Big Bang

[The Flying Tench]

Anthropic principle.

 

Things appear "just right" because if they were any other way, we wouldn't be here to observe them.

I'm not really big on cosmology but you could postulate that there were an almost infinate number of "failed" expansions in an almost infinate number of possible universes before an expansion occurred that was as finly balanced as the one that we can observe.

 

OK, and I think this is what Steve W is also saying in a way. Seems a bit dicey to me to postulate billions of universes and big bangs when there is no evidence for them, but I accept this is the answer many astrophysicists would go for*.

 

In his book 'The God delusion' Dawkins spends a chapter arguing on these lines as defence against the fine tuning arguments. Seemed to me he was 'on the back foot', and I couldn't understand why he needed to as he said at the start of the book that he was only wanting to argue against the personal God of christians etc, and he had no problem with an impersonal Einsteinian life force - which of course would give adequate explanation of fine tuning.

 

For me there are many things in favour of the life force kind of idea, except that awareness is such an amazing thing which seems to me to be in a different category from matter and energy, and it seems strange that a life force which is great enough to create such awareness, as well as matter and energy, should not be aware itself.

 

* though not, I think, Stephen Hawking. I don't have 'A brief History of Time', but I understand he says in it concerning the fine tuning arguments something like 'clearly this has religious implications'. But he doesn't elaborate!

Edited November 28, 2009 by The Flying Tench

[yoxer]

The very cornerstone of quantum physics is the uncertainty principle which states that you can know the position of a subatomic partical or its momentum , but never both simulaneously. If you understand this you should understand about awareness. You conjure up reality and reality conjures up you

[captain cojones]

hiya yoxer. hope Columbia is treating you well.

[Jim Roper]

* though not, I think, Stephen Hawking. I don't have 'A brief History of Time', but I understand he says in it concerning the fine tuning arguments something like 'clearly this has religious implications'. But he doesn't elaborate!

 

He said once in an interview. "I try to avoid 'God' questions, but I believe 'God' is to be found within the laws of nature"

 

I came up with that idea long before I heard him say it.

 

Now he has proposed that time travel is possible, is it worth considering that all these 'wise men', that some people came from outer space and were predicting what would happen here, were not speaking from experience of other worlds that had gone through what we are going through, but had travelled back from the future on Earth and had seen what we will go through in the future?

[yoxer]

Its a load easier to come from the theory that time does not exsist

[chesters1]

not for blind hermits i expect

[corydoras]

If you understand this you should understand about awareness. You conjure up reality and reality conjures up you

I understand Quantum Mechanics, but that is just a heap of old tosh mate. Edited November 28, 2009 by corydoras

[corydoras]

He said once in an interview. "I try to avoid 'God' questions, but I believe 'God' is to be found within the laws of nature"

 

I came up with that idea long before I heard him say it.

So did Spinoza and Einstein.

Now he has proposed that time travel is possible, is it worth considering that all these 'wise men', that some people came from outer space and were predicting what would happen here, were not speaking from experience of other worlds that had gone through what we are going through, but had travelled back from the future on Earth and had seen what we will go through in the future?

Moving forward through time is not controversial in physics (although it would require extraordinary amounts of energy), travelling BACKWARDS in space-time is another matter though. Edited November 28, 2009 by corydoras

[Clifftop]

I wasn't talking about the religion side, I was asking what you mean when you say that the Big Bang Theory is "only a theory". What do you mean when you say "only a theory". I'm not being picky or pedantic, I would just like you to say what you mean by "only a theory".

 

 

What i meant was that there is no proof, no hard evidence.

 

It seems to me that it's a case of if THIS happened then this would be the result.

 

The flat earth society really believed that the earth was flat ( i think ) because they couldn't accept the concept that the earth was round. We would all fall off.

 

Later technology proved the earth was round in various ways.

 

If there was proof that the big bang happened then there would be no auguments.

 

Maybe i'm just a flat earth believer kind of person.

 

 

Cheers Fred

[Ken L]

There's a great quote from Carl Sagan about this sort of thing which is I think on YouTube somewhere.

He says that although we understand a lot about expantion and the early inflation of the universe, it's the precice origins are unknown.

Some people claim that it was created by god but this simply leads to the question where did god come from ?

As there are no answers to that question in any of the worlds great religions, Sagan simply points out that (in the absence of any evidence whatsoever for the current or past existance of god), as a scientist, he is inclined to simply remove the redundant "god" part of the equation and stick with "we don't yet know".

 

Sagan's argument is entirely valid. No amount of science can ever prove that god does not exist but for many people, a basic working knowledge of science renders god redundant.

Of those that choose to believe in the christian god, I found Connor Cunningham's presentation of "Did Darwin Kill God" fascinating. I didn't agree with him but the eligance of some of his (obviously Jesuit) arguments was impressive and probably provides one of the better models of how science and religion can co-exist within a wider environment outside of accedemia.

Sure there were a few digs at the likes of Dawkins, some of his statements were plain wrong and he used his editorial control to steer clear of areas where there is real conflict between science and religion but his was a far more credable position than that of the American creationists who were as much a target of his ire as were the "ultra Darwinists" (his term) like Dawkins.

At some point I fully intend to dig out one of Cunningham's books and have a proper read though.