Big Bang Theory Vs. Religious Creationism

[clinkernace]

Consider the basic characteristics of Big Bang theory.. It began with the notion of a cosmic micro-pea, a tiny particle smaller than a proton that contained all the mass-energy in our universe, plus the delicately balanced physical laws that make the universe work.

 

When the flaws in this concept were discovered, the micro-pea quietly morphed into a physical singularity. We all know that no such a thing can be defined. After all, a singularity is a mathematical construction, such as x/0 or the tangent of 90 degrees. That kind of singularity can be defined.

 

But those of use who have taken a few physics classes know that when a singularity appears in the solution to an exam problem, your result is a big fat "F." Do those rules of physics apply somehow to students, but not to perfessers? Nonetheless, for this argument we shall pretend that there actually is such a thing as a physical singularity or some sort of cosmic micro-pea that went poof. Here are some things that can be said about the Big Bang event.

 

• Its precursor cannot be defined in physical/mathematical terms. Its properties are a mystery.
• No one knows where the Big Bang's precursor came from, or how it originated. Its existence is a mystery.
• The Big Bang had no known cause. Unlike events in the real physical world that require the interaction of at least two forces, the micro-pea's explosion occurred all by itself.
• The precursor to the Big Bang, whatever it is, cannot be scientifically investigated because it has already blown up. Whatever we know about it comes from ideas revealed by self-appointed mathematical theorists, translated for the unenlightened masses by pop-sci magazines and TV documentaries. .

Next let us examine the traditional Abrahamic God-concept. An omniscient, omnipotent spirit-entity with no relationship to the principles of physics, possessing all knowledge and infinite power, who had no origin or cause, having existed forever, suddenly decided to create the universe and man. This action, momentous from human perspective, required from God no more than a few acts of divine will, presumably less effort than for a bean-eater to leave a fart.

 

Religious lore attributes weak and absurd purposes to this entity's acts of creation, amounting to the notion that God needs the worship and company of man. Really? The most knowledgeable entity in the universe wants the adoration and company of beings who, by his standards, are simpleminded cretins?

 

Until a better reason comes along, we must assume that God had no motivation for creation. That leaves us with these conclusions about the creation of the universe by an almighty God:

 

• God cannot be defined in physical/mathematical terms, He is a spirit, beyond physics, and given the infinite term of his existence, and the unlimited powers ascribed to him, God is a singularity.
• No one knows where God came from. His existence is a mystery.
• No one knows why God, the precursor to our universe, chose to create it. No outside force could have proposed the project, as there were no such forces.
• God, the precursor to creation, cannot be scientifically investigated because God is a spirit, somehow outside of and removed from the physical universe. We can only know about God from the "revelations" provided by self-appointed prophets and their theologian or enlightened-guru interpreters.

A simple comparison between the Big Bang and creation by an almighty God, including a comparison between the alleged precursors of creation, makes it clear that there is no functional difference between Big Bang theory and traditional Creationism.

 

My opinion is that both theories are total bunk. There is a better and simpler alternative.

[Buffy]

The interesting thing about current cosmological models is that there's really no need to specify what existed at [math]t_0[/math] or even before. The physics from [math]t_0+\epsilon[/math] works just fine, thank you very much.

 

While there are certainly folks who try to stuff God into scientific terms, I simply point out that while it's not actually a *sin*, Jesus did say, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Render unto God that which is God's" (Matthew 22:21). That's a fool's errand.

 

My opinion is that both theories are total bunk. There is a better and simpler alternative.

 

C'mon dude! Dish!

 

Tune your television to any channel it doesn't receive, and about 1 percent of the dancing static you see is accounted for by this ancient remnant of the Big Bang. The next time you complain that there is nothing on, remember that you can always watch the birth of the universe, :phones:

Buffy

[Aethelwulf]

 

• God cannot be defined in physical/mathematical terms, He is a spirit, beyond physics, and given the infinite term of his existence, and the unlimited powers ascribed to him, God is a singularity.
• No one knows where God came from. His existence is a mystery.
• No one knows why God, the precursor to our universe, chose to create it. No outside force could have proposed the project, as there were no such forces.
• God, the precursor to creation, cannot be scientifically investigated because God is a spirit, somehow outside of and removed from the physical universe. We can only know about God from the "revelations" provided by self-appointed prophets and their theologian or enlightened-guru interpreters.

A simple comparison between the Big Bang and creation by an almighty God, including a comparison between the alleged precursors of creation, makes it clear that there is no functional difference between Big Bang theory and traditional Creationism.

 

 

You contradict yourself in your first axiom. You say God cannot be defined in mathematical terms, yet you continue to explain him in the fashion of singularities which are purely mathematical and not physical. Infinities don't exist in nature - at least, none have never been observed.

 

The existence of a superintellect does not need to be a mystery, it depends on what you believe. If you perhaps, think that ''God'' came into existence with the universe, then he was created along with the universe, he did not create the universe himself. God also does not need to be a ''precursor.'' In fact, it would make more sense from a scientific point of view that God did not pre-exist the universe since before the Big Bang, there was no space nor time. If one wants to say God existed before the universe, you need to explain how exactly he existed when nothing else did.

 

I agree, if there is a God there is no way to prove Him or Her. They can only prove themselves if they exist and are even aware of themselves or even care whether we actually acknowledge them or not.

 

I disagree, there are many differences between creation stories and what physics has to say about the possibilities of a God or the nature of the Big Bang itself. There is no real problem at the Big Bang like many people get mixed up about. Just because science cannot say anything about the conditions before Big Bang does not mean there is a breakdown equivalent to not being able to explain how a God came into existence. Science in fact, should not be equated to theological grounds at all, unless you are going to keep the true spirit of science alive and stop trying to mesh theological arguments in where science deplores it.

 

Bottom line, there could be a God. My view is that there probably is a higher form of intelligence, but strangely is not sentient (so it cannot change the laws of the physics at will). This superintelligence, does not care about us. It came into existence alongside the Big Bang and is the laws of physics as we know it.

[clinkernace]

The interesting thing about current cosmological models is that there's really no need to specify what existed at [math]t_0[/math] or even before. The physics from [math]t_0+\epsilon[/math] works just fine, thank you very much.

 

While there are certainly folks who try to stuff God into scientific terms, I simply point out that while it's not actually a *sin*, Jesus did say, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Render unto God that which is God's" (Matthew 22:21). That's a fool's errand.

 

Wow, Buffy! You wasted no time jumping onto that horse with spurs affixed. The problem is, I don't do side-saddle.

 

Since there is no real physics in a math model, of course there is no need to specify physical initial conditions. That's the beauty of modern speculative physics. It does not need to be real. It only needs to convince the nits who supply the grant money. If Big Bang math worked so well, why do so many cosmologists reject it?

 

I'm not the typical crackpot trying to stuff God into science. Years ago I worked at an off-campus research lab that, because of its odd location, attracted a number of walk-in crackpots. My boss learned to send them to me, after which they never returned. They'd been out-crackpotted. Since then I've only gotten better. The ideas I express here are the result of 50-odd (literally) years of doing my best to devise a coherent theory of the beginnings. Nearing the end of this pain-in-the-*** project, I know better than to expect approval, so am looking for corrections.

 

It should be clear that I don't believe in any conventional God-concept. However, common sense and simple logic compels me toward the opinion that I (and therefore you, too) live in an intelligently engineered universe. (Go ahead and calculate the probability for the evolution, by linear random chance, of a single, small 900 base-pair human gene. Then multiply the probability by the approximately 23,000 genes in the human genome, and then tell me why you believe in the Darwinist explanations of evolution.)

 

Matthew is the only NT book that I find credible, and I too quote it often. I try to keep my quotes in context and use correct spellings, e.g. Caesar, as in the salad dressing. J.C.'s parable was about the payment of taxes, and had nothing to do with ideas. Really. Nothing whatsoever, except by some imaginative stretch beyond my ability to fathom.

 

Are you calling me a fool because I pursue different theories? Seems like it. I can envision you in an earlier incarnation, lurking in a dungeon, pincers in hand and rack at the ready, praying to God that Pope Urban sends his old friend Galileo for an interview in your chambers.

 

 

C'mon dude! Dish!

 

What do you mean?

 

Tune your television to any channel it doesn't receive, and about 1 percent of the dancing static you see is accounted for by this ancient remnant of the Big Bang. The next time you complain that there is nothing on, remember that you can always watch the birth of the universe, :phones:

Buffy

 

It is good that you watch the documentary channels, because they are an excellent way to stay on top of current scientific dogma. Personally, I only watch daytime soap operas, women's yak shows, and beer commercials. Luckily I learned about the CMB a decade or so ago when chatting with an astronomer about instrumentation modifications atop Kitt Peak, in the NRAO radio telescope control room.

 

I was too ignorant to interpret the information back then. We kicked some ideas around, including the possibility that we could be looking at background radiation from the birth of the universe, but rejected that idea because of the apparent symmetry of the radiation.

 

We reasoned that the (primeval hydrogen) atoms that became the larger atoms that formed our planet had to originate at the same time as the radiation. Our atoms were flung into space at speeds considerably less than c, whereas the radiation had to disperse at light speed. Therefore we would be unable to observe any of that radiation, inasmuch as it would be zinging off into space, having passed us long ago. After figuring that out, we opened another six-pack.

 

Believe me, it was a depressing surprise when I discovered, having accidentally tuned in the same documentary channel that you found, that cosmologists had officially adopted the very theory that we invented and immediately dismissed. Guess who I think is dead wrong?

[clinkernace]

You contradict yourself in your first axiom. You say God cannot be defined in mathematical terms, yet you continue to explain him in the fashion of singularities which are purely mathematical and not physical. Infinities don't exist in nature - at least, none have never been observed.

 

Aethelwulf,

 

I appreciate your complaint, and invite you to re-examine my words in their full context. I've proposed no axiom. I must distinguish between the God of conventional belief systems, and a creator-concept that is fully integrated with principles of physics and our observations of how things work.

 

The conventional God cannot be defined in mathematical terms. Yet the properties that religions attribute to God, omnipotence, and an infinite term of existence, amount to the definition of a singularity.

 

Cosmologists invented the absurd notion of a physical singularity because they could not mathematically define the micro-pea that was originally hypothesized as the Big Bang's precursor. I propose that the traditional definition of God was invented from a similar desperation, but perhaps more as an attempt to invent the greatest possible God to compete with Greco-Roman gods than from an attempt to compete with the irrelevant Aristotelian physics theories of the day.

 

The existence of a superintellect does not need to be a mystery, it depends on what you believe. If you perhaps, think that ''God'' came into existence with the universe, then he was created along with the universe, he did not create the universe himself. God also does not need to be a ''precursor.'' In fact, it would make more sense from a scientific point of view that God did not pre-exist the universe since before the Big Bang, there was no space nor time. If one wants to say God existed before the universe, you need to explain how exactly he existed when nothing else did.

 

These are worthwhile thoughts. This seems not the right time or place to offer specifics, for lack of a sensible conversational background. While my creator-concept is rather simple, it is also divergent. Your thoughts, as expressed above, do not apply. I think that my full concept-set satisfies your complaints, but putting the entire idea-set together in a suitable context required several chapters. Can't do that here.

 

Put simply, my creator-concept involves the interaction of two absolutely simple, previously isolated spaces, each with different, but complementary and interactive properties. It is way too late at night, and this conversation lacks the appropriate context, so no explanation of the relevant concepts would make sense. Later, I hope to develop the context, if allowed, and if there is any interest.

 

I agree, if there is a God there is no way to prove Him or Her. They can only prove themselves if they exist and are even aware of themselves or even care whether we actually acknowledge them or not.

 

At this point I'd take the "don't care" option.

 

I disagree, there are many differences between creation stories and what physics has to say about the possibilities of a God or the nature of the Big Bang itself. There is no real problem at the Big Bang like many people get mixed up about. Just because science cannot say anything about the conditions before Big Bang does not mean there is a breakdown equivalent to not being able to explain how a God came into existence. Science in fact, should not be equated to theological grounds at all, unless you are going to keep the true spirit of science alive and stop trying to mesh theological arguments in where science deplores it.

 

I was unaware that physics had anything at all to say about a God. The Big Bang is its sorry, and functionally identical equivalent, and is just as flawed as the traditional God-concept, IMO.

 

I am curious as to why anyone with some knowledge of physics would blow off the simple question, "What caused the micro-pea/whatever to go bang?" However, I do not understand the peculiar thought processes of other human beings, and will certainly never find my curiosity satisfied.

 

I am equally curious about the ability of individuals who seem to have functional minds to believe in the traditional God-concept, even though I bought into it for the first 22 years of my life. I attribute my beliefs to childhood programming, and my release from them to a belated onset of consciousness.

 

I am strongly committed to the true spirit of science-- make guesses, express them in mathematical terms or some other coherent form, and then run some experiments to verify or falsify the guesswork.

 

I also believe in a real universe, and I dislike avoiding the obvious, which is that we live in an intelligently engineered universe. The engineer is not the omnipotent, omniscient God of theological lore-- there are too many obvious mistakes. My job is to explore the real nature of the universe's engineers, and perhaps their purposes.

 

Bottom line, there could be a God. My view is that there probably is a higher form of intelligence, but strangely is not sentient (so it cannot change the laws of the physics at will). This superintelligence, does not care about us. It came into existence alongside the Big Bang and is the laws of physics as we know it.

 

My theories are a variation on your theme. (For example, the creators can adjust everything except the Laws of Thermodynamics.) I believe that you will appreciate them. Whether you agree with them fully, partially, or not at all, they will engage you in a conversation that you've not previously considered.

[Aethelwulf]

''Cosmologists invented the absurd notion of a physical singularity because they could not mathematically define the micro-pea that was originally hypothesized as the Big Bang's precursor. I propose that the traditional definition of God was invented from a similar desperation, but perhaps more as an attempt to invent the greatest possible God to compete with Greco-Roman gods than from an attempt to compete with the irrelevant Aristotelian physics theories of the day.''

 

Still, setting God in equal terms as a singularity, then saying mathematics cannot describe him, is slightly contradictory, even though what we can extract from a singularity is zero information.

 

''I was unaware that physics had anything at all to say about a God. ''

 

Oh plenty scientists have speculated it. Today scientists tend to shy away from such questions. That is very common in physics. Variants of the Anthropic Principle concerning the several fine tuning arguments which are pretty much agreed on by most physicists have often given way for the question of a hand behind everything.

 

''I am curious as to why anyone with some knowledge of physics would blow off the simple question, "What caused the micro-pea/whatever to go bang?"

 

They haven't... exactly. The Ekyprotic Theory attempts to explain a possible universe before the Big Bang where everything was ''frozen.'' It could have been in this state for eons - everything came into motion when another universe smashed off our own. Attempts to get evidence for this theory have been looking to the heavens for cosmic bruises. Some have been found, if that is indeed what these ''bruises'' are. I am not too fond of this theory though. Penrose has attempted to describe a before to the universe using the cyclic universe theory.

 

Other scientists have wondered if the universe tunneled into existence (a quantum phenomena). Others have successfully modeled a universe from nothing and achieved removing the singularity thought to exist at the Big Bang - I am a bit more fond of these models. So certainly many scientists have attempted to explain where our universe came from, if it came from somewhere or nowhere!

 

I believe, that if anything did exist before the Big Bang, it existed as a point and only for a very short time due to the uncertainty principle. Perhaps, the universe expanded because of quantum uncertainty. Where did the point of density come from? I have no idea.

 

''My theories are a variation on your theme.''

 

My theory is based very strongly on the Einsteinian/Spinozian school of thought. Einstein once said:

 

''What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."

 

A big misunderstanding today is that people often believe that Einstein did not accept the idea of a superintellect. This is false. The truth is that Einstein did not believe in a religious God. Einstein often said that his God was not religious. Neither is mine.

[Eclogite]

I know better than to expect approval, so am looking for corrections.

There follows a well meaning piece of advice.

 

It doesn't look like you are looking for corrections. It looks as if you are looking for an argument. If you want corrections you might wish to tone down what is coming across as arrogance. On the other hand, if you do want an argument, if you want the satisfaction of reducing opponents to delivering ad hominems, then I think you are ptiching it about right.

 

Based upon past experience the probability is that you will interpret this as a typical passive-aggressive attack, but I have to try.

[clinkernace]

''Cosmologists invented the absurd notion of a physical singularity because they could not mathematically define the micro-pea that was originally hypothesized as the Big Bang's precursor. I propose that the traditional definition of God was invented from a similar desperation, but perhaps more as an attempt to invent the greatest possible God to compete with Greco-Roman gods than from an attempt to compete with the irrelevant Aristotelian physics theories of the day.''

 

Still, setting God in equal terms as a singularity, then saying mathematics cannot describe him, is slightly contradictory, even though what we can extract from a singularity is zero information.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I think that the traditional definition of God as an omnipotent, omniscient entity amounts to a singularity. That God, a "spirit" cannot be mathematically defined.

 

However, the god-concept I've defined is not a spirit, and is intimately connected with the physical universe. Moreover this god is limited by the principles of mathematical logic and is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. My "god" can make mistakes, and one of my favorite secondary theories for the explanation of human existence is that we are part of a last-ditch attempt to rectify a really bad mistake.

 

Whether my particular god-concept is close to the mark or not, I believe that any real god (or anything else that is real) can indeed be mathematically defined, and that his relationship to the laws of physics can also be defined. However, I lack the mathematical proficiency to tackle that job.

 

''I was unaware that physics had anything at all to say about a God. ''

 

Oh plenty scientists have speculated it. Today scientists tend to shy away from such questions. That is very common in physics. Variants of the Anthropic Principle concerning the several fine tuning arguments which are pretty much agreed on by most physicists have often given way for the question of a hand behind everything.

 

Of course you are correct. I've had many arguments and discussions with physicists and other scientists about the god-concept (they have unanimously agreed that my theories are absurd, but I've fixed them since then). I have books by alleged physicists about God. That's why I used the word "physics" rather than "physicists," to distinguish the general agreement system of a large and complex science from the opinions of individuals working within that science.

 

Yes, I'm aware of the fine tuning arguments, and appreciate that a few physicists have drawn the obvious conclusions from the data. However, I believe that Big Bang theory is a horrid paradigm for the onset of a universe, for several simple reasons including the absence of a trigger for the Bang, or any thought as to how all the mass-energy, critical constants, and rules of interaction managed to get tangled up in a micro-pea.

 

''I am curious as to why anyone with some knowledge of physics would blow off the simple question, "What caused the micro-pea/whatever to go bang?"

 

They haven't... exactly. The Ekyprotic Theory attempts to explain a possible universe before the Big Bang where everything was ''frozen.'' It could have been in this state for eons - everything came into motion when another universe smashed off our own. Attempts to get evidence for this theory have been looking to the heavens for cosmic bruises. Some have been found, if that is indeed what these ''bruises'' are. I am not too fond of this theory though. Penrose has attempted to describe a before to the universe using the cyclic universe theory.

 

Aren't such theories simply a way to kick the can down a mountain road and into a canyon where it can never be found again? What then explains the other universe, or universes?

 

Other scientists have wondered if the universe tunneled into existence (a quantum phenomena). Others have successfully modeled a universe from nothing and achieved removing the singularity thought to exist at the Big Bang - I am a bit more fond of these models. So certainly many scientists have attempted to explain where our universe came from, if it came from somewhere or nowhere!

 

I'm aware of some of these, but would appreciate a reference to the modeling-from-nothing work. I distrust modeling work, having done enough of it myself to know that it is limited only by imagination, not by physics. My first question is, how do these models create energy from nothing, given the limitations of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

 

I believe, that if anything did exist before the Big Bang, it existed as a point and only for a very short time due to the uncertainty principle. Perhaps, the universe expanded because of quantum uncertainty. Where did the point of density come from? I have no idea.

 

It is a delight to communicate with someone who has given this subject both serious study and open-minded thought.

 

Have you ever wondered about the inherent internal complexity of the point of infinite density? How could all mass and energy and rules and parameters have gotten tucked into that absurdly tiny space-time point? Or, how might one even think of space-time in the context of an entity that, according to every verifiable thing that we know about gravity, must be wrapped in an impenetrable, inescapable cocoon of space-time?

 

''My theories are a variation on your theme.''

 

My theory is based very strongly on the Einsteinian/Spinozian school of thought. Einstein once said:

 

''What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."

 

A big misunderstanding today is that people often believe that Einstein did not accept the idea of a superintellect. This is false. The truth is that Einstein did not believe in a religious God. Einstein often said that his God was not religious. Neither is mine.

 

Curious. I'm an Einstein fan, but think that Spinoza was badly wrong. Of course, I've not fully studied Spinoza because I am way too impatient to pursue ideas that seem wrong at the outset. I am aware that A.E. believed in God, although I've never found a definition of his specifics.

 

I would answer his "God's choice" question with this: God had no choice about his own creation, nor about the creation of the components of consciousness which religions refer to as "souls." He did choose, for good or ill, to develop and spread the facility of thought and conscious self-awareness. My guess is that the creation of the universe was planned and implemented by a committee that humans currently anthropomorphize into a single "God," and that it was originally intended for other purposes. Human beings are an afterthought.

[clinkernace]

There follows a well meaning piece of advice.

 

It doesn't look like you are looking for corrections. It looks as if you are looking for an argument. If you want corrections you might wish to tone down what is coming across as arrogance. On the other hand, if you do want an argument, if you want the satisfaction of reducing opponents to delivering ad hominems, then I think you are ptiching it about right.

 

Based upon past experience the probability is that you will interpret this as a typical passive-aggressive attack, but I have to try.

 

Eclogite,

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but I find your complaint to be a thoughtful attempt to get me to modify my presentation style, not even close to an attack. I appreciate your comment and understand the basis for your correction. I am somewhat ornery and defensive.

 

Life in the real world and the internet has taught me to brush off people who come across as snarky, as soon as possible, knowing that down the road they cannot be trusted, except to do me as much damage as possible. I will try to do that even nicer than I've tried already. I actually trashed two long posts yesterday, then rewrote them to be kinder. I'd guess that a third rewrite might have been advisable.

 

Feel free to chide me anytime. I really am here to offer ideas, have my mistakes (including a negative presentation style) corrected, and learn from others. Because my ideas are radical in all areas, science as well as religions, I don't expect dogmatists of any stripe to be terribly fond of me and hope to be able to ignore them.

 

Thank you for the feedback. Please do let me know if, in your opinion, I actually do better.

[Buffy]

Since there is no real physics in a math model, of course there is no need to specify physical initial conditions. ... If Big Bang math worked so well, why do so many cosmologists reject it?

 

Quite correct: There is no real physics in the math model. Math is math. But of course there is plenty of math in the physical model.

 

So many reject it? Really? Or are you simply referring to pre-Expansion Big Bang models? If so, the question is more than a little bit silly to ask, if your intent was to make it rhetorically convincing of something. But let me give you the benefit of the doubt and you may wish to explain what you mean. My impression is that you're trying to back up the assertion, "The vast majority of cosmologists reject all known cosmological models positing an initial expansion of the universe from a very small size." But feel free to correct that assumption.

 

It should be clear that I don't believe in any conventional God-concept. However, common sense and simple logic compels me toward the opinion that I (and therefore you, too) live in an intelligently engineered universe. (Go ahead and calculate the probability for the evolution, by linear random chance, of a single, small 900 base-pair human gene. Then multiply the probability by the approximately 23,000 genes in the human genome, and then tell me why you believe in the Darwinist explanations of evolution.)

 

Actually we have oodles of threads here on Hypography discussing the innumeracy of Dembski's "Improbability of Evolution" arguments, so I won't rehash them here, but you may find them edifying.

 

To quote Bill Clinton, there's one reason that Dembski's arguments are silly and why I "believe in the Darwinist explanations of Evolution": Arithmetic.

 

Matthew is the only NT book that I find credible, and I too quote it often. I try to keep my quotes in context and use correct spellings, e.g. Caesar, as in the salad dressing. J.C.'s parable was about the payment of taxes, and had nothing to do with ideas. Really. Nothing whatsoever, except by some imaginative stretch beyond my ability to fathom.

 

("Difficulty with simple analogies..." Check.)

 

Actually Matthew's the biggest demagogue of the prophets. Very Orthodox. ("Probable trouble with irony..." Check.)

 

Are you calling me a fool because I pursue different theories? Seems like it.

 

Not at all! We here at Hypography are far more open to alternative theories than any other science forum on the Internet. Quite a point of pride for us. But we do still insist on rigorous and complete explication of those theories, and can indeed be a bit testy about posts that start "everything that the experts say is true is false and I have uniquely found the true and complete theory of how things are, but it's too complicated to describe to you peons." But we're happy to let you keep trying! :cheer:

 

So anyway, when I say:

C'mon dude! Dish!

 

What do you mean?

 

You're simply being encouraged to actually tell us what your theory is and defend it!

 

That's actually endlessly more interesting than simply trashing all the other theories with vague generalities and dismissive hand waving.

 

Please proceed, Mr. greylorn!

 

Every astronomer will remember when they first heard the results from WMAP. The announcement represents a rite of passage for cosmology from speculation to precision science, :phones:

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

Hi Buffy, greylorn,

 

The interesting thing about current cosmological models is that there's really no need to specify what existed at [math]t_0[/math] or even before. The physics from [math]t_0+\epsilon[/math] works just fine, thank you very much.

I have always thought that the first big tick, when the theoretical BB universe started going from a stable singular state to an expanding state, is conceptually like turning on a switch or pulling a trigger.

 

While [math]t_0+\epsilon[/math] works but [math]t_0[/math] doesn't, there are implications for the gap.

 

So I wonder if there is a critical threshold, that we may be getting closer to experimentally, that we should possibly be accutely aware of. That is of course only a concern if the BB theory is valid (and nobody seems the least bit concerned).

Edited January 24, 2013 by LaurieAG

[Buffy]

Hi Laurie!

 

So I wonder if there is a critical threshold, that we may be getting closer to experimentally, that we should possibly be accutely aware of. That is of course only a concern if the BB theory is valid (and nobody seems the least bit concerned).

 

There may well be: what math is quite facile at dealing with, Quantum Mechanics makes complex. But it the math leads the way, and provides the tools to deal with logical "impossibilities". One of my favorites has always been:

 

[math]\frac{1}{\infty} = 0[/math]

 

How can one of anything be zero? Well of course that's meaningless, so smart math guys came up with:

 

[math]\lim_{x \to \infty}\frac{1}{x} = 0[/math]

 

Which gets at the point that my original reference was implying that as math folk say "any [math]\epsilon[/math] as small as you choose". Launch it up to derivatives and you have the equivalent of mathematical magic.

 

Of course physics says that at some point [math]\epsilon[/math] is quantized, so in [math]t_0+\epsilon[/math], at some point [math]\epsilon = t_P[/math] (Planck Time), and something very interesting could happen at [math]t_0+(t_P-\epsilon)[/math] (where [math]t_P>\epsilon[/math])

 

It's of course good to ask this question, and indeed until we can figure out how to observe something similar (LHC anyone?), it's certainly a bit speculative.

 

But although we CS folk spend endless time on boundary conditions, the vast majority of them are mundane. Sigh.

 

Sometimes we actually hope something remarkable will in the twain happen, but when it does we usually find it's just more work, not a change of pace.

 

 

Or art thou but a dagger of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain? :phones:

Buffy

[clinkernace]

Quite correct: There is no real physics in the math model. Math is math. But of course there is plenty of math in the physical model.

 

The physical model is the physical universe itself. By my theories, there is plenty of math in it, because I opine that the universe is the result of some interesting long-term engineering processes (no omnipotent finger-snaps). Now I do not know your personal beliefs, but guess (happy to be wrong) from the velocity at which you jumped on my humble OPs, that you are atheistic enough to believe in a universe that created intelligence rather than the other way around.

 

From that perspective, how do you explain the gorgeous mathematical forms?

 

So many reject it? Really? Or are you simply referring to pre-Expansion Big Bang models? If so, the question is more than a little bit silly to ask, if your intent was to make it rhetorically convincing of something. But let me give you the benefit of the doubt and you may wish to explain what you mean. My impression is that you're trying to back up the assertion, "The vast majority of cosmologists reject all known cosmological models positing an initial expansion of the universe from a very small size." But feel free to correct that assumption.

 

I promise that I will never give you the benefit of the doubt and advise that you never do the same with me. Personally, every time someone has given me "the benefit..." they were wishing that it was appropriate to give me something more graphic, and flagging their real opinion, that I'm F.O.S.

 

I was not referring to any BB model in particular. That would be pretentious. No one pays me to study BB, esoteric physics, advanced cosmology, or anything else. I have and have always had a productive day job, and given some other life choices, my study time is limited. And the truth is that if I had been hired as even an apprentice cosmologist, I'd have been fired long ago, as from other jobs. In other words, I know jack siht about advanced cosmology, and there is no way that I could explain the difference between pre/post expansion models. I have followed the general history of BB cosmology since its inception, but not from within the field.

 

So where did I get my assertion from? I happened to be watching a TV documentary channel a month or so back dealing with cosmology, probably one of the Wormhole pieces. It was explaining odd and interesting cosmological ideas coming from some California research institute. I'm so stinking ignorant (and disappointed at their thought limitations) that I cannot quote the name of the institute or the featured commentators, but I recall a building exterior with the ugliest exterior facade on the planet. I would not go into that ugly edifice to take a pee. I was surprised (and delighted) at the narrator's comment toward the end of this piece that many cosmologists disagree with Big Bang theory. That is the only source of my statement. Before that, I'd mistakenly figured the BB theory was as entrenched in the cosmological community as is Darwinism in biology.

 

I've given up being rhetorically convincing. I have the rhetorical skills of a feral cat. I simply reiterated the words of some authority figures who I distrust. Not my favorite style, and I will try to avoid it in the future.

[clinkernace]

Actually we have oodles of threads here on Hypography discussing the innumeracy of Dembski's "Improbability of Evolution" arguments, so I won't rehash them here, but you may find them edifying.

You have oodles of threads, period!

 

A few years back I checked out Dembski and concluded that he is simply another ignorant Creationist who had found a niche appealing to ignorant religionists. His arguments were idiotic, so I did not kill the time needed to become an expert on his style of nonsense.

 

That's not much different from how I feel about becoming an expert in Big Bang cosmology, or in the anthropology of garbage.

 

To quote Bill Clinton, there's one reason that Dembski's arguments are silly and why I "believe in the Darwinist explanations of Evolution": Arithmetic.

 

Let me do a quick reality check here. You are quoting a professional politician (therefore an accomplished liar) who expects his mindless fans to believe that he really did not equate "sex" with getting a blow job-- yes? And you, erstwhile moderator of a science forum, are quoting this clown's scientific and logical expertise? This cost you a lot of points, but only with me, I'm sure. Getting this glimpse of the kinds of fools you approve of, I shall take future put-downs of my ideas less seriously.

 

FYI, regarding basic arithmetic, the probability for the assembly of a single, small, 900 base-pair human gene is about 1.4 x 10^-542. Given about 23,000 genes in the human body, with an average base-pair count of 1200 and maximum of 1500, the probability for the assembly of all the genes in your body, by Darwinian random chance, is considerably worse than 10^-1,000,000. That's the real arithmetic.

 

If you insist upon basing your ideas upon Clinton arithmetic (i.e. politically correct arithmetic) you will soon run out of things to teach me. I think that would be a loss for both of us.

[clinkernace]

,,,, We here at Hypography are far more open to alternative theories than any other science forum on the Internet. Quite a point of pride for us.

I agree. This is a wonderful and open forum, and you are a big part of that. The fact that you are willing to deal with me in public, rather than via PM, is a testament to openness.

 

But we do still insist on rigorous and complete explication of those theories, and can indeed be a bit testy about posts that start "everything that the experts say is true is false and I have uniquely found the true and complete theory of how things are, but it's too complicated to describe to you peons." But we're happy to let you keep trying!

Methinks that this assertion is a tad overblown. Moreover, putting your words into my mouth is downright tacky. Kindly do not do that again. It is the kind of disrespectful tactic that political liberals use to great effect to discredit anyone with whom they disagree. You are better than that.

 

I used to do real science (even a few papers) and have worked for and with a number of these guys and gals. And before serious posting here, I studied many of these threads. I have yet to see anything resembling a "rigorous and complete explication." No doubt there are some lurking amid the billions of confused words, but I'll bet that they are as few and far between as are bits of excellence in any field.

 

So, stay cool. The Hypography Forum is good, and it will stay good until you and fellow moderators get an overweening sense of importance and value and ascribe more to what you do than what it is. That kind of H.S. is for common posters, like me, but for you to rise above. And thank you for allowing me to keep trying.

 

IMO, most of the posters on this forum section are about where I was when I got my first insights into the conflict between theology and physics. They maybe smoked some weed or ate some mushrooms and suddenly got a cool idea. This forum gives them the opportunity to share their idea, in some limited way, immediately. So they do. The result is that most of these threads represent isolated snippets of some guy's momentary insight, poorly developed, and isolated from the broader picture.

 

But when I found my insights, there was no way to broadcast them to the entire world as if they were the pinnacle of absolute truth. Good thing. Forced me to develop them over time and make corrections.

 

I suppose that to someone whose beliefs are driven by agreement, and who lives on snippets of data, my OPs and comments are indistinguishable from the others. That happens. Here's the background for me being here.

 

I've been working on integrating physics and theology for about 52 years. When young, I was at exactly the same place as many of the people posting here-- the only fan of my own, off-the-wall notions. I had the good fortune to work with serious scientists for about 25 years after graduation, in fields like aviation, astronomy, physics, neurology, and biochemistry. In the process I got a chance to kick my ideas around various taverns in the company of men who could forget more in a week than I will learn in my lifetime. As I learned from them, my ideas developed, but although I wrote one book that opened them for evaluation, (fictional, a best seller in Brazil and Holland, and quoted by Doug Hofstadter) they had a flaw that I sensed but could not even identify.

 

That changed when I saw my mistake about a decade ago, whereupon I went back to work, finishing the project with a self-published book last summer. I chose self-publication because I wanted the freedom to write a book that was politically incorrect, and did not want a big corporation primarily interested in making money to have more control over my output than I did. The book is not P.C. but neither is it stupidly written. I hired a $60/hour editor to filter the process. Having committed my life to the opinion that an integration (forget reconciliation--- that cannot happen) of theology and physics was important, why not put my money where my mouth was?

 

No one is convinced that my ideas are correct, myself included. A few readers have found them interesting, and even valuable. These are very intelligent readers, not the kinds of people who take Dembsky and his ilk seriously. However, they do take Michael Behe and his analyses of evolution in the context of microbiology very seriously, as do I and the handful of others who are genuinely interested in core principles. My ideas are only accessible to intelligent people, and are not anti-religious-- my first mentor and an early proponent of my ideas was a well-educated Catholic priest.

 

Do I think that my ideas are right? That would be stupid. Given that I've been working on them in what amounts to an intellectual vacuum for a half-century, my getting it right is highly improbable. But I do believe that I have found an innovative way of looking at the beginnings, bypassing both the omnipotent God and equally omniscient cosmic "singularity."

 

My ideas explain things that conventional theories do not. They actually predicted dark energy, but I was too stupid to see that, and would not have published had I done so because back then I'd given up. They predict reality and human consciousness.

 

Their most interesting feature is that their core concepts are genuinely simple. Not simplistic. No all-knowing God. No cosmic micropea containing all the matter, energy, and rules needed to make the universe work. Just two absolutely simple "spaces," each with a single property. Both still exist and can be empirically verified.

 

Unfortunately, as I discovered in the course of a half-century, it is extremely difficult to express, in a manner that will be understood and at least considered, ideas that are innovative enough to violate every one of the listener's or reader's fundamental beliefs. That's why I put them into a book. The book gives me the space to at least lay down the groundwork, like preparing the field before planting seeds.

 

A forum like this does not have the space for such an adventure. I'm hoping that it does have the space to introduce a few secondary concepts from my book in isolation, and give me a chance to see how people regard them. I'm feeling my way around this space, getting a sense of who's here. (So far, many very bright people, mostly interested in promoting their own ideas--- pretty much like me except more proficient at math.)

 

You're simply being encouraged to actually tell us what your theory is and defend it!

Thank you. I will try to find a way to do that. My approach is to present secondary concepts from my book and see if they fly. With perhaps a dozen of these established with even tentative credibility, I will proceed to the more interesting ideas that follow therefrom.

 

I could express my entire theory in 200 words or less, but it would be like teaching a freshman physics student the Hamiltonian Transformation. Without the background, without the grunt work of solving physics problems the hard way, the Hamiltonian would make no sense. Besides, anyone who is either piqued or intrigued by my comments can always buy the book, earning me a nice profit of $2.37 each for a decade of work. But if there really are lots of Hypography threads and posts that take Dembski seriously, I don't figure on getting rich in my lifetime.

 

That's actually endlessly more interesting than simply trashing all the other theories with vague generalities and dismissive hand waving.

I sure hope so.

 

However, one of the problems that I've noted in the course of trying to describe my ideas in the past, is that as soon as I get a few ideas kind of halfway expressed, I am countered by opposing hand-waving ideas. I might have better luck getting Bill O'Reilly to stop bloviating and listen up-- fat chance of that. Scientists have their beliefs, and religionists just have a different set. Scientists treat unproven theories such as the Big Bang and Darwininian evolution as if the theories themselves were true, where the truth lies only is\n the mysterious discoveries that the theories incompetently explain. Religionists cite their dogmas and their certainty that revelation is indeed Divine, while ignoring the mysterious human mind that their beliefs were invented to explain.

 

When all the opponents to my simple, clear, logical, verifiable (and possibly wrong) ideas do nothing except wave their hands, as if shielding their little minds from alternative ideas, citing one dogma or another in anticipation of contrary ideas that they have yet to hear, what am I to do?

 

Shall I pretend to accept their hand-waving beliefs? Why? Doing so would make me intellectually untrustworthy. Should I try to demonstrate the goofiness of their beliefs? It would do no good--- arguing with a Big Bang theorist or Darwinist is functionally the same waste of time as arguing with a Jehovah's Witness, except that the Witnesses are more polite. Intellectuals tend to be snide and dismissive, then accuse me of the same faults. I might as well get on with it and be snide and dismissive of dumb ideas up front.

 

 

Please proceed, Mr. greylorn!

I'm trying, but you keep interrupting.

[Buffy]

A few years back I checked out Dembski and concluded that he is simply another ignorant Creationist who had found a niche appealing to ignorant religionists. His arguments were idiotic, so I did not kill the time needed to become an expert on his style of nonsense.

 

I agree, his arguments are totally idiotic!

 

That's why it's kind of surprising that you repeat them below! :o

 

Let me do a quick reality check here. You are quoting a professional politician (therefore an accomplished liar) who expects his mindless fans to believe that he really did not equate "sex" with getting a blow job-- yes? And you, erstwhile moderator of a science forum, are quoting this clown's scientific and logical expertise? This cost you a lot of points, but only with me, I'm sure. Getting this glimpse of the kinds of fools you approve of, I shall take future put-downs of my ideas less seriously.

 

Sorry, pop-culture reference that you would not be expected to get unless you kept track of the US Presidential contest last year.

 

Bill's really a sharp guy. Even many Republican's agree with that. It was actually fashionable in the late 80's and 90's among the youth culture in the US to consider a blow job as "not sex" and humorously enough, it came out of *conservative* environments, where one could engage in oral sex and maintain one's "virginity." Very odd, but that's what conservatives do. In any case, having to reach for Mr. Bill's proclivity for extra-curricular activities to find fault with his intellect or abilities as a political leader was and is pretty desperate. But I digress....

 

But anyway, just an oblique reference to the innumeracy of Dembski's computations. Not a problem if you didn't get it.

 

FYI, regarding basic arithmetic, the probability for the assembly of a single, small, 900 base-pair human gene is about 1.4 x 10^-542. Given about 23,000 genes in the human body, with an average base-pair count of 1200 and maximum of 1500, the probability for the assembly of all the genes in your body, by Darwinian random chance, is considerably worse than 10^-1,000,000. That's the real arithmetic.If you insist upon basing your ideas upon Clinton arithmetic (i.e. politically correct arithmetic) you will soon run out of things to teach me. I think that would be a loss for both of us.

 

Oh there's little of *Bill's* arithmetic involved here, so please disabuse yourself of the notion that there's nothing but derision for Dembski's math--and the essentially similar math you provide here--that is involved here.

 

Simply put, Dembski's misuse of probability involves the fact that the math exemplified by your computation assumes that all the varibles are independent, when in fact they are highly correlated.

 

I spend a lot of time fiddling with software, and one of my areas of interest is in artificial intelligence and I've spent quite a bit of time with neural networks and other similar systems which "learn". When you do this sort of thing it becomes quickly apparent that the combination of random numbers in systems with feedback loops to incredible things with an amazingly few number of iterations.

 

Simplistic multiplication and division is of course easier to understand than the bizarre and counter-intuitive conclusions of Bayesian Probabilities, but honest, it works! :cheer:

 

Bayesian analysis along with the computing power we have these days has produced a flood of research in all levels of evolutionary research from microbiology to species phylogeny. It's quite fascinating! "bayesian analysis evolution"

 

I'm also familiar with Michael Behe's somewhat more macro anti-evolutionary arguments. Unfortunately his level of argumentation is like jello being nailed to the wall, only supported by his quite impressive rhetorical ability to switch topics as frequently as possible to avoid much scrutiny.

 

I do understand your impatience, especially when there are so many blowhards out there like the idiot with the nonsensical conclusion that "all cosmologists disagree with Big Bang theory," but there's something to be gained by looking more closely when dealing with notions that are supported by the few non-charlatans that are out there in the interwebs.

 

Give it a try though!

 

I do make a distinction between those who are trying to prove Young Earth Creation and those who are more wisely trying to find a "cause" for apparent complexity which is much closer to what you are pursuing. You'd be incorrect to assume though that it's not possible to have belief in spiritual affairs while still seeing no reason for an interventionist/meddling deity, as many scientifically inclined folk like me believe. I've always been quite happy with a theological perspective where the concept of God is actually limited to the "woman who pressed the Start Button."

 

It's something to consider, and may provide an interesting point of discussion!

 

 

The proof of evolution lies in those adaptations that arise from improbable foundations, :phones:

Buffy

[clinkernace]

,

A few years back I checked out Dembski and concluded that he is simply another ignorant Creationist who had found a niche appealing to ignorant religionists. His arguments were idiotic' date=' so I did not kill the time needed to become an expert on his style of nonsense. [/quote']

 

I agree, his arguments are totally idiotic!

 

That's why it's kind of surprising that you repeat them below! :o

Buffy,

I included only one anti-Darwinist argument below. Perhaps it is one that Dembski also used--- since it seems an obvious and purely mathematical objection to Darwinism, he'd have been really ignorant not to use it. But I assure you that I found the argument on my own, from evaluating genetic principles in the context of simple probability theory.

 

I particularly object to your use of the plural them, as in, "...you repeat them below." I proposed one argument only. You are implying that I've adopted other arguments from this fool.

 

Why are you going so far out of your way, inventing subtle but false information, trying to make me look stupid? Is it a female-liberal thing? Are you simply so desperate to be right that you will make someone else wrong in hopes of looking better by comparison? You are plenty bright on your own and do not need to do that.

 

 

Sorry, pop-culture reference that you would not be expected to get unless you kept track of the US Presidential contest last year.

 

Bill's really a sharp guy. Even many Republican's agree with that. It was actually fashionable in the late 80's and 90's among the youth culture in the US to consider a blow job as "not sex" and humorously enough, it came out of *conservative* environments, where one could engage in oral sex and maintain one's "virginity." Very odd, but that's what conservatives do. In any case, having to reach for Mr. Bill's proclivity for extra-curricular activities to find fault with his intellect or abilities as a political leader was and is pretty desperate. But I digress....

Digress away. We can go someplace else and discuss politics if you wish. Here it should be enough to mention that because Clinton is an astute politician, that only makes him a smarmy, untrustworthy, and duplicitous man with considerable expertise in conning stupid voters and lying convincingly enough to keep them conned, which, given their inherent mindlessness, is not all that difficult.

 

You quoted Clinton in the context of an authority on the mathematical foundations of Darwinism. All that his quote says is that he is a wise enough politician to support the authority figures. Sharp, no-- clever and cunning, certainly.

 

I've actually kept track of the last 9 presidential contests, in depressing detail. What I completely failed to pay any attention to whatsoever is the sociological aspects of blow jobs. Nice to have an authority to straighten me out on that.

 

 

But anyway, just an oblique reference to the innumeracy of Dembski's computations. Not a problem if you didn't get it.

My not getting something you wrote is always a problem. Is "innumerancy" the word you meant to use? And I did not get it. In the interest of coherent and honest conversation, I invite you to clarify.

 

I must study Bayesian Probabilities before completing this reply. Thanks for the introduction to an alternative notion that I did not come across on my own.