsistent; they can't both be right, in their present form. String theory at the moment offers the best hope of unifying them.

Mysticism, just to tie up any possible loose ends, offers nothing.

I was talking about darkmatter a couple of weekends ago or rather I was listening slack jawed to a friend who was explaining it to me he said that they think they can see (and see is only an approximation) its contours or its margins. It's a very difficult concept to render into english, and even more difficult to pass through my head. Anyway your brief above approximates his and I feel better now, thanks.:wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

You'll just have to take my silly nature into account and go a little easy on me. lol.

I don't know, it's just not right to let an infraction pass without corrective measures, I'll talk to the head Inquisitor and see if a nasty tickling session won't suffice.:laughing7::wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

Linearity in print and thought has made language unable to deal with the invisible world in any meaningful way, except as pathology. Now this invisible world is returning to the language through people like us with one foot in each world. The human mind is haunted both by the many presences sensed within the self and by a confused sense of self. Wherever we turn in the world of nature and the psyche, we encounter life, animation, and a willingness to communicate that confounds the fragile pyramid of boundary consciousness and human values that have emerged over historical time through the suppression of our intuitions.
I've taken the position that these entities we encounter are nonphysical and somehow autonomous. Ralph, as I understand him, accepts this view but anchors it into the Neoplatonic trinity of body, soul, and spirit. From this point of view, these entities are inhabitants of the spiritual domain of the logos. They are the logos become self-reflecting and articulate. Rupert correctly points out that it's in the realm of dreams that we most commonly encounter entities, and he further suggests that behind these entities is the controlling agency of the world soul. His notion is that the world soul actually communicates to human beings through the production of forms that we interpret as the denizens of an otherwise invisible and mythological world.
Our collective conclusion seems to be that nature, both in whole and in many parts, is magically self-reflecting and aware. Encountered in its most rarified expression, the world speaks to us, and we, as scientific rationalists are confounded. Nevertheless, it is for us to mold our models and theories to the world as it presents itself in immediate experience, not as we would have it in some grand and sterile abstraction. The elves and gnomes are there to remind us that, in the matter of understanding the self, we have yet to leave the playpen in the nursery of ontology.
Terence Mckenna

 

[karrie]

I don't know, it's just not right to let an infraction pass without corrective measures, I'll talk to the head Inquisitor and see if a nasty tickling session won't suffice.:laughing7::wave:

ah, trust a man to want a tickle session. lol.

 

[darkbeaver]

A nasty tickling session.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Terence McKenna? Wasn't he the drug-addled 1960s loon who formulated the "Stoned Ape" hypothesis of human evolution on the basis of no evidence whatsoever? (Yes, alas, I'm old enough to remember it.) I don't see any reason to take a mind like that seriously. I don't believe anybody in science does.

 

[karrie]

A nasty tickling session.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

well come on, is there any other kind? honestly! lol. Okay, enough of that now before a mod steps in. :angel8:

 

[karrie]

Terence McKenna? Wasn't he the drug-addled 1960s loon who formulated the "Stoned Ape" hypothesis of human evolution on the basis of no evidence whatsoever? (Yes, alas, I'm old enough to remember it.) I don't see any reason to take a mind like that seriously. I don't believe anybody in science does.

Ah, the good old stoned ape hypothesis. I got an A+ on a grade 8 Social Studies paper because I blew my teacher away by actually having the balls to write a whole piece on why drug use is good for you. McKenna's hypothesis was just one of many backing arguments. My teacher got in a huge fight with the school board when they disallowed my paper from winning that year's essay contest based on its contents rather than my writing. That hypothesis will forever stick in my head thanks to that paper. lol.

 

[hermanntrude]

I'll admit i havent had time to read most of the posts in this thread, but i'd like to add something anyway. please forgive me if i missed anything which results in this post meaning less or looking dumb:

I read somewhere a seemingly silly phrase, but which sums up the greatest problem with the big bang theory in easy words:

"in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded"

To me this is why I can't totally latch onto the big bang theory. It shows the logical difficulty with a big bang, in that an explosion doesnt usually come from nowhere. Now we can be pretty sure there was a singularity, which is hard enough to understand, but if we trace backwards we end up with nothing, or everything. either the big bang happened because nothing exploded, which is nonsense without a creating force (a God?) or the big bang was the result of a big crunch, which gives weight to the oscillating universe theory, which is hard to agree with given current observations.

 

[darkbeaver]

Ah, the good old stoned ape hypothesis. I got an A+ on a grade 8 Social Studies paper because I blew my teacher away by actually having the balls to write a whole piece on why drug use is good for you. McKenna's hypothesis was just one of many backing arguments. My teacher got in a huge fight with the school board when they disallowed my paper from winning that year's essay contest based on its contents rather than my writing. That hypothesis will forever stick in my head thanks to that paper. lol.

Good little paper I bet, you can tell when they flip out that you hit some buttons eh.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

 

[karrie]

I'll admit i havent had time to read most of the posts in this thread, but i'd like to add something anyway. please forgive me if i missed anything which results in this post meaning less or looking dumb:

I read somewhere a seemingly silly phrase, but which sums up the greatest problem with the big bang theory in easy words:

"in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded"

To me this is why I can't totally latch onto the big bang theory. It shows the logical difficulty with a big bang, in that an explosion doesnt usually come from nowhere. Now we can be pretty sure there was a singularity, which is hard enough to understand, but if we trace backwards we end up with nothing, or everything. either the big bang happened because nothing exploded, which is nonsense without a creating force (a God?) or the big bang was the result of a big crunch, which gives weight to the oscillating universe theory, which is hard to agree with given current observations.

I love that, "in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded". One person talked about the theory that the whole universe was held as dark matter, seemingly nothing, and that once that exploded, it fanned out. But, what could make it explode, and how?

 

[karrie]

Good little paper I bet, you can tell when they flip out that you hit some buttons eh.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

It was nice to be able to stir up such a kafuffle. I was very honored to have my teacher fighting so adamantly for my paper. And, it's not like that was the sort of thing I did normally. i was a real people pleaser, never really pushed or caused trouble. But, when I went to research it, there was just more information out there FOR drug use than against. lol.

 

[darkbeaver]

I had similar problems in grade ten I think with a paper called The Rise and Fall of The American Empire, teach gave me an A principal wanted me hanged. It was an essay on a final history exam.:laughing7::wave:

 

[AmberEyes]

Strange thing is AmberEyes, you have demonstrated that you know more about the subject than anyone one else here so far. I would suggest you read Richard Dawkins but start with his latest, 'The God Delusion' for immediate answers to the questions on ID and random chance, the two religious hoaxs, and natural selection which answers all the questions. Then maybe to 'Climbing Mt. Improbable' or 'The Bling Watchmaker' or 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. Or just start with his greatest accomplishment, 'The Selfish Gene' because you sound like you are ready for that one and it could be required reading for you anyway. I will just add, Richard Dawkins is the Simonyi professor for the advancement of human understanding, and that compels him to write his books in a language which even the layperson with a highschool education can understand. No big words and heavy science. Good for me too because physics in not my major.

I think if a lot of people could read some of those books before the religious recruiters got to them the world could be a lot different.

Thanks for the advice! I started "Our Cosmic Habitat" this morning by Martin Rees and I'm about halfway through at the moment. I discovered my school's library, it's a gold mine... our public libraries suck compared to the University one.

 

[hermanntrude]

I love that, "in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded". One person talked about the theory that the whole universe was held as dark matter, seemingly nothing, and that once that exploded, it fanned out. But, what could make it explode, and how?

I admit that it's when we talk about cosmology that i start to think there must have been some kind of creation. Whatever happened it was a miracle.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, obviously there was some kind of creation, or we wouldn't be here discussing it. What's at issue is whether there was any role for the supernatural in it, and pretty much every post in here amounts to either "yes, because..." or "no, because..." Big Bang cosmology can take us back to some tiny fraction of a second (10 to the -42 of a second, if my memory is correct) after the bang itself, and before that we don't know what was happening, we don't understand it, our theories break down. But to invoke the supernatural at that point is to quit. Saying "god did it" is just another way to say we don't know, we don't understand it. It answers everything and illuminates nothing, which is why science has no use for that hypothesis. It may be correct that some deity did it (though I strongly doubt that and there's no good evidence for it), but that isn't good enough. Science wants to know what he did and how he did it.

All of the "yes, because..." answers are just admissions of ignorance phrased a little more indirectly than just "I don't know." I see expressions of incredulity, statements of incomprehension, and wishful thinking, none of which offer any support at all for the supernatural hypothesis. Being unable to grasp how it all could have come about without a supernatural agency is a failure of the imagination, not support for the supernatural. Don't feel bad though, the scientific imagination too has failed so far on this one, but science assumes that won't always be so. The supernatural hypothesis assumes it *will* always be so, it's beyond our comprehension, which makes further investigation pointless, and the hypothesis itself a dead end.

 

[lieexpsr]

I admit that it's when we talk about cosmology that i start to think there must have been some kind of creation. Whatever happened it was a miracle.

You simply do not understand and in fairness none of us do yet. But some scientists who are very bright are on the verge of understanding. I'm hopeful that our brains will have evolved to the point of being able to understand within perhaps another 100 or 200 years. At this moment in time the brain is not capable and that you surely must admit.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there was creation and every reason to believe that evolution took place and life evolved from the simplest of single cell organisms. One of the big problems the beievers have is that they don't even understand the amount of time required for evolution to take place and they further don't understand that there has been ample time.

But think about it now. If you don't accept that life evolved from nothing, and you shouldn't because that's not what science tells us, how can you possibly believe that your god came from nothing? It's a circular argument that's best avoided because it can never be used to advantage by the believers.

On understanding: an eminent scientist, I can't remember his name, decided that he could walk through a wall. He knew he could because he knew that atomic particles are widely separated. To think of it on our scale, it would be like saying that if one atomic particle were in the middle of a football stadium, the next closest particle woule be outside the stadium. This is theoretically correct to the best of science's knowledge and so he knew it was true. Don't try to understand it because your brain is not capable of understanding the concept, and neither is mine.

After deep thought the man got up from his chair and attempted to walk through a wall. Some day humans will understand the concept but I have a feeling it won't make the task easier when it comes to walking through walls!