From: djdaneh@pbhyc.pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:39:22 GMT
Reply-To: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Oct.5.23.46.59.1992.8217@geneva.rutgers.edu> cree@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Michael Cree) writes:

>It is very interesting to observe what current world renowned cosmologists
>are trying to do at present which is to obtain an equation which describes
>the physics of the whole universe and is self evident and could not be
>otherwise! 

I think you misunderstand a feww things here.  No physicist thinks that the ToE 
(Theory of Everything) would be "self-evident" in the usual sense: otherwise 
we'd have noticed it long ago.  It should be "self-evident" in the sense that
once it's discovered it fits _all_ facts, thus producing the classic whap-on-
the-forehead "Of course! Why didn't we see this before. . ."

"Could not be otherwise" is also not meant in a clear demotic sense; it is 
likely that a ToE will be *highly* dependent on initial conditions.  In other
words, if the details of the initial conditions of the Universe had been 
slightly different, the outcome, the nature of the universe -- possibly even
at a very deep level, such as the relative strengths, or even the number, of
the "four forces" -- would be very different.


>That, indeed, would be a very phenonemal achievement,
>particularly in the light of Goedal's incompleteness theorems which (very
>roughly) state that no mathematical theory is complete in itself, thus one
>must appeal to something outside the theory to prove it.

Well, no, that's not exactly what it says.  Godel's theorems state that any
logical "language" -- that is, a system of formulae, postulates, and rules for
proving or disproving formulae from the postulates -- of a given complexity
(often described as "complex enough to be interesting") will contain formulae
which are (a) "true" within the rules of the language, and (b) not provable
within the rules of the language.

What you're saying -- that any logical system requires something "outside" to
prove it -- is both true and incorrect.  True, in the sense that any logical
system is a formal game and does not refer to the "real world," but can be
tested as a model with reference to the real world.  Incorrect, in that science
and physics are not a logical system; they exist solely with reference to the
"real world."


>Personally I cannot see how the universe can be self evident. That I believe
>in God gives a rather convenient explanation for the universe :-)

Either the Universe is self-evident or you can't prove that it exists at all.
Do you mean "...how the *nature* of the Universe can be self-evident?"  If so,
then I agree, but "God" (in whom I also believe; don't misunderstand this 
article as an attack on theism!) is precisely what you say:  convenient.  It is
no more (or less) self-evident than the scientific explanations -- and, 
ultimately, fails to explain just as much.

The problem many Christians see in the standard model is that the Big Bang 
appears to "just happen."  It doesn't have a cause (in the modern sense).
That's a real and valid flaw, but -- it applies equally to the Christian model,
you see.  God "just happens," doesn't have a cause, etc.  One causeless event
is no more probable than another.  We can't diss the Standard Model on these
grounds without dissing God at the same time.

"But God is supernatural and doesn't have to be bound by our notions of 
causality!"  Good point -- but, you see, neither does the Universe.  Universe
*is*; this is the fundamental principle of the scientific paradigm.  It is
completely pragmatic (though the usual word is "empirical").  Observed facts are
all that matters.  Causality is a conclusion drawn from observations of the
Universe, not an observed fact; when observed facts fail to support the model,
abandon the model.

And, really, in this Christians must ultimately concur, unless they want to do a
Manichaean turn and claim that this universe is a illusory projection of the 
dark Demiurgos.  Universe is, and is fundamentally reliable (because God isn't a
liar).  So both we and the empiricists must base all our conclusions on that.

The primary point on which we differ with the pure empiricists is, finally, an
"observed fact."  We observe a set of *interior* phenomena within ourselves --
which we may call Faith, or its effects -- and from these phenomena we conclude
the Christian model.  Either these phenomena are not available for observation
by the pure empiricists, or they dismiss them as non-objective.  (I suspect that
some of each is true, varying in degree from individual to individual.)

Thus, an empiricist can say of God: "Je n'ai pas besoin de cet hypothese" -- I
have no need of that hypothesis.  There is no phenomenon available to my 
observation, which would be most simply or most completely explained by the
existence of God; therefore, to assume God's existence would be a logical error.
(The honest empiricist will add that there is no objective evidence that God 
does *not* exist, either; the principle of parsimony, however, does away with
any entity not required to explain phenomena.)


>And they are still trying hard to get rid of
>that nasty singulatiy and awful creation of matter by now proposing, for
>example, that the universe is one great big virtual particle that just
>popped into existence due to some (rather convenient) quantum fluctuation,
>notwithstanding that this also involves creation of matter from nothing
>and the observation of a virtual particle (in this case, the universe) which
>heretofore has never been seen, and indeed, would surely be remarkable
>if one ever was.

Well. . .  The production of virtual-particle pairs *has* been observed,
actually.  It doesn't involve creation of anything from nothing, except in the
sense that taking a loan from the bank produces both a large debt and a large
capital asset -- which (before interest begins accruing) are of equal value,
oppositely signed.  Likewise, the production of a virtual-particle pair -- a
particle and its own antiparticle -- doesn't involve any change in the total
mass, charge, momentum, energy, etc., of the Universe.

It's pretty weird, really, and only accessible to minds that are able to throw
causality overboard completely:  causality (at least, causality as we know it)
simply *does* *not* *apply* in the quantum world.



>That the bang theory, which implies the creation of time and of matter, has
>stood such attacks is, at least I think, significant. I personally believe
>(though I wouldn't bet my life on it) that God was behind the big bang.
>Ohh, when I say I wouldn't bet my life on it, I'm talking about the big bang
>theory, not God.

Glad to hear it -- since you've bet rather more than your life on God!

:*) :*)


OFM added:

>[As I understand it, in theories like this, a singularity is an area
>where the mathematics produces impossible (e.g. infinite) values.
>Thus strictly speaking the model breaks down at that point.  


Basically correct.  In fact, there's not a point but a zone of time we can't
"see" in the Big Bang model -- there's reason to believe that we can never
observe or derive anything about events during the earliest "epoch" of the
Universe's existence -- a period that lasted about 10^-43 seconds (that's
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second) -- which doesn't
seem like very long, but things were happening *very* fast then, with the
average temperature of the Universe many orders of magnitude higher than the 
interior of a supernova.  It is in this period that, if the "four forces"
might have been different, they were set, and with them the fundamental nature
of the Universe.  It is in this period that, if superstring theory is correct,
the other dozen or two spatial dimensions collapsed, leaving us with the usual 
three.  (And a good thing:  planetary [elliptical] orbits aren't stable in 
higher-dimensional spaces.)


>Some
>Christians may conclude that at this point God performs a miracle, 

Ah.  Like the cartoon:  "I think you need to be a bit more explicit in step
43."


>I
>don't think it's unreasonable for scientists to look for a model that
>doesn't break down.  --clh]

Shoot -- isn't that their job?  Worst possible scenario (from a Christian
point of view) is that they find one.  There's still no evidence, no matter
*what* that model is, that God does or does not stand *behind* the model.
Best possible case is that they find that no conceivable materialistic model 
adequately explains the nature of the Universe.  Both are unlikely. . .


		Houston, Houston, do you read? I'd mortgage half my soul
		If I could see it one more time - Apollo, Ground Control
		The Devil take the men who killed the dream that died too soon
		For all my dreams are haunted by a fire on the Moon.
			-- Visual Purple

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.