Was the BB created

@xris,

Well there are a lot of possibilities.

It is possible that the big bang is just a cycle when everything re-collapses back to a single point then explodes again.

Calling it created by god just because we can't determine it yet is just as absurd as saying a flying pink elephant caused it to happen. We might never be able to answer the question but it is still early in the science of cosmology.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

If nothing is found to be before the BB could we be right in assuming it was created.

Well obviously we could, we can assume absolutely anything, but we are also just as likely to be wrong. Given the numerous myriad of assumptions it is probable that any one assumption is incorrect unless evidence exists to back it up. Most people do make assumptions in regard to first cause, but such assumptions are not scientific ones, they are just assumptions along the line of "well there is no explanation that I have any reason to prefer, so I'll believe this in the meantime".

It is safer on an intellectual level, I believe, not to assume anything that the jury is still out on.

Quote:

Something from nothing implies that we must consider this for science sake surely?

It's not within science's ambit (as the subject is defined in modern terms) to deal with matters for which there is no data, no apparent way of obtaining data, and no apparent way of testing the manner in which the data was obtained. Until someone hypothesises a method by which first cause could be tested, runs those tests and publishes the results of those tests for peer review the question of whether or not first cause is a matter which science is even capable of examining isn't something scientists should be expected to broach professionally.

Until first cause can be subjected to the scientific method then it is something that isn't worthy of discussion within that forum, it remains a matter for theologians and philosophers until then (and obviously scientists are able to give their personal opinions within those forums, as we all can - but they would be the opinions of scientists, rather than scientific opinions).

Once someone does provide a plausable method for judging whether or not the Big Bang was created - then it becomes worth considering for the "sake of science".

It may be good advice to those who think that science can explain everything that they do not rule out any possibilities - and most do not - but in regard to first cause it is completely scientific to refuse to seriously consider something for which there is no evidence.

Also, as a point of order, I do not know of any scientist who would baldly state that the Big Bang was "something from nothing". An expansion in space-time indicates that there was not simply nothing prior to the expansion.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

The point is science is telling us there is no evidence of a before are we to ignore that philosophically till we never find out? I cant envisage a point where we might find out ,shall we ignore the question forever.Do we walk away from the closed door and never speculate?
If i find the missing link do i look for another one? I think with our knowledge we have enough of the begining why not ask pertinent questions, do they scare us? If i find a flying pink elephant then it means Ive been looking.

1 Reply

@xris,

There's pertinence in modelling different causes of the big bang, if only to rule them out. Modelling is the usual highest aim in areas of physics where there's no direct observation.

0 Replies

@xris,

Quote:

Do we walk away from the closed door and never speculate?

Perhaps we can make the door, remodel the model. It's so hard to tell. Maybe one day while running an experiment on the hydron we might create a universe. It's easy to imagine and speculate but reality can dish out a lot of accidents. Need I remind anyone on the discovery of penicillin?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;63854 wrote:

Well there are a lot of possibilities.

It is possible that the big bang is just a cycle when everything re-collapses back to a single point then explodes again.

Calling it created by god just because we can't determine it yet is just as absurd as saying a flying pink elephant caused it to happen. We might never be able to answer the question but it is still early in the science of cosmology.

Lol, dude, the oscillating model has been outdated for at least 10 years. We know the rate at which the universe is expanding is not only not slowing down (which would be necessary for the universe to eventually recollapse on itself), but it's speeding up.

What else ya got?

I'd say that given the mathematical impossibility of the existence of infinite past events, and everything we know about cosmology, we can determine that the universe must have begun to exist, and therefore it must have a cause. Is that really so absurd?

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------

xris;63852 wrote:

Something from nothing implies that we must consider this for science sake surely?Not conclude but consider..

Lol, what? something from nothing? When did we go back to the dark ages where everyone believed in spontaneous generation? how about something from something?

1 Reply

@Aphoric,

Something from nothing is what we are observing, its our duty to consider every avenue of cause.Creation must be considered just as any other cause, whatever it is its pretty damned amazing.It is the only event that we can look at an consider to be observably created and not be denied by known science.Im not saying it was but try convincing me it was not.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

The point is science is telling us there is no evidence of a before are we to ignore that philosophically till we never find out?

I don't think so - a philosophical subject can be pretty much anything people like to debate, and people sure do like to debate first cause. However, as a scientific subject it's a non-starter until someone comes up with a way to test it, or finds firm evidence for it amongst what is currently understood.

Quote:

If i find the missing link do i look for another one? I think with our knowledge we have enough of the begining why not ask pertinent questions, do they scare us? If i find a flying pink elephant then it means Ive been looking.

By all means look, but while ideas about first cause remain untested (and perhaps untestable) hypotheses they are not scientific. They may well be philosophical or theological - but you won't see any flying pink elephants in credible zoology textbooks until some proof of their existence has been demonstrated and verified.

I'm not in the least bit scared of your questions, but I fail to see how they can be described as pertinent in regards to science. Since science became a tangibly distinct subject from theology and philosophy, shortly after Gallileo's time, people who have had ideas about things like first cause have been demanding science account for it - but with no ideas as to how.

The claim that science is "scared" of these issues has been made since that time - but all it demonstrates is that the claimants have no regard for the stringent criteria that serious scientists apply to their work.

In philosophy you can just respect an idea based on whether or not you find it an interesting one - but in science you have to go at least some way toward proving how it could be feasable and then allowing a process of peer review to temper it within a critical crucible (so to speak).

Quote:

Something from nothing is what we are observing, its our duty to consider every avenue of cause.

An expansion in space-time is what the majority of scientific experts on the subject believe we are observing - based on the most watertight of the theories on the subject. Moving back in cosmological history we find no point in which it is considered that matter just "winks out" of existence - it condenses into a dense speck.

Quote:

It is the only event that we can look at an consider to be observably created and not be denied by known science.

Why would an expansion of space-time be "observably created"? It is a state of existence which led to another state of existence. It doesn't have to be anything more. If it is something more evidence for that something will have to be provided and tested before being accepted as scientific.

Quote:

Im not saying it was but try convincing me it was not.

You're welcome to your beliefs - but they are matters of faith rather than science unless you provide evidence for them.

---------- Post added at 05:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 AM ----------

Aphoric wrote:

I'd say that given the mathematical impossibility of the existence of infinite past events, and everything we know about cosmology, we can determine that the universe must have begun to exist, and therefore it must have a cause. Is that really so absurd?

Well, if something must have had a cause in order to exist, then the cause must exist (or have existed at some juncture), therefore if we are to apply the same logic the cause must have a cause, which leads us to an infinite regress, which you claim is a mathmatical impossibility.

So - by your own logic - it does seem rather absurd.

If the cause does not need to begin to exist in order to exist then why does the universe have to play by rules which do not apparently apply to the cause?

The end result of this reasoning is that it is no more absurd to think of the universe as needing no particular cause than it is to presume that the cause requires no cause.

So why is the invention of a causeless cause of the universe required when a causeless universe is a simpler idea which obeys the same rationality?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Science and philosophical science are not the same thing and to say we must only act or react on known science is blinkered view of science in general.A proposal needs an observable event for it to be suggested and by suggesting something does not infer a belief system or assume the proposal is true.It could just well be said that if you believe in an alternative cause of the BB you are acting out of faith in a science that can not give any possible reason for such an event.When you consider that all known science breaks down and becomes totally unrecognisable at this instance of appearance, who can say what science is saying about this event.
I propose that till we have evidence of a previous universe this universe had no known cause, so therefor it can be assumed to be created.It was the first event that caused every other event.It carried with it the information and the ability to cause galaxies , planetary systems and life.In that instant from NOTHING everything was created..Now prove me wrong???

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Science and philosophical science are not the same thing and to say we must only act or react on known science is blinkered view of science in general.

Well what do you mean by "philosophical science"? Just making assumptions and throwing them out there to see what results they might garner is fine - but it isn't scientific. The modern conception of science is delineated by what can be discovered utilising the scientific method.

If you want to propose how the scientific method might be applied to such questions as first cause - do so. No one is stopping you.

Science does adopt a blinkered view in comparison to philosophy because being stringent about matters pertaining to reality is How Science Works.

Philosophy assumes the truth can be made manifest through good arguments and insights, science does not. Philosophy also warns that it is unsafe to make any assumptions about what is real, whereas science accepts that what is decided by scientific consensus is likely to have a good bearing on reality (though it is always a work in progress).

To say that science is blinkered in this regard is technically true - but why complain about it? It is true that rules of French Grammar do not necessarily apply to Spanish Grammar. Does this mean linguistics is blinkered? Yes - but that's How It Works.

Quote:

I propose that till we have evidence of a previous universe this universe had no known cause, so therefor it can be assumed to be created.

Seems like a complete logical fallacy to me. You say that because the universe had no known cause it can assume to have been created. How so? Surely the opposite is true, and that until a better understanding of what went on before is reached any assumptions are no more or less likely to be right than any others. Any wild-eyed fantasy about creation or development from natural or supernatural, deliberate or accidental, phenomena could be equally viable - because the understanding is so limited.

Quote:

It was the first event that caused every other event. It carried with it the information and the ability to cause galaxies , planetary systems and life.In that instant from NOTHING everything was created..

So you claim, but as has been stated to you three times in this thread already - with no serious attempt at rebuttal - the expansion of space-time itself was not "something from nothing".

Quote:

Now prove me wrong???

No. The burden of proof lies in the hands of the proposer. Seeing as a cause for the Big Bang as a creative force of some kind is currently out of the bounds of common understanding, the proposal is unfalsifiable. To be taken seriously within a scientific arena you need to show how one might go about falsifying or demonstrating the proposal - and a few pseudo-philosophical remarks don't make the grade in regards to science. Until that time I don't think it's the responsability of those who disagree with you to prove anything.

If I claimed I was a god, and that you ought to do everything I say, would you go along with it until you could prove me wrong - or would you require a bit more evidence from my point of view?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Was the BB created? If nothing is found to be before the BB could we be right in assuming it was created.Something from nothing implies that we must consider this for science sake surely?Not conclude but consider..

I would imagine it somewhat tricky to determine whether there was truely "nothing". There needs to be a founding assumption to work from. A founding assumption "from nothing can come something" is not quite right (unless you redefine nothing).

Dave Allen wrote:

It's not within science's ambit (as the subject is defined in modern terms) to deal with matters for which there is no data, no apparent way of obtaining data, and no apparent way of testing the manner in which the data was obtained. Until someone hypothesises a method by which first cause could be tested, runs those tests and publishes the results of those tests for peer review the question of whether or not first cause is a matter which science is even capable of examining isn't something scientists should be expected to broach professionally.

Experiments at the LHC will probe the conditions closer to the event that was the big bang. This will differentiate the models that predict what is observed in these experiments against those that are way off. But how do you probe before this event to demonstrate its mechanism? Imagine a far future society capable of creating universes so as to show the mechanisms at work. How you beat this at the local science fair would also be interesting.

1 Reply

@validity,

Am i right in presuming this is philosophical debate,philosophy of science?
I am right in believing that science claims it is the first observable event?I am right in believing there is no evidence of a before? Before the BB we have what is described as absolutely nothing,no space, no time ,no causes, no events.
In my humble opinion we can assume therefore that if the universe appears from nothing it has to be created.Logically at this point in time there is no other explanation.Now if there are other valid reasons to oppose this opinion i would love to hear them.It is not written in blind faith or with a determination to see a creator but simply opinion by my logic.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Am i right in presuming this is philosophical debate,philosophy of science?

Am I right in assuming you don't know what the scientific method is?

If you don't couch your philosophy within the scientific method, then it is no more philosophy of science than discussing linguistics is philosophy of art. It might have some incidental bearing - but the big picture is being missed.

Most of the threads on this part of the forum are devoted to better understanding of some premise or theory of science - not an unfalsifiable claim about creation.

Quote:

I am right in believing that science claims it is the first observable event?I am right in believing there is no evidence of a before? Before the BB we have what is described as absolutely nothing,no space, no time ,no causes, no events.

No, you are wrong. As stated four times now - with no serious rebuttal - is that before the Big Bang space-time was compacted into a tiny speck.

YouTube - 2 -- History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 2)

Quote:

In my humble opinion we can assume therefore that if the universe appears from nothing it has to be created.

You can assume anything. Some assume the space-time speck is the waste end of a black hole, some assume is was god, some assume it's all a lie, some assume it is a place in which a doughnut shaped universe folds in on itself, or the fart of a giant cosmic ant.

Absolutely anything can be assumed.

So what? What makes your assumption worthy of consideration compared to an assumption that it wasn't created?

Quote:

Logically at this point in time there is no other explanation.

You haven't offered an explanation, you have merely offered an assumption, which is no more likely to be true than any other assumption and is a lot less simple than to simply assume that the dense speck of space-time had no cause.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

So nothing can be assumed by observation? nothing at all? We can not presume by observation and logic? I find that extremely strange, you can make alternative views of what might be but not put any thought into considering their value.My logic comes from known theories, from scientific observations and the lack of knowledge on the laws of physics when this event is viewed.Give me your best alternative for a cause to the BB?

0 Replies

@xris,

I know I've said this before, and I don't want to go on repeating the same thing over and over again, but you don't seem to be grasping the thrust of my point or offering up anything that could be considered a rebuttal.

Yes, you can assume or presume whatever you want - but it's not science just because you claim to have reached a conclusion based on observance or logic.

It's philosophy, yes, but it isn't scientific. It's just a personal opinion.

Quote:

Give me your best alternative for a cause to the BB?

I already have done in what feels like umpteen posts already!

Go back and read them!

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

I know I've said this before, and I don't want to go on repeating the same thing over and over again, but you don't seem to be grasping the thrust of my point or offering up anything that could be considered a rebuttal.

Yes, you can assume or presume whatever you want - but it's not science just because you claim to have reached a conclusion based on observance or logic.

It's philosophy, yes, but it isn't scientific. It's just a personal opinion.

I already have done in what feels like umpteen posts already!

Go back and read them!

Im not writing a thesis friend just trying to stimulate a debate on the possible causes of the BB.You have mentioned a frogs fart and a torus but i dont consider them in the running, whats your best alternative?

0 Replies

@xris,

One relevant point to make here is that natural law and causality go hand-in-hand. The idea of describing an event as per its causes makes use of physical laws (when discussed scienctifically). This is true even in the probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory, where the effect is underdefined but the cause is not. But all physical laws (in physics) are described in terms of bodies and their interactions, and those interactions are described in terms either of other particles (QED, QCD) or descriptions of spacetime itself (GR).

From the accelerated expansion of the universe, we deduce that the further back in time we look, the more compact the universe was. The limiting case of this is a singularity. In the singularity, there is no extended spacetime to warp, nor space over which interaction particles may be exchanged, or constituent particles to exchange them. Everything is one thing at a point. This is why we say that the laws of physics break down at the singularity: all of the things that all physical laws depend on rely on other things absent in the singularity.

Not only does this apply to all physical laws, but all imaginable physical laws like our own (i.e. requiring constituents and separation). Given this, what is the bottom-up justification for assuming that a causal description of the big bang is remotely applicable?

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

So if a cause is out of the question what is ? Should we just ignore the event hoping that in the future we might be able to justify in saying a certain something did cause the BB.We may never know, so for ever do we ignore the question?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

So if a cause is out of the question what is ? Should we just ignore the event hoping that in the future we might be able to justify in saying a certain something did cause the BB.We may never know, so for ever do we ignore the question?

No, I didn't say it was out of the question, but to assume causality is to impose causality, top-down. We live in a causal universe, but also in a universe of constituents and extension, and physical laws describing the former rely on the latter, giving a causal description of nature. A singularity has no constituents or extension. Whether it behaves causally is a question in itself: as an assumption, it is unjustified.

"I don't know" is what separates (good) science from certain other modes of knowing since it leaves opportunities open for investigation. Causality and the big bang is an excellent topic of enquiry, provided you approach the subject sensibly.

I personally have long been of the view that causal chains leading back to the singularity are as infinite as those leading toward whatever lies ahead of us. The big bang, then, is the 'infinite'th event back down that chain. Such a view maintains causality (infinite regress is proper) while accepting the singularity as the description of the universe in the infinite limit. In such a view, it makes no sense to speak of a cause of the big bang, since the big bang is nothing more than an infinite limit: it can never be reached.

Another way of putting this is that if we measure time not by a fixed amount but in terms of causal events, the universe has, on this scale, existed forever and will exist forever. This still allows the universe to be of finite age.

But this is merely one resolution. There are others. In some brane theories, there was a first cause to the universe that lies in another universe. Other theories have universes born from black holes in other universes. So a singularity does not rule out causality, however the exact answer to the question is, and probably ever will be, "I don't know".

0 Replies

Was the BB created

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know