Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

cph44 · 07-24-2003, 09:39 AM

I am a graduate student in mathematical physics, and though I don't study big bang theories myself, I know enough about them from osmosis to say that your presentation here is specious pseudoscience.

First:
>No, the law of general relativity breaks down at the singularity >know as the big bang. This is because there was a single point >of infinite mass that some how exploded with energy. However, >the problem is the infinite amount of energy required by general >relativity to cause that point to expand. That infinte energy had >to come from somewhere.

General relativity is a model of reality, not reality. It is a system of mathematical rules and relationships studied by physicists because it makes meaningful predictions about the observed universe. You are right in saying those laws break down near the big bang. But that doesn't mean the universe didn't have governing principles then. It only means that our scientific model no longer applies there. Scientists are still actively researching the first moments after the big bang, and no existing theory applies all the way back to the singularity. Incidentally, some of these theories suggest that the singularity was "created" by the collapse of another universe. The universe may have been snapping open and closed into the infinite past. And I put "created" in quotes because causality as humans understand it doesn't really exist at a space-time singularity, and thus the concept of "creating" doesn't make much sense. This, by the way is fundamental flaw in your argument.

>It is also very clear scientifically that the Universe and time itself >has a beginning. ... Something had to create the universe.

The ideas of "a beginning" and of "creating" are human inventions, born from the structure of the human brain and from human experiences. The human experience and the structure of the human brain are predicated on the laws of physics as they exist today. Common sense like "something had to create the universe" is absurd nonsense in the moments after the big bang unless a scientific theory gives it a rigorous meaning.

Now,
>Why is it so hard to believe that we were created by something >bigger than we are. Look at all we create. We can genetically >alter simple organisms. If they were capable of intelligent >thought I'm sure they would not readily be able to understand >how they were created. Yet we know they were created >because we made them.
Fine. I can't prove God doesn't exist. Science is merely a description of the observed physical world. It is not reality itself. To the extent that we observe things inconsistent with our science, we can change our theories to better mirror reality as we observe it. Since God is outside observed reality, science will never reach him. This is basically what you said. So I don't find it hard to accept the possibility of a creator. I do question his relevance to my life as I experience it.

>Same way with God. He created us, yet because we are lesser >creatures we are unable to fully understand how and why we >are here.
This is an analogy, not an argument. Why do you attempt to woo nonbelievers with rhetorical devices that only appeal to believers?

Finally
>We are limited in our ability to think and therefore we can never >know the entire picture.
I agree wholeheartedly. Science doesn't claim to have the whole picture. Only organized religion does. Do you see now why agnostics are so uncomfortable? We are supposed to have faith in a religious vision because of the insufficiency of our reason. But if you don't already have faith, you look around and see about 75 ready-made faiths to choose from. Am I really supposed to choose one at random and adhere to it?

Sorry for the aggressive tone of this message, but I get testy when people appeal to science to make arguments that science isn't intended for. You steal the authoritative tone that science has in our culture without submitting to the rigorous constraints imposed by the scientific method. But almost everyone does this from time to time. I'm guilty of it myself, I'm sure. So please don't view this message as a personal attack. I really did appreciate reading and thinking about your views.

07-24-2003, 09:39 AM	#34 (permalink)
cph44 Upright	Science talk doesn't make this true. I am a graduate student in mathematical physics, and though I don't study big bang theories myself, I know enough about them from osmosis to say that your presentation here is specious pseudoscience. First: >No, the law of general relativity breaks down at the singularity >know as the big bang. This is because there was a single point >of infinite mass that some how exploded with energy. However, >the problem is the infinite amount of energy required by general >relativity to cause that point to expand. That infinte energy had >to come from somewhere. General relativity is a model of reality, not reality. It is a system of mathematical rules and relationships studied by physicists because it makes meaningful predictions about the observed universe. You are right in saying those laws break down near the big bang. But that doesn't mean the universe didn't have governing principles then. It only means that our scientific model no longer applies there. Scientists are still actively researching the first moments after the big bang, and no existing theory applies all the way back to the singularity. Incidentally, some of these theories suggest that the singularity was "created" by the collapse of another universe. The universe may have been snapping open and closed into the infinite past. And I put "created" in quotes because causality as humans understand it doesn't really exist at a space-time singularity, and thus the concept of "creating" doesn't make much sense. This, by the way is fundamental flaw in your argument. >It is also very clear scientifically that the Universe and time itself >has a beginning. ... Something had to create the universe. The ideas of "a beginning" and of "creating" are human inventions, born from the structure of the human brain and from human experiences. The human experience and the structure of the human brain are predicated on the laws of physics as they exist today. Common sense like "something had to create the universe" is absurd nonsense in the moments after the big bang unless a scientific theory gives it a rigorous meaning. Now, >Why is it so hard to believe that we were created by something >bigger than we are. Look at all we create. We can genetically >alter simple organisms. If they were capable of intelligent >thought I'm sure they would not readily be able to understand >how they were created. Yet we know they were created >because we made them. Fine. I can't prove God doesn't exist. Science is merely a description of the observed physical world. It is not reality itself. To the extent that we observe things inconsistent with our science, we can change our theories to better mirror reality as we observe it. Since God is outside observed reality, science will never reach him. This is basically what you said. So I don't find it hard to accept the possibility of a creator. I do question his relevance to my life as I experience it. >Same way with God. He created us, yet because we are lesser >creatures we are unable to fully understand how and why we >are here. This is an analogy, not an argument. Why do you attempt to woo nonbelievers with rhetorical devices that only appeal to believers? Finally >We are limited in our ability to think and therefore we can never >know the entire picture. I agree wholeheartedly. Science doesn't claim to have the whole picture. Only organized religion does. Do you see now why agnostics are so uncomfortable? We are supposed to have faith in a religious vision because of the insufficiency of our reason. But if you don't already have faith, you look around and see about 75 ready-made faiths to choose from. Am I really supposed to choose one at random and adhere to it? Sorry for the aggressive tone of this message, but I get testy when people appeal to science to make arguments that science isn't intended for. You steal the authoritative tone that science has in our culture without submitting to the rigorous constraints imposed by the scientific method. But almost everyone does this from time to time. I'm guilty of it myself, I'm sure. So please don't view this message as a personal attack. I really did appreciate reading and thinking about your views.