Big Bang Theory Vs. Religious Creationism

[clinkernace]

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 on 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"

 

Many thanks for pointing me to Bayesian math. It has been a 48 years since I took a course in basic probability theory, and it did not mention Bayes. During that course, one of the things that troubled me was the insistence that many calculations were to be performed in an informational vacuum. This ran counter to my youthful experiences. Bayes confirmed my inherent belief, based upon experience-- when you're hot, you're hot. When you're not, you"re not. I'd not know that anyone had done the math on this. Thank you!

 

I've experienced Bayesian probability on many occasions. The first was on a business trip to Las Vegas, where odds rule, I had little money to play with so when I toured a casino it was mostly to observe, and I chose Circus Circus because there was plenty to observe, for free. On a rampway, passing a row of dime slots five feet lower, I suddenly got a "feeling" of attraction to a particular machine. I went down there, put a dime into it and received $1.30 for my efforts. The same feeling told me that there was no more money in that machine, so I returned to the rampway and went on my way. However, when passing that machine a second time I noticed that another guy was now working it. I surmised that he had seen me collect my money and run, and figured that I'd passed up a hot machine. I "knew" that I'd not, but naturally watched for confirmation. He worked that machine for ten minutes plus, getting a dime or two now and then, but losing badly altogether.

 

This exemplifies the principle I found on one WikiP site..."The usual considerations in the design of experiments are extended in the case of Bayesian design of experiments to include the influence of prior beliefs."

 

My most mathematically rigorous Bayesian experience occurred on a subsequent Vegas trip, where I had a little more money. Touring a small Fremont Road casino I found a roulette table at which a pair of women were winning a preponderance of red/black dollar bets. I surmised that one was psychic and decided to play along, in a different style. Every turn I placed one dollar on the number 25 and another dollar on red or black, matching their choice. Because the odds against hitting a number were high, I lost my bets on 25. But because their color choices were about 95% dead on, I broke even on every spin but one--- until after about a dozen turns of the wheel, my number came up and I won something like $36 plus the dollar on color.

 

This seems to me to be a perfect example of Bayesian probability at work. Of course, within a round after my win the women realized that I'd caught on to them and left the table before anyone else did. I gave them the courtesy of not following, despite my curiosity.

 

I cannot understand why you would label Bayes' math as counter-intuitive. It address a complaint that I intuitively felt, but did not know enough to express, during my brief study of classic probability theory. Moreover, it fits my real life experiences perfectly.

 

The key concept behind Bayesian math is the notion mentioned earlier, "The usual considerations in the design of experiments are extended in the case of Bayesian design of experiments to include the influence of prior beliefs." What beliefs do genes have?

 

Now, let's deal with your comment, "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," in the context of Bayesian math.

 

Before we can do that you must describe the context, because I have been unable to figure out exactly how Bayesian theory applies to genetic changes. Nowhere in my studies of currently popular versions of Darwinism, nor in my reading of C. Darwin himself, or in today's search for the applicability of Bayes' theories to neo-Darwinism did I find any clue as to the nature of such a correlation.

 

You are waving your hands over a potential refutation to my statements, but withholding the actual concepts involved. Where are the theories to which you refer? I cannot have a conversation about mystery concepts.

 

Perhaps it will help to make this argument personal. You should be referring to my math, not Dembski's, since I've not perused his math and you claim that mine is the same. So let's get real and upfront. Moreover, I appreciate your software expertise since I was writing exotic code before you were born, As an engineer I learned the value of even simple feedback loops (there are two very large and very expensive telescopes that cannot function without a $3 1960's ceramic phonograph cartridge installed between the feedback ends of its expensive motor servo system). So... tell me where the genetic feedback loop is.

 

Darwinist theory requires a random mutation to a DNA molecule, specifically a germ molecule within an organism's reproductive system. A gene changes, and if that change is propagated, the resultant critter is slightly different-- perhaps a protein is modified, or deleted, which is all that a single-point mutation can do.

 

Then the critter faces the real world, and if its new protein gives it some kind of survival edge, it stands a 50% chance of propagating the gene and its edge to the next generation, etc. By this method, the feedback loop between genetic mutations is roundabout and severely delayed, as consequential as the treaty that ended the War of 1812 was to the Battle of New Orleans. Does a mutation somehow change the probability of a related mutation appearing several generations down that slightly modified genetic line? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

If you are going to make anything better than a hand-waving argument for the notion that Bayesian math even applies to Darwinian evolution, now is the time to do it. And instead of quoting some Darwinist cluck and obfuscating even further, how about coughing up your own argument? That way, I'll be discussing this with you rather than some long-dead or otherwise inaccessible authority figure.

 

 

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.

Does "familiar with" mean that you've heard of someone's synopsis of Behe's books, seen the atrocious PBS screening of his confrontations in court, or does it mean that you've actually read his books? If the latter, we could have an honest discussion based upon a common ground of knowledge.

 

If you actually read Behe you would see that his arguments are wrapped around micro-evolution, down at the cellular level where the real work is done. Macro-evolution is the dogma you learned in high school. Micro-evolution gets down to cellular and DNA levels. Behe's field of study is microbiology, and that's the level of understanding he addresses.

 

I can appreciate it that you know a lot about Dembsky because his stuff is a trivial study--- consider his audience. I believe that you are smart enough to read and understand Behe, provided that you do not speed-read. Let me know, later, if that helps.

 

 

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.

Thank you. However, I'm out of the pursuit stage for the moment. I have devised a physics-based theory that deals with cause at the most fundamental level possible, more deeply than Big Bang theory or religious creationism have ever considered. Now I'm trying to pitch the theory.

 

IOW-- I've trapped the beaver and eaten the meat. Now I'm trying to sell the hide.

 

The trick is to find an open mind that is also intelligent enough, and curious enough to examine such ideas and evaluate their validity. I knew it would be a hard sell, but the set-in-stone dogmatic ignorance of overtly intelligent people has confounded me.

.

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."

I shall assume that this sexist quip defines your limited notion of "spiritual" until informed otherwise. May that be sooner rather than later. Personally, I do not use the bogus term "spiritual" except when referring to the opinions of religionists and confused persons, none of whom know how to translate their personal experiences that have convinced them that there is more to reality than that described by science, into terms that science might be willing to study. That's my job. And I hate it.

 

 

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

Buffy

With all due respect, that statement is dreadful nonsense. Evolution is proven. It is as proven as the reality that humans fart and gravity sucks. Why are you treating me like a dimwitted six-day creationist? The reality of evolution is an issue only for simpleminded dolts, none of whom will be reading this material.

 

The only interesting question is how evolution works. Lamarck had an explanation for it that predated Darwin. Darwin's explanation has been adjusted and corrected several times in a desperate attempt to deal with reality, but bottom-line, it is still Darwinism. Anyone who objectively compares facts and theories is certain to conclude that Darwinism does not work. However, few actually take the time to examine the subject. Most simply parrot the opinions of authority figures without the benefit of a personal analysis.

 

Having been deceived consistently by the entire lot of authority figures, both religious and scientific, I distrust them all, specifically and categorically. I hope to make my own writings sufficiently ornery that I can never be regarded as an authority.

 

I will be greatly disappointed to learn that the mind of my most favorite moderator ever is in the grip of illogical dogmas promulgated by authorities, but I fear that this may be the case. Alas...

[JMJones0424]

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?

 

If it pleases you, I'd like to set aside the off-topic jabs and focus on specifically where I perceive that you have gone wrong in your understanding of modern cosmology. Let's set aside all pre-conceived notions and revisit your conclusion, which is, as I understand it, that what we observe and has been labeled as the CMBR cannot possibly be a remnant of the "big bang". If I am not mistaken, you claim that any remnant of that event traveling at the speed of light would have passed us by already. I must admit that I had previously thought it remarkable that after some 14 billion years, we would be in a unique position to still be able to receive the electromagnetic evidence of that event. However, after more than just a few six-packs, and more importantly, after trying to resolve my misunderstanding, I have come to realize that I perceive as your conclusion is uninformed. I do not think it is accurate to say that modern cosmology states that the big bang was an event that occurred in one point. Instead, it could be said that the observable universe originated from one point of the big bang. Similarly, I don't think that your conclusion incorporates inflation (though I readily admit that inflation, on its face, seems to be an invention to make the data fit the big bang model).

 

Ultimately, whether or not I agree with the big bang model, I can clearly see the underlying difference between the big bang model and creationism - the big bang model, whether or not it is correct, posits that the universe exists due to physical laws that dictates the universe's existence. Creationism, instead of admitting ignorance or incomplete knowledge, claims that since we don't absolutely know the past, we must posit the existence of a higher level of unknown, which is otherwise labeled as the creator. The easiest argument against creationism is that, if the existence of the universe necessitates a creator, why doesn't the existence of a creator of the universe necessitate a creator of creators? For how long are you willing to accept recursion?

[clinkernace]

If it pleases you, I'd like to set aside the off-topic jabs and focus on specifically where I perceive that you have gone wrong in your understanding of modern cosmology. Let's set aside all pre-conceived notions and revisit your conclusion, which is, as I understand it, that what we observe and has been labeled as the CMBR cannot possibly be a remnant of the "big bang". If I am not mistaken, you claim that any remnant of that event traveling at the speed of light would have passed us by already. I must admit that I had previously thought it remarkable that after some 14 billion years, we would be in a unique position to still be able to receive the electromagnetic evidence of that event. However, after more than just a few six-packs, and more importantly, after trying to resolve my misunderstanding, I have come to realize that I perceive as your conclusion is uninformed. I do not think it is accurate to say that modern cosmology states that the big bang was an event that occurred in one point. Instead, it could be said that the observable universe originated from one point of the big bang. Similarly, I don't think that your conclusion incorporates inflation (though I readily admit that inflation, on its face, seems to be an invention to make the data fit the big bang model).

 

JMJones,

My off-topic jabs are purely defensive maneuvers that are used to deal with snide, thinly veiled insults from those who pretend to know more than they actually do. You strike me as the exact opposite kind of person, and I look forward to further conversations. Hey, If I ever say something that pisses you off, say so, and we will deal with it, coming out the better for the conversation.

 

It seems to me that we have little to argue with here. You've pursued the same questions as I. How is it that we can allegedly see light emitted from the Big Bang? Neither of us know. I don't think that we can, and have devised an alternative theory that explains what we actually do see, My theory may suck, but it does not violate the laws of physics and thus it cannot be worse than the current nonsense.

 

I've only put in 15 years in astronomy, and my last visit to an observatory was as a knowledgeable tourist. My current cosmological info comes from pop sci magazines and tv documentaries (which pretty much suck, but do convey some real information when they are not pushing the latest theoretical doctrines). I have no information that supports your claim about the number of points at which a big bang occurred, unless you are referring to multiverse theory, which seems to fall into your inflation theory category. IMO multiverse theory is just some obfuscating nonsense designed to deflect attention from the failures of unvarnished BB theory.

 

No, my ideas do not include inflation. I think less highly of that bogus nonsense than you do, and will forgive you for being overly generous.

 

All things considered, from these comments it looks as though we should be working together rather than looking for an argument.

 

Ultimately, whether or not I agree with the big bang model, I can clearly see the underlying difference between the big bang model and creationism - the big bang model, whether or not it is correct, posits that the universe exists due to physical laws that dictates the universe's existence. Creationism, instead of admitting ignorance or incomplete knowledge, claims that since we don't absolutely know the past, we must posit the existence of a higher level of unknown, which is otherwise labeled as the creator. The easiest argument against creationism is that, if the existence of the universe necessitates a creator, why doesn't the existence of a creator of the universe necessitate a creator of creators? For how long are you willing to accept recursion?

 

No arguments about your creationism dissents.

 

All of my OPs and comments are based upon a comprehensive theory that I explained in an effing book that no one wants to read, forcing me to resort to an attempt to express a complex theory piecemeal in a largely hostile and mostly irrelevant public forum. It's like having to go poo in a barroom stall without a door, late at night when the louts are at their loudest.

 

My ideas are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from conventional creationism. I do not accept beliefs in an omnipotent or omniscient God, and do not regard infinity as a real number.

 

My theories propose a single event that created the creators. (The plural is deliberate.) These entities are the consequence of a perfectly natural, physical, and probably accidental but inevitable event. They are not spirits. They are not responsible for the creation of the human "soul," and do not give a damn about you or I--- the real creation agenda has to be more interesting.

 

While recursion is an occasionally useful computational technique, it has no place in an honest metaphysical scheme. I'd not accept recursive thinking (e.g. multiverse theory) any more than I imagine that you would.

[Buffy]

My most mathematically rigorous Bayesian experience occurred on a subsequent Vegas trip, where I had a little more money. Touring a small Fremont Road casino I found a roulette table at which a pair of women were winning a preponderance of red/black dollar bets. I surmised that one was psychic and decided to play along, in a different style. Every turn I placed one dollar on the number 25 and another dollar on red or black, matching their choice. Because the odds against hitting a number were high, I lost my bets on 25. But because their color choices were about 95% dead on, I broke even on every spin but one--- until after about a dozen turns of the wheel, my number came up and I won something like $36 plus the dollar on color.

 

This seems to me to be a perfect example of Bayesian probability at work. Of course, within a round after my win the women realized that I'd caught on to them and left the table before anyone else did. I gave them the courtesy of not following, despite my curiosity.

 

Um, no.

 

It has to do with combinatorial probabilities of multiple events which are not "independent" in the probabilistic sense. Absent something being actually wrong with the wheel, this is actually a perfect example of a NON-Bayesian probability.

 

However your explanation here indicates both how much you misunderstand probability and why you're so completely swayed by Dembski's and Behe's arguments.

 

Now, let's deal with your comment, "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," in the context of Bayesian math.

 

Before we can do that you must describe the context, because I have been unable to figure out exactly how Bayesian theory applies to genetic changes. Nowhere in my studies of currently popular versions of Darwinism, nor in my reading of C. Darwin himself, or in today's search for the applicability of Bayes' theories to neo-Darwinism did I find any clue as to the nature of such a correlation.

 

Um, it's called "natural selection": it influences the outcomes of various rolls of the dice. Moreover when you study genetics, you find that the DNA base pairs are not really interesting it is full gene sequences--which is why its called "genetics." They're building blocks, and once you get to complex multi-celled organisms they function as gigantic subroutines that can be swapped in and out of "junk" status, allowing large changes in morphology simply due to their activation. That's how you end up getting non-independent probabilities involved in the progression of the evolutionary process.

 

Of course Dembski's math is meaningless computation unless you assume that all the probabilities are independent, which you can't. Bayes works it's magic in dealing with the lack of independence between combined events, and ends up showing that the probabilities are nowhere near as large as in a fully independent case.

 

No problem, it's so obvious that many people just don't notice. Or want to not notice.

 

Thus:

Darwinist theory requires a random mutation to a DNA molecule, specifically a germ molecule within an organism's reproductive system. A gene changes, and if that change is propagated, the resultant critter is slightly different-- perhaps a protein is modified, or deleted, which is all that a single-point mutation can do.

Actually no, and that's what Eldredge and Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium talks about: Because genes are so complex and can be turned on and off with a single mutation, you can have very large changes in morphology in very short amounts of time. That's precisely where Dembski--and apparently you, since you're coming up with the same numbers even if your math is different--goes so wrong, because there's an assumption that if gene sequence A turns into gene sequence B and 5000 base pairs change between the two, its required to have 5000 individual RANDOM events all happen independently, when if you just study the biology, it really only requires one.

 

That's how the math becomes so radically different.

 

Doesn't actually require knowledge of Bayes to figure this out, but that turns out to be the theoretical foundation for why genetic changes over time show the results they actually experimentally do.

 

If you actually read Behe you would see that his arguments are wrapped around micro-evolution, down at the cellular level where the real work is done. Macro-evolution is the dogma you learned in high school. Micro-evolution gets down to cellular and DNA levels. Behe's field of study is microbiology, and that's the level of understanding he addresses.

 

I know. A past denizen of this site--Biochemist--and I spent hours in back and forth on his variation of the "micro-evolution" argument. Fortunately for him, his particular version of it depended on front-loading of the mechanisms for the control of evolution by an intelligent designer--that is, the "design" part is actually built into chemistry, not biology--to a much greater extent than Behe does, thus recognizing at least some of the evidence for what I just described. Behe completely ignores what I just described, and basically puts a more "biology-like cover" on Dembski's original bad math.

 

I will be greatly disappointed to learn that the mind of my most favorite moderator ever is in the grip of illogical dogmas promulgated by authorities, but I fear that this may be the case. Alas...

 

Awww... No, I grew up in a family that favored "Question Authority" bumper stickers (which means, yah, I'm probably a little older than you think I am). I don't care where the theories come from, but they have to work. I cheer on scientific underdogs, but that's not the same as credulous promotion of charlatans who claim superior scientific knowledge without evidence.

 

In any case, thank you for engaging, sir! :cheer:

 

I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine, :phones:

Buffy

[CraigD]

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. .

These all appear to me to be unsupported and wrong.

 

There are theories about what came before, and what caused the big bang. For example, Edward Tryon’s 1973 proposal that the big bang was preceded by a long period in which the universe was empty of real matter-energy, and was cause by a large scale vacuum energy fluctuation, an event that could be calculated via quantum mechanics to have a very low, but non-zero, probability of occurring, so, over a sufficiently long time, have a high probability of occurring – or, as Tryon more succinctly put it, "the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time."

 

Likewise, according to quantum mechanics, events in the real physical world may, usually with very low probabilities, occur without interactions corresponding to classical forces. Or, to quote from Futurama “But, as Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason!” – not a serious scientific reference, but as with much of the writing for that cartoon, essentially correct, both as a scientific assertion and a comment on Chopra’s physics bona fides.

 

The precursor to the big bang Tryon describes – a quantum “false vacuum” can and is scientifically investigated, and large numbers of small-scale quantum fluctuations are indirectly observed, as virtual particles, a cornerstone of quantum mechanical explanations.

 

Finally, physicists such as those who originated and contributed to the Big Bang theory do not appoint themselves. Their legitimacy comes from the approval of the teachers who approve the granting of their academic degrees, and their peers, who review and approve their post-graduation publications. Though I’ve not seen a precise legal or other definition “self-appointed”, I’ve seen it used mostly in a derogatory way to refer to people who claim expertise they don’t have (eg: “self-appointed expert”), or an affectionate way to refer to people who assume leadership roles of their own volition (eg: “self-appointed benevolent dictator for life”).

 

Physicists are people, and as people are wont to do, sometimes try to win arguments by convincing others they are correct by virtue of their reputation or other non-scientific attributes. However, science is, I and nearly all everything I’ve read on the subject concludes, fundamentally different than religious thought that presume that many things can be known only by accepting supernatural revelation. Science can, in bad circumstances, be dogmatic, but is not by its own doctrine required to be, as some religions are.

[clinkernace]

These all appear to me to be unsupported and wrong.

 

There are theories about what came before, and what caused the big bang. For example, Edward Tryon’s 1973 proposal that the big bang was preceded by a long period in which the universe was empty of real matter-energy, and was cause by a large scale vacuum energy fluctuation, an event that could be calculated via quantum mechanics to have a very low, but non-zero, probability of occurring, so, over a sufficiently long time, have a high probability of occurring – or, as Tryon more succinctly put it, "the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time."

 

Likewise, according to quantum mechanics, events in the real physical world may, usually with very low probabilities, occur without interactions corresponding to classical forces. Or, to quote from Futurama “But, as Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason!” – not a serious scientific reference, but as with much of the writing for that cartoon, essentially correct, both as a scientific assertion and a comment on Chopra’s physics bona fides.

 

The precursor to the big bang Tryon describes – a quantum “false vacuum” can and is scientifically investigated, and large numbers of small-scale quantum fluctuations are indirectly observed, as virtual particles, a cornerstone of quantum mechanical explanations.

Craig,

 

I propose instead it is you who are mistaken. Let us get out the mental meat axes and have at this with the intention of resolving it.

 

I stated: "Its precursor cannot be defined in physical/mathematical terms. Its properties are a mystery."

 

I keep reading and hearing that the BB's precursor was a physical singularity, which is to say, a mathematical cop-out. Singularities are mathematical forms. There are no such things as "physical" singularities. A physics student who produces an equation that goes to infinity as the solution to a real physics problem will get an "F."

 

I notice that you did not address this one at all, yet felt free to call me wrong on "all" counts. Not honest.

 

Regarding my next two bullet points:

 

1.) No one knows where the Big Bang's precursor came from, or how it originated. Its existence is a mystery.

 

2.) 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

 

I carefully used the words, "knows," and "known." You denigrated my statements by referring to theory, not to knowledge. This ploy is an intellectual's "bait and switch" trick, and is dishonest. A thousand theories do not create knowledge, except of theories. Tryon's theory itself depends upon another theory, that quantum energy fluctuations actually exist, and that they might give rise to a virtual particle containing all the mass-energy in the universe. You state, "...could be calculated to have ... very low probability of occurring."

 

"Could be calculated," implies that no calculations were actually made. Is that because the computers were all busy, or because those capable of making the calculations had better things to do with their time than produce an absurdly low probability value in support of a theory which they intuitively recognized had a very high probability of being utter bunk?

 

Tryon's virtual energy field means, an energy field that is useful for theoretical calculations, but not real.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no virtual particle has ever been detected. They are mathematical constructs used to solve problems in atomic physics and make Feynman diagrams come out nicely. Virtual particles are short-lived, even at the theoretical level. They represent dinky little lumps of energy, like single photons. It seems like Tryon had proposed the spontaneous creation of a rather massive virtual particle containing all the mass-energy in the universe? But how did his virtual energy field create a lump of real energy?

 

Then, has anyone even guessed at the approximate probability? Is it anything like the minimal probability for the creation of the protein-making genes in a human body, worse than one shot in 10^-1,000,000?

 

Then, in a non-universe there are only non-events. Without events there can be no clocks. Do you imagine that the concept of time, which makes sense only in the context of real physical events, can even exist if nothing happens?

 

Finally, Tryon's final hand waving comment is, as you must have realized, non-scientific and mentally insubstantial. If a religionist made the same statement, but changed a few words, e.g. "God is simply one of those things that comes into being from time to time," I can easily imagine that you would be somewhere between derisive and dismissive, politely of course. I would be, except for the politeness. It's an irrelevant comment no matter the noun, a typical faculty-party put-down.

 

Moreover, in addition to reiterating my careful use of words like "known," I must ask, how exactly is my statement, "The Big Bang had no known cause..." refuted by a reference to virtual particles? Their calculated probability of occurrence is a number, not a cause. It explains nothing. All it does is estimate the frequency of occurrence of a hypothetical event which apparently occurs at random.

 

You seem to regard the phony guru and expert mystic Deepak Chopra, charmer of uneducated housewives with nothing better to do than watch afternoon women's chat shows, as having something worthy to say. Then, what does he say but, "anything can happen at any time for no reason." It looks to me as though he might have paraphrased (not stolen, but not original either) that line from Tryon, who might have gotten it from someone else.

 

Next, apply Chopra's trite paraphrase to my statement, "The Big Bang had no known cause." How is it that I am wrong but your pudgy guru is right, when he is actually reiterating what I wrote, but more vaguely? I'm getting the feeling that I'll never be able to write a word that you will agree with.

 

 

Finally, I wrote:

 

• 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.
• and you replied:

Finally, physicists such as those who originated and contributed to the Big Bang theory do not appoint themselves. Their legitimacy comes from the approval of the teachers who approve the granting of their academic degrees, and their peers, who review and approve their post-graduation publications. Though I’ve not seen a precise legal or other definition “self-appointed”, I’ve seen it used mostly in a derogatory way to refer to people who claim expertise they don’t have (eg: “self-appointed expert”), or an affectionate way to refer to people who assume leadership roles of their own volition (eg: “self-appointed benevolent dictator for life”).

 

You addressed only one word pair of that entire sentence, "self-appointed." I must concede that it was a poor choice of wording. I could have written "appointed by professors in the same field, often irrespective of quality." Or even better, I should have omitted that word-pair entirely on the grounds that it was peevish and irrelevant.

 

With that omission, there is an entire sentence left, a statement to be dealt with on its own merits, if any. It is a minor statement, but would you care to address it nonetheless? Even better, address my first remark: The Big Bang cannot be scientifically investigated..." Do you know of an exception?

 

And before you remind me of WMAP, etc., kindly explain how we can possibly see radiation that was created at the same instant as the protons and electrons in the molecules of our eyes and instruments?

 

I ask that because your put-down technique, in this instance, is a favorite of talk show liberals, used to deflect attention from the real point. On TV and radio, once they've adopted the deflection strategy, they remain glued to it. I'm hoping for better from you.

 

Physicists are people, and as people are wont to do, sometimes try to win arguments by convincing others they are correct by virtue of their reputation or other non-scientific attributes. However, science is, I and nearly all everything I’ve read on the subject concludes, fundamentally different than religious thought that presume that many things can be known only by accepting supernatural revelation. Science can, in bad circumstances, be dogmatic, but is not by its own doctrine required to be, as some religions are.

 

You speak rightly, and I have nothing to argue against here. These are good "talking points," and I'll address them in that context., as well as the context of their implication that I am believer in a religion, or have adopted similar thought patterns.

 

I often write of concepts that can be easily misconstrued as religious. After all, I do believe, based upon evidence, that we live in a created universe. But I've long since departed company with religionists and do not accept the reality of their customary God-concept. IMO it is as absurd as the Big Bang notion, and as per the subject of another thread, God and the Big Bang are functionally identical concepts.

 

I have adopted a "bible," which I use faithfully as the basis for my creation-concepts. You've heard of this bible. It is named, "the physical universe."

 

The only truthful thing that can be said about the various religious scriptures is that they were all penned or scribed by human beings. Sometimes the men doing the scribing have the arrogance to claim that God himself wrote the words (e.g. Moses' Ten Commandments), but if they do not make that claim, others will subsequently do it for them. I believe that the Bible, Kuran, and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets were inspired, but not divinely. My theories strongly imply that whatever entities are responsible for some shaping of the physical universe, no more than a few of them, if any, are aware of our planet's existence, much less the theories and stories we've invented to explain the mystery of our own existence.

 

My "bible" is written in one language--- mathematical physics-- not an easy language to read, much less master. Like other languages, it may be mistranslated from time to time, but eventually other, better, wiser translators will get it right. That is because the core of it cannot be changed by man. My bible contains principles of action and reaction that have always been with us, and but recently discovered by brilliant physicists. It contains no dogma.

 

My notion of the Creators holds them as bound to the laws of physics as are you and I, and equally physical, by definition. The notion of any Creator separate in kind from his creation seems absurd to me.

 

It might be worth noting that whereas Muslims and Christians use different religious principles when seeking justification to murder one another, they all use the same principles of physics (i.e. the same real-world bible) to build their weapons.

 

I love science, and I admire many scientists. I've had the privilege of working for, and with, and imbibing with several of them. In my experience they can become as dogmatic as a Jehovah's Witness.

 

I think that dogmatism is an innate brain-level mechanism that the brain uses to deal with ignorance. The brain is a be-right machine, after all, and cannot be right when it is ignorant. The most truthful answer to nearly any interesting question, by most any human being, is, "I don't know." Yet, few have the courage to make that simple statement. We fear personal ignorance.

 

You see examples of that above, in the quotes from Tryon and Chopra, for whom the virtually identical irrelevant quips convey the message, to other ignorant people, in the aftermath of a virtual snow job, that perhaps they enjoy some secret inside knowledge. You will find the finest examples of science dogma on the TV documentary channels that employ a similar strategy for convincing the rubes.

 

Your statement about science differing from religion in that science is not compelled as a function of its operating system to embrace supernaturally revealed dogma, is right-on. But dogma need not be supernaturally driven. In the real world, all dogma comes from human authority figures. I think that the tendency to embrace dogma in place of genuine understanding is a property of all human beings, scientists (as distinguished from science itself) included. When enough of them adopt a dogma, science itself will become as religious as Catholicism. I see it going in that direction already.

 

Years ago I read some old Gnostic writings. These were not truths, but merely ideas. The Gnostics were not an organized group as oft represented, but a melange of individuals, like you and I except that they really liked Christ's teachings. They were trying to fill in the metaphysical gaps.in those teachings with speculative ideas. At that time, Christianity had not become dogma, and Christians were encouraged to think.

 

But in time, Christianity in general grew enough to be a powerful, if disorganized, political force. The Roman Emperor Constantine chose to both usurp and establish this power, thus taking control of it, by declaring Christianity to be the official religion of Rome. After awhile, people requested a precise definition of that religion. A council was held, strategically packed. Dogma was established, Gnostics were terminated and their writings destroyed.

 

If you check into the details of the Copenhagen conference on quantum physics held in (I think) 1929 in Geneva, not Copenhagen, you will learn that it was populated and dominated by Scandinavian scientists because they could afford the journey. American scientists who had entirely different approaches to interpreting the QM data were excluded from the conference. This appears to be a function of economics rather than political intrigue--- back then, American scientists were not funded by the government and could not afford either the price or time for a journey to Switzerland.

 

Nonetheless, the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, named because of the preponderance of Danish attendees,was a result similar to that of the Catholic Church's Nicene Council--- dogma, meaning one and only one way to legitimately interpret QM data. Dissenters were not exterminated in the old way, but were replaced in the course of academic turnover with those who spouted the new European dogma.

 

Love of dogma is equivalent to love of agreement. It is a human characteristic, not inherently the property of any thought system. It can easily become a more systemic property with time and neglect, and the ongoing suppression of dissent. You and I represent a microcosm of this trend. Your put-downs of my comments are poorly founded, but were we to conduct a poll of opinions, you would win hands-down because the mass of agreement is on your side.

 

Just stuff to think about, and maybe to consider with a little more thought this time around.

 

I do appreciate your willingness to participate in this level of conversation. Thank you!

[Moontanman]

GReylorn, yes, the beginning of the universe is not well understood, there are some hypothesis concerning it but how does adding yet another layer of mystery (ie a creator) help understand the creation of the universe? Who created the creator? Is it turtles all the way down? Not only do you have no evidence for a creator other than your own incredulity you want to add yet another layer of mystery to something already unknown... why?

[CraigD]

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. .

These all appear to me to be unsupported and wrong.

I propose instead it is you who are mistaken. Let us get out the mental meat axes and have at this with the intention of resolving it.

...

I notice that you did not address this one at all, yet felt free to call me wrong on "all" counts. Not honest

I’m not attempting any deception, but rather honestly see serious errors in each of the 4 quoted points from post #1.

 

I addressed the first 2 points with a single mention of one family of theories with which I have some familiarity and affection: “nothing cosmology”. These are not the only theories, or the most respected or widely researched, for the origin of the Big Bang – for example, brane cosmology appears to me to be more popular.

 

My point it that theories explaining the cause of the Big Bang and its precursor state - in nothing cosmology models, a vacuum, in brane models, the predecessor of a collision of two 3 dimensional branes in a higher-dimension “bulk” space – exist. Unlike religious descriptions of God as inherently without predecessor or cause, a the several Big Bang theories, although not able to explain in their specific formulation the predecessor or cause of the big bang, do not assert that no theory can, and are compatible with theories that do. Thus, I think your assertions that religious descriptions of God and scientific description of the Big Bang have in common that they “cannot be defined in physical/mathematical terms”, “one knows where” the described entity or event “came from”, the described event/entity's “existences are a mystery”, is simply incorrect.

 

I carefully used the words, "knows," and "known." You denigrated my statements by referring to theory, not to knowledge. This ploy is an intellectual's "bait and switch" trick, and is dishonest. A thousand theories do not create knowledge, except of theories.

I think you’re making a serious philosophy of science error here, greylorn.

 

In science, a theory is not a kind of inferior knowledge, but an explanation for a wide range of phenomena. I can’t put this idea better or more succinctly, I think, than this quote from its wikipedia article:

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

In a very practical sense, scientific theories do allow people to create knowledge, by allowing them to calculate “what would happen if …" outcomes for situations not yet even known. Knowledge – an accurate memory – of a specific outcome to a specific situation that can be applied in a “rule of thumb” manner to similar future situations is, to a science proponent, inferior to knowledge of a theory that can be applied to any future situation within its domain.

 

Tryon's theory itself depends upon another theory, that quantum energy fluctuations actually exist, and that they might give rise to a virtual particle containing all the mass-energy in the universe.

I believe you’re confusing Lemaître early description of what was later called the big bang as “the primeval atom” with the quantum physics concept of a vacuum fluctuation and Tyron’s proposed large scale vacuum fluctuation that created the universe.

 

Quantum physics, and Tyron’s “universe from nothing” idea, do not require that the just-born universe consist of a single particle. Tyron’s idea assumes only that the net sum of various quantum numbers for all particles in the universe are the same as for those of the vacuum that precedes them.

 

You state, "...could be calculated to have ... very low probability of occurring."

 

"Could be calculated," implies that no calculations were actually made. Is that because the computers were all busy, or because those capable of making the calculations had better things to do with their time than produce an absurdly low probability value in support of a theory which they intuitively recognized had a very high probability of being utter bunk?

I’ve not read any scientific paper in response to Tyron’s short paper Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? (14 Dec 1973 Nature) that described the questions or assertions in it as utter bunk.

 

I’ve never encountered an actual numeric calculation of the probability of a large scale vacuum fluctuation creating the Big Bang during a specific interval of time, such as 1 second. However, the point that Tyron was making in his often repeated statement "the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time" is that it’s unimportant how small this probability is, so long as it is greater than zero, because there is no limit to the length of the interval of time in which it must occur. This is very different than the case where a time constraint, such as the age of the Earth when the fossil record appears, or the age of the universe, is imposed, in which case we can treat very low probabilities as zero in calculations with a very low probability of making incorrect predictions. When no time constraint exists, any event with probability greater than zero is certain to occur.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no virtual particle has ever been detected.

By definition, if detected other than by their effect on other particles, particles are not “virtual”, but “actual”. However, because they make possible, non-intuitive predictions of events that have been experimentally confirmed, such as the Casimir effect, I consider virtual particles “detected”.

 

Again, its wikipedia article summarizes the ontological and epistemological status of virtual particles well, I think:

As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science.

 

You seem to regard the phony guru and expert mystic Deepak Chopra, charmer of uneducated housewives with nothing better to do than watch afternoon women's chat shows, as having something worthy to say. Then, what does he say but, "anything can happen at any time for no reason”

In that they may give comfort to troubled folk, including uneducated housewives, I’m willing to concede that Chopra and similar guru’s may have some social worth. As a science educator, I believe he’s worse than worthless, a promoter of pseudoscience that may harm some people’s science educations. Except that you may not concede him possible social worth, I think our opinions of Chopra are about the same, greylorn.

 

However, the “anything anytime for no reason” quote I gave was not seriously attributed to Chopra, but to the Futurama TV cartoon character Professor Hubert Farnsworth. I was remiss in not posting a link to at least this 17 s video of this line’s appearance in the cartoon.

 

As the sometimes alter ego of David X. Cohen (though he didn’t write the episode from which I got the Chopra satirizing quote), Prof. Farnsworth is a personal guru of mine. I highly recommend select Futurama episodes, and think they’ve had a positive science education impact.

 

If you check into the details of the Copenhagen conference on quantum physics held in (I think) 1929 in Geneva, not Copenhagen, you will learn that it was populated and dominated by Scandinavian scientists because they could afford the journey. American scientists who had entirely different approaches to interpreting the QM data were excluded from the conference. This appears to be a function of economics rather than political intrigue--- back then, American scientists were not funded by the government and could not afford either the price or time for a journey to Switzerland.

From what I’ve read, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, the “Copenhagen” in the term came from a preface of a 1930 textbook written by Heisenberg from material he used in a series of lectures he gave at the University of Chicago the year before. He used the German phrase 'Kopenhagener Geist der Quantentheorie', which translated to “Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory”, to describe his take on the then-emerging science, attributing it to Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, where he developed his “feel” for the science during his 1924-1927 studies there. this Wikipedia section has some additional information and references on the origin of the phrase, and criticism and controversy about granting it the status of an interpretation, in the absence of explicit publications putting it forth as such.

 

The Copenhagen interpretation was not a policy or position paper from any conference of physicists in the early days of quantum physics. There have been many “Copenhagen conferences”, perhaps most famously the 2009 UN sponsored climate change conferences that produces the “Copenhagen Accord”, but the "Copenhagen spirit" did not come from one. To the best of my knowledge, nothing equivalent to an ecclesiastical council has ever been conducted to cement the consensus of a scientific theory or interpretation. The 1st and 5th Solvey conferences, held in Brussels in 1911 and 1927, were famous conferences of famous physicists, but had more of a nature of public debates than consensus-reaching endeavors.

 

My experience with American and European professional scientists (most family members and friends, as I’m not one myself) leads me to believe such an approach would not be well received by them, as most of them have negative opinions of ecclesiastical proceedings, and irreverence for dogma.

[Eclogite]

To the best of my knowledge, nothing equivalent to an ecclesiastical council has ever been conducted to cement the consensus of a scientific theory or interpretation.

This is an aside and does not alter your argument in any substantive way, but arguably the Hawaiian conference on the moon in 1984 (?) pretty well cemented the idea of lunar origin via giant impact, though that had been an aso ran until the conference.

[CraigD]

To the best of my knowledge, nothing equivalent to an ecclesiastical council has ever been conducted to cement the consensus of a scientific theory or interpretation.

This is an aside and does not alter your argument in any substantive way, but arguably the Hawaiian conference on the moon in 1984 (?) pretty well cemented the idea of lunar origin via giant impact, though that had been an aso ran until the conference.

Thanks for the information, Eclogite – my knowledge is the better for it! :)

 

A bit of WWW searching netted me this “reminisces” sub-article by planetary astronomer and organizer of the 1984 Kailua-Kona conference G. Jeffrey Taylor. By his account, as you concluded, this conference, intended merely as one of a series of workshops and conferences “to ensure the vitality of lunar science”, instead cemented the giant impact hypothesis as the consensus theory for the formation of the Moon, launching the then respected but not dominant hypothesis refined and championed by Bill Hartmann into its present status.

 

Taylor’s little (4 paragraph) note gives some fascinating insights into how scientific paradigms shift, form, and solidify.

 

I maintain, though, that while slightly similar to an ecclesiastical council, science conferences like this are essentially very different, in that the consensuses that come out of some ecclesiastical council (especially the early ones, like 325 and 787 AD Councils of Nicaea, much less so later conferences, such as the many regular ones of present day protestant churches) are taken as infallible, divinely given truths, while no such status is given to a scientific consensuses.

[BradyWang]

The Big Bang Theory does not actually address the origin of the Universe, only what happened afterwards. The origin of the Universe is currently an unknown, which is what a singularity is. Whether there was an infinitely dense point at T = 0 or not is completely irrelevant to The Big Bang Theory. So what exactly is the problem?