Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Polymath257]

Speculation? Do you call proving beyond a reasonable doubt, speculation?

Philosophical arguments are &pure* speculation.

And, even from the viewpoint of philosophy, you did not come close to proving it beyond reasonable doubt. At best, you gave an argument based on the vague notion of traversing time. And you claimed, but did not prove, it to be impossible to traverse an infinite duration.

Then perhaps they also need to be schooled on how infinite regress is impossible.

or those claiming it to be impossible need to be schooled about some of the basics about infinity.

Already addressed this argumentation.

No, you merely pointed out that quantum gravity is speculative. So what?

If God exists, then things changes from "nature did it", to "God did it".

Pretty significant change, don't you think?

Not really. It still means we need to figure out what nature can do, what the relevant physical laws are, and how to distinguish what nature can do from what requires a deity to do.

So, not much changes.

Because of a quite lengthy Hell sentence that is coming your way if you dont.

Only if one particular version of a creator deity is valid. Others would not be so immoral.

You correct, it needs to be considered...so I will consider it..

*considers a past-eternal universe*

Ok, I considered it, and I reject it.

Based on what? A rather vague argument about traversing time?

Gotcha.

You are generalizing...while I am specific.

And I pointed out where your specific argument fails.

There is. I already explained why and unless you can adequately address it, then it stands.

It fails because you adopt an A theory of time (traversal of time) as opposed to a B theory of time (time, including all past and future, simply exists). You then make the *assumption* that traversing an infinite duration is impossible (no argument given--merely pushing the burden of proof to another).

Keyword: future.

The argument is against an infinite past, not the future.

And how is that relevant? Both give an infinite duration as existing.

D: all of the above.

Really? OK, what was the mini-argument given in the paper prior to the main argument? What assumptions did it include that are not part of the main argument?

And?

And we know they *will* break down. At some point, quantum gravity will be a necessity.

Do you doubt this?

Funny..considering the fact that Vilenkin ain't a theist...and it is his theorem lol.

A beginning is a beginning, regardless of whether or not the beginning came from a singularity point.

But the BGV theorem specifically addresses certain types of singularity: those leading to geodesic incompleteness.

Syllogism test..

1. Philosophical arguments have been proven to be wrong too many times.

2. Therefore, this philosophical argument (infinite regress) is wrong.

Non sequitur. Does not follow.

Test: FAILED.

But it should lead to skepticism about purely philosophical arguments that are not based on observation.

I have pointed out the assumptions in your argument that are likely to be invalid. You have not addressed them.

And besides faulty logic, you are being dismissive instead of simply addressing the point/argument.

I have addressed the argument. It is based on the faulty position that time is traversed. This is unrealistic after the discovery of relativity.

It assumes that it is impossible to traverse an infinite interval without actually giving a reason why it is.

I claim it *is* possible to have an infinite past. No traversal is required, only the infinite number of time slices.

Philosophical arguments are independent of relativity and quantum mechanics..so they need not realize or even acknowledge those things.

But they are very reliant on intuitive biases (traversal of time). Many such biases have been shown wrong.

And that is the beauty of it.

I have found that philosophical arguments are mostly useful to find our intuitive biases, not to actually say anything valid about reality.

Nonsense. Scientists depend on philosophy.

"Philosophy carries almost no weight other than to clarify intuitions".

Obviously. You cant be a scientist if you are unable to use deductive reasoning or draw conclusions based on inference.

Using logic and deduction is NOT the same as philosophy. Philosophers like to claim that science depends on philosophy, but when you ask scientists (yes, even ones that are philosophically sophisticated), they tend not to think that to be the case.

I meant one-sided sticks. My bad.

So, again, it is definitional.

Can you provide a picture of this squared circle in these geometries??

I would love to see a full round shape with an additional four sides.

You said a circle, not a round shape.

How is a circle defined? As the collection of points some fixed distance from a 'center' point.

Now, imagine a geometry in the shape of the surface of a pyramid. Take the 'center' to be the vertex of that pyramid. The set of points some fixed distance from that center is always a square. So, in this geometry, circles centered at that point are all squares.

Alternatively, an easier: let the distance be computed using the taxi-cab metric. Then the 'circles' are ALL squares.

Please...enlighten me of these geometries.

Yawn. Ridiculing those trying to educate you is seldom a good position.

I agree..and the fact that I can agree with you while also maintaining my position goes to show how moot your point is.

Hmm, lets see...

1. Read and understand the paper of theorem..

Or..

2. Watch and understand the video of theorem..

All depends on which learning method you prefer...which makes it subjective.

Nope, not even close. Reading and understanding the paper is *far* more detailed and authoritative than a video, even by the author of the paper.

Maybe, instead, you should work out the kinks on quantum gravity since you speak so highly of it.

Until then..BGV.

Nope. Until then, we work on quantum gravity, which we *know* is going to be necessary and we *know* BGV doesn't cover.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

You said that in BGV the universe cannot be infinite, full stop.
This is incorrect.

Nonsense. The BGV is about the impossibility of a past-eternal universe under a specific circumstance.

It says nothing about the potentiality of an infinite future...and neither does the philosophical arguments against an infinite PAST.

What is correct, is the that it can not be infinite into the past. It must have space-time boundary in the past.
It says nothing about the future.

Wow...I said ALL of that above without knowing that you are maintaining those same sentiments here.

We are in agreement, so remind me of what your beef is, again?

That it could be infinite into the future while being finite into the past.

I agree.

Ow boy. Talk about an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

I don't know the origins of space-time. Nobody does. Neither do you.

I do. God.

Your religiously inspired combo of a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance / incredulity is just that... fallacious religious nonsense.

Lol. Gotcha.

I know.
So what are you doing trying to discuss science?

I use science to support philosophical arguments for theism.

Not a hypothesis because it's not testable.
It explains nothing because it's just a bare claim.

It is testable...if you can prove how a universe can originate without an external cause and can also give itself its fine-tuned parameters...you would solve the mystery.

I think you should look up what "explanatory power" actually is.

It means; if you have X amount of explanations used to explain Y effect, and Z is one of many options provided to explain Y effect, and Z is found to be able explain Y effect better other options..

Then Z can be said to have more explanatory power than the other options.

How is that?

 

[Polymath257]

Whether you read the paper about the theorem, or you watch a video presentation about the theorem...regardless, you should wound up at the same place at the end...which is a universe that began to exist.

Red herrings and filibustering.

Well so far, the Standard Model of the big bang has the most evidence/facts supporting it..so lets let that one stick for now until you can find another with more evidence supporting it.

And we *know* it is incomplete since it doesn't deal with quantum gravity.

"What if"

"Perhaps maybe".

That is not evidence. You have to show that the model is true.

No, I do not. I have to give a plausible model to which BGV does not apply.

Filibustering. I gave you a simple, DIRECT reason why infinite regression is impossible.

No, yuou gave an argument based on the problematic (especially in a relativistic scenario) of 'traversing' time.

Please, address my reasons, or I shall conclude that you've got NOTHING and are now just filibustering away.

Please justify your use of the A theory of time as opposed to the B theory of time that is universal in physics.

Pretty safe assumption, according to Vilenkin..and then you've still got a fine-tuning problem with the multiverse, according to Penrose.

So, either way you look at it.

1. I watched Vilenkin give a presentation of the paper/theorem.

2. Ive read commentary on the paper.

3. I am aware of the scientific community proposing models to violate the theorem.

All three taken together, and we have a fire-proof theorem that will take a lot to be violated.

For example, a non-classical model or one in which expansion is not true on an average.

Well, when you present your model which violates the BGV theorem, I will be in attendence clapping for you.

Until then..



Yeah and if the one sister that I have was born with a different reproductive system, she would be my brother.

Possibilities and hypotheticals are not evidence.



I go way beyond that, because the evidence takes me way beyond that.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even take you that far.

I have a universe which began to exist..and I am smart enough to know that the origins of the universe must exist beyond the universe.

Why do you assume that the universe has to have an 'origin'?

And Christians call a creative entity that exists beyond the universe God.

Hmmm...so if the universe was created by a multidimensional teenager as a high school art project, then Christians would be comfortable calling that teenager 'God'? I sort of doubt it.

Sean Carroll said, in his opening statement of their debate, that William Lane Craig is the one guy who put the fear in all of his friends.

That, my friend, is high regard.

It just shows that Craig, like many scam artists, likes to play on the emotions of the audience as opposed to actually giving reasoned discussion. Take the debate to writing and see how well he does.

First off, what a singularity is or isn't has no bearing on the argument...and I can care less what other types of singularities there are.

Yes, the important difference is 'finite into the past' and 'began to exist'. The latter implies a process; the former does not.

Already addressed this.

Nope, you simply dismissed it. It is a plausible model of the universe that is not classical and is not subject to the BGV argument.

Nonsense. What the BGV theorem did was take what we know to be true, based on observation and formulated a mathematical proof based on these observations.

No, it showed that a classical description ultimately leads to singularities. It is known that a quantum description may not.

Your proposals are based on stuff we haven't and probably CANNOT observe...such as multiverses an quantum gravity...both of which has yet to be proven and is speculation at best.

Based on this, nothing can be said prior to nucleosynthesis: anything before that is speculation.

So no, we are not on the same playing field, here. My stuff is based on what we know, your stuff is based on ignorance and what we are trying to figure out.

No, you are going *beyond* what we know. You are going before the period of nucleosynthesis and *speculating* about what the conditions might have been before that.

Nope. You cannot use anything within your car to explain the origins of your car.

And why does the universe need to be explained while deities do not?

That isn't speculation; that is Logic 101.

Hmmm...which class of logic is that? Does it have a syllabus? Which university is it taught in?

If I say the 32 degree temperature in the freezer allowed the water to freeze...that is meaningful, isn't it?

Yes, and this happens over time.

If you have no problem accepting that meaningfulness, then what I said about the universe in the same way shouldn't be an issue.

But the universe did not come about through time. So the analogy is false.

Obviously, the conditions which allowed our universe to exist must have been existed...otherwise, there would be no universe, would there be?

Why do you assume there is a 'condition' that 'allows' our universe to exist?

Yes, there *would* be a universe if the existence of the universe is a 'raw fact', which seems very plausible, right?

Example: if the conditions which allows water to freeze has existed for an infinite amount of time...then why would the water begin to freeze just yesterday?

false analogy. You assume that the conditions for the formation of the universe existed for an infinite amount of time. That is not being assumed: only that time is infinite into the past.

Answer that question, please.

irrelevant.

Your questions were answered, sir.

Right now, it is obvious that youve got NOTHING and now you are just filibustering, just clinching on to me and hoping the bell will sound soon..as I continue to bomb you with haymakers.

And it is clear to me that you will dismiss any model that doens't correspond to your views as speculative even though your own speculations are far more doubtful.

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense. The BGV is about the impossibility of a past-eternal universe under a specific circumstance.

It says nothing about the potentiality of an infinite future...and neither does the philosophical arguments against an infinite PAST.

Actually, the BGV argument would apply to a *contracting* universe to give geodesic incompleteness into the future.

 

[PruePhillip]

So you reject the OT?

And even the NT morals are far from perfect.

The OT was symbolic

Jerusalem - God's city
Jews - God's people
Promise Land - eternity
High priest - Christ
Warfare - the enemy you must deal with in yourself
The tiny size of Israel - how few are acceptable to God
King David - the rejected and the reigning King
Slavery and Captivity - the price of sin
Rebuilding the walls - recovery and re-establishing of boundaries
Amalekites - the spiritual enemy, marauder who doesn't want to live in your space, but take what you have
Egypt - the world
Babylon - false religion
The first born sons - our human nature
The second born son - the nature of Christ
The Ark - God's presence
Wandering in the wilderness - the life long journey to the promised land
Dying at the borders (Moses) - death
Temple gates facing the east - that eternal morning
The manna - trusting solely in God's provision
The spotless male lamb, taken in and bonded to for three days - then killed, the blood daubed and then eaten whole - Christ

and so on, there's many more of these
So when the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles they would find the notion of a man dying for their sins confounding. But in knowing the story of the lamb whose blood saved God's people from the angel of death, they get a picture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OT was symbolic

Jerusalem - God's city
Jews - God's people
Promise Land - eternity
High priest - Christ
Warfare - the enemy you must deal with in yourself
The tiny size of Israel - how few are acceptable to God
King David - the rejected and the reigning King
Slavery and Captivity - the price of sin
Rebuilding the walls - recovery and re-establishing of boundaries
Amalekites - the spiritual enemy, marauder who doesn't want to live in your space, but take what you have
Egypt - the world
Babylon - false religion
The first born sons - our human nature
The second born son - the nature of Christ
The Ark - God's presence
Wandering in the wilderness - the life long journey to the promised land
Dying at the borders (Moses) - death
Temple gates facing the east - that eternal morning
The manna - trusting solely in God's provision
The spotless male lamb, taken in and bonded to for three days - then killed, the blood daubed and then eaten whole - Christ

and so on, there's many more of these
So when the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles they would find the notion of a man dying for their sins confounding. But in knowing the story of the lamb whose blood saved God's people from the angel of death, they get a picture.

And how do you justify that claim? Just because the OT is false if read literally is not a good enough excuse.

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense. The BGV is about the impossibility of a past-eternal universe under a specific circumstance.

It says nothing about the potentiality of an infinite future...and neither does the philosophical arguments against an infinite PAST.

The BGV argument will also show that there is a 'stop' in the future for a contracting universe.

Wow...I said ALL of that above without knowing that you are maintaining those same sentiments here.

We are in agreement, so remind me of what your beef is, again?

Actually, you called him out for saying the universe might be infinite in extent even if it is finite into the past.

I agree.

I do. God.

No, you have that as a hypothesis. That is speculative, though.

I use science to support philosophical arguments for theism.


It is testable...if you can prove how a universe can originate without an external cause and can also give itself its fine-tuned parameters...you would solve the mystery.

Why would it need a cause at all? Since all causes are inside of the universe, it seems that there *cannot* be a cause for the universe.

Can you give *any* example of a cause that is NOT in the universe?

It means; if you have X amount of explanations used to explain Y effect, and Z is one of many options provided to explain Y effect, and Z is found to be able explain Y effect better other options..

Then Z can be said to have more explanatory power than the other options.

How is that?

But you neglected to say what it *means* to explain something.

In particular, to be an explanation of a phenomenon Y, it needs to clearly show why (not Y) does not happen. At the very least, it needs to make Y more probable and (not Y) less probable.

Furthermore, the more characteristics Z of Y that are logical consequences of the explanation *while (not Z) is demonstrably NOT a consequence* the more support.

So, for example, general relativity predicts a Big Bang (or a Big Crunch). Together with thermodynamics, we also get detailed predictions about the nature of the CMBR, including its temperature variations. These have been verified to a very high degree of precision.

On the other hand, a God hypothesis says *absolutely nothing* about the CMBR and its characteristics, no actual details about what the universe is like. It says nothing about universal expansion, nothing about how that expansion changes over time, etc. So, in reality, the God hypothesis has *no* explanatory value at all.

If there is another theory that simultaneously makes the predictions of GR and also gives an understanding of the origin of the universe, that theory would be *much* more highly preferred than the God hypothesis for those reasons alone.

 

[PruePhillip]

And how do you justify that claim? Just because the OT is false if read literally is not a good enough excuse.

I do believe there was a real:
Promised Land
Jerusalem
Ark of the Covenant
Temple
Horns of the altar
Joshua
Moses
King David
King Omri
Queen Jezebel
Isaiah
Bethany
Galilee
Sea of Galilee
Philistines
Sacrificial lamb/ram - unblemished and male
Edict of Cyrus
Babylon
Egypt
etc
etc
etc

Most of the above are accepted as proven now. So far there's no evidence for Moses and no proof yet for the Ark of the Covenant (but evidence)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe there was a real:
Promised Land
Jerusalem
Ark of the Covenant
Temple
Horns of the altar
Joshua
Moses
King David
King Omri
Queen Jezebel
Isaiah
Bethany
Galilee
Sea of Galilee
Philistines
Sacrificial lamb/ram - unblemished and male
Edict of Cyrus
Babylon
Egypt
etc
etc
etc

Most of the above are accepted as proven now. So far there's no evidence for Moses and no proof yet for the Ark of the Covenant (but evidence)

No, there are claims of Moses and an Ark of the Covenant. There is no evidence for them.

Nor is there evidence for Joshua. Queen Jezebel. And the rest are mostly just "So what?" claims.

 

[gnostic]

If the universe does not have an infinite regress problem and is thus finite in its past (had a beginning), then that would suggest that the initiator of this effect (the beginning of space-time) could not itself be a product of space-time.

Now, how many times am I going to have to say this?

If God does not exist (your position), then time MUST be past-eternal…otherwise, how do you explain the origins of all space-time??

Ow boy. Talk about an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

I don't know the origins of space-time. Nobody does. Neither do you.
Your religiously inspired combo of a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance / incredulity is just that... fallacious religious nonsense.

I do. God.

God?

I’m assuming that your only justifications you have, is a LESS THAN 2700-year-old composition of Genesis about a couple of creation stories that somehow “God” magically created the world and life on Earth, just by speaking some words, like some witchcraft incantations, that things just magically popped into existence or impossible transformations?

In another words, the old “God did it” adage?

The whole things, your belief in Genesis stories, God’s powers & eternal/immortal life, are nothing more than superstitions, based on fear and ignorance.

That’s all superstitions are - fear & ignorance.

Not only that Iron Age Genesis creation (as well as the Great Flood) stories were written during the Late Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, and more importantly, the Genesis Creation & Flood are based on much older creation/flood myths of Babylonia and Assyrian literature centuries earlier in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, meaning 2nd millennium BCE.

Genesis Creation and Flood are adaptions of earlier stories during the 2nd millennium BCE that remained popular in the 1st millennium BCE (Iron Age), eg the Enūma Eliš, the Epic of Atrahasis and the very popular Epic of Gilgamesh, where pieces (fragments) of clay tablets were discovered east (eg Elam) and west (eg Amarna in Egypt, the Hittite city of Hattusa, the city of Ugarit in northwest Syria and in the Canaanite Megiddo.

The Babylonian stories are based on even older stories, written in Sumerian cuneiform, during the late 3rd millennium BCE. Examples, the Eridu Genesis, the story of Enki and Ninlil, poems of Bilgames (a Sumerian name for Gilgamesh).

The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were in contacts with both the Assyrian empire (7th century BCE) and Babylonian empire (late 7th century and early 6th century BCE), though wars and trades, as well as prominent hostages of Judah were living in Babylon for 2 generations, would have been well-aware of popular Akkadian stories.

My points that Hebrew authors would have known the stories of Atrahasis/Utanapishtim and of Gilgamesh, because there are some similarities, such as humans being created from the Earth, Flood stories of Atrahasis and of Utanapishtim about releasing birds before finding land and the smell of sacrifices that drew attentions of the gods, which bear similarities to Noah.

The points with creation stories of Babylonian and Hebrew have some commonalities that are based on superstitions.

The Genesis 1 and 2 stories are just that, stories with loose descriptions of God creating. “God did it” isn’t scientific explanations of how the world really exist; “God did it” is merely unsubstantiated assumptions just like all superstitions are.

If we were to believe in the chronology of the Old Testament, then the Earth itself and the life were no older than about 6000 years (about 4000 BCE), if we were to believe in literal 6-day creation.

Of course, there other Christian creationists who believe that each creative day to be a thousand-year period or million-year period, depending on the individual creationists’ interpretations of Genesis 1, but that also defied logic and reality.

The fact is, Genesis 1 & 2 are not scientific explanations and lack evidence to support these stories.

 

[gnostic]

I do believe there was a real:
Promised Land
Jerusalem
Ark of the Covenant
Temple
Horns of the altar
Joshua
Moses
King David
King Omri
Queen Jezebel
Isaiah
Bethany
Galilee
Sea of Galilee
Philistines
Sacrificial lamb/ram - unblemished and male
Edict of Cyrus
Babylon
Egypt
etc
etc
etc

Most of the above are accepted as proven now. So far there's no evidence for Moses and no proof yet for the Ark of the Covenant (but evidence)

There are no evidence for Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, and there are no evidence for the invasion of Canaan and for the Ark of Covenant.

There are also no evidence for empire of Solomon and his fabled wealth. If Solomon did marry all those princesses from foreign kingdoms, don’t you think at least one of the contemporary foreign kingdoms would have even mentioned Solomon by name?

And just because it can name places, like Jerusalem, Babylon and Egypt, don’t mean the “stories” prior to formulation of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel are history.

Homer named many cities and places that exist in his time, don’t mean Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Priam, Hector and Helen are all real people and don’t mean the Iliad and Odyssey are real history.

Beside that, according to Genesis 10, places like Uruk (Erech in some translations of Genesis), Nineveh and Egypt didn’t exist until post-Flood, and yet the Old Kingdom pyramids predated Noah’s supposed Flood by centuries, and Nineveh and Uruk are even older by over a thousand years.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, there are claims of Moses and an Ark of the Covenant. There is no evidence for them.

Nor is there evidence for Joshua. Queen Jezebel. And the rest are mostly just "So what?" claims.

The "'so what' claims" are an admission these things are proven.
I wasn't aware the Phoenician queeen Jezebel hasn't been found yet.
We have evidence of Jezebel's parents and her husband Ahab, so yeah 'no evidence' but there's no reason she didn't exist - after all, there was an alliance between Israel and her home of Tyre, often established through marriages.

The Ark was just a box supported by two poles. Similar to those of other nations. God works through existing cultures.
There's this theory that the ark's resting place is still on the mount - evidenced by cuts in a floor which appear to accomodate the poles.
Joshua is only known to skeptics through his Mt Ebal altar and the place of cursing, just found. So there's evidence for some of the claims about the life of Joshua. And when the Ark was taken from Shiloh by the Phillistines there was left behind the 'horns of the altar' which were found - and shown in the museum at Shiloh. Also there - the butchered sacrifices, cut as per the Mosaic law - evidence that law was in effect.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

1. I watched Vilenkin give a presentation of the paper/theorem.

2. Ive read commentary on the paper.

3. I am aware of the scientific community proposing models to violate the theorem.

All three taken together, and we have a fire-proof theorem that will take a lot to be violated.

Not exactly. Because I don't think showing you equations or other aspects of models will make any difference, and because I don't think quoting specialists instead will either, I'll take the hard path.
I'll quote Vilenken himself in a later paper commenting on responses to the BGV theorem and offering counterpoints, arguments, etc.
He starts off by noting that

"The validity of the BGV theorem is not in question, but its interpretation has generated some controversy. Linde emphasized that the theorem still allows some geodesics (a set of measure zero) to be past eternal. A simple example is a “comoving” geodesic x=const in de Sitter space with flat spatial slicing,
ds^2=dt^2−e^(2Ht)dx2.
Observers evolving along such geodesics will see inflation continue from the infinite past."

This simple example is not put forward as a serious counterargument, merely as an example Vilenken acknowledges to be an example of an a geodesic (an "observer") for which the past can be infinitely extended despite the BGV theorem.
The paper largely consists of rather technical arguments against some of those points, objections, arguments, etc., since the paper with the BGV theorem was published that offer ways in which we can have a universe or spacetime extending infinitely into the past.
For some of these arguments, Vilenkin attempts to show that the resulting counterexamples of infinite/eternal universes are implausible. In particular his concern focuses mainly on bidirectionality in a class of cosmologies for which he needs to invoke additional constraints to arrive at the conclusion given in the BGV paper (namely, that even inflation had a beginning as in all likelihood, he believes, any good cosmological model would).
He concludes by noting that even in this paper and his "strengthened" position in which he addresses many counters to the BGV theorem and ways that have succeeded in showing that this theorem does not preclude cosmologies extended infinitely into the past, his conclusion that there must have been a single "beginning" (initial condition) is his opinion:

"It should also be noted that our conclusions rely on the null convergence condition (NCC). NCC is known to be violated by quantum fluctuations, but such fluctuations do not appear to be essential for our discussion here. More importantly, violations of NCC may occur in the high curvature regime near classical singularities and may in fact lead to resolution of the singularities (see, e.g., A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 213001 (2011).). This may significantly modify the global structure of spacetime and may open new possibilities for Carroll-Chen-type scenarios.
Personally, however, I am skeptical about the concept of random (or generic) initial conditions. I do not think it is a good substitute for a theory of initial conditions, as might for example be given by quantum cosmology. " (emphasis added)
Vilenkin, A. (2013). Arrows of time and the beginning of the universe. Physical Review D, 88(4), 043516.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are no evidence for Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, and there are no evidence for the invasion of Canaan and for the Ark of Covenant.

There are also no evidence for empire of Solomon and his fabled wealth. If Solomon did marry all those princesses from foreign kingdoms, don’t you think at least one of the contemporary foreign kingdoms would have even mentioned Solomon by name?

And just because it can name places, like Jerusalem, Babylon and Egypt, don’t mean the “stories” prior to formulation of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel are history.

Homer named many cities and places that exist in his time, don’t mean Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Priam, Hector and Helen are all real people and don’t mean the Iliad and Odyssey are real history.

Beside that, according to Genesis 10, places like Uruk (Erech in some translations of Genesis), Nineveh and Egypt didn’t exist until post-Flood, and yet the Old Kingdom pyramids predated Noah’s supposed Flood by centuries, and Nineveh and Uruk are even older by over a thousand years.

We have the evidence for the 'House of David' which would include Solomon as he was the next king after David. Hard to see invasions of Canaan when Canaanites did it to each other all the time, and the time of Moses saw the vast movement of peoples all over the civilized world - the Bronze Age Collapse. We have the evidence for many of the Iron Age kings of Isreal. We might even now have the evidence for Sodom at Tel el Hammond.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

They do the same thing with many other no-go theorems.

True.

As is anything dealing with anything previous to nucleosynthesis.

But speculating about causality outside of the universe is going far, far further beyond the evidence we have.

A true truth-seeker goes where the evidence takes him, even if where it takes him makes him feel uncomfortable.

Well, Vilenkin can be wrong, can't he?

Sure he can. Do some science and prove him wrong.

In this instance, the model does NOT have geodesic incompleteness.

What model?

Vilenkin *speculates* that they still are subject to the theorem even though they don't satisfy the hypotheses.

?

The model (and variations) are still being discussed. That was certainly NOT the end of it.

Cool. Let me know what they find out...until then, BGV it is.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

But it is NOT speculation that

1. A quantum theory of gravity will be necessary to understand the early universe.

2. BGV does not apply to quantum theories of gravity.

3. Some version of quantum gravity we already have as *speculative* models do not have a beginning.

None of these three points is speculative. And the most important are the first two. We *know* that quantum gravity is something we need to figure out. We *know* that BGV does not apply to quantum gravity because it is a semi-classical theorem.

So, unless you can extend the BGV result to quantum theories of gravity, it is useful *primarily* as a demarcation of how the classical theory might fail or for where to look for more comprehensive classical approximations.

Back to infinite regress..you cannot have a past-eternal quantum regime. I already provided one (of many I can provide) example of why that cant be the case, and I dont recall you addressing it...and it stands (whether you address it or not).

As far as the science of the matter is concerned..

I already know you read the wiki article on the BGV theorem and saw what Sean Carrol said about the theorem as it relates to quantum gravity...and you took what Carroll said about QG and now you are running wild with it.

But lets talk about it...

"it is very difficult to devise a system – especially a quantum one – that does nothing ‘forever,’ then evolves. A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time."

Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias, “Quantum Instability of the Emergent Universe,”

arXiv:1306.3232v2 (Page 5)

And their point is simple, you cant have this quantum region existing for eternity and then suddenly evolving (or transitioning) into classical space-time only some 13.7 billion years ago.

The same thing applies to the Standard big bang model, where our universe begins from a singularity point.

You cant have this singularity just sitting around and doing NOTHING for eternity, and then for whatever illogical reason, begins to expand.

Makes no sense.

 

[Polymath257]

Back to infinite regress..you cannot have a past-eternal quantum regime. I already provided one (of many I can provide) example of why that cant be the case, and I dont recall you addressing it...and it stands (whether you address it or not).

The only argument I saw you give against infinite regress was the traversing argument. I responded to that.

As far as the science of the matter is concerned..

I already know you read the wiki article on the BGV theorem and saw what Sean Carrol said about the theorem as it relates to quantum gravity...and you took what Carroll said about QG and now you are running wild with it.

But lets talk about it...

"it is very difficult to devise a system – especially a quantum one – that does nothing ‘forever,’ then evolves. A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time."

Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias, “Quantum Instability of the Emergent Universe,”

arXiv:1306.3232v2 (Page 5)

And, as @LegionOnomaMoi has pointed out, the BGV theorem does NOT prove that there was a beginning. There can be past eternal geoesics even in situations subject to BGV.

And who said anything about a stationary quantum state or one that 'does nothing forever'? In an eternal situation, there would continually be universes nucleating.

And their point is simple, you cant have this quantum region existing for eternity and then suddenly evolving (or transitioning) into classical space-time only some 13.7 billion years ago.

And who said that is what would be happening? Instead, you either have a previous contracting phase and a 'bounce' OR you have nucleation of different 'universes' out of a vacuum.

The same thing applies to the Standard big bang model, where our universe begins from a singularity point.

But, again, we KNOW that the Standard Model is only a classical approximation. It would not be authoritative in these questions.

You cant have this singularity just sitting around and doing NOTHING for eternity, and then for whatever illogical reason, begins to expand.

Makes no sense.

And who said that is what happened? You are attacking a straw man.

 

[Polymath257]

True.

A true truth-seeker goes where the evidence takes him, even if where it takes him makes him feel uncomfortable.

Precisely.

Sure he can. Do some science and prove him wrong.

As pointed out in another post, the BGV result isn't in question. The *interpretation* very much is. In particular, even in a classical setting, it does NOT prove the existence of a 'beginning': there may well be observers with an infinite past. Second, it is KNOWN not to apply when quantum mechanics is taken into account *and QM has to be taken into account*.

Vilenkin has an *opinion* that the universe had a beginning, but that is NOT proved an others disagree. Guth, for example.

What model?

LQG, String theory (yes, I know it has issues).

?

What did you not understand. A cyclic universe need not satisfy the hypotheses of BGV. Vilenkin *speculates* that the end result still holds but does not prove it.

Cool. Let me know what they find out...until then, BGV it is.

BGV is one constraint on the development of certain theories in cosmology. But it doesn't say as much as you seem to think it does and there *are* models that avoid its conclusions.

Are they speculative? Of course they are. ALL models of this sort are speculative. If you want to stick to non-speculative models, then you won't get anything prior to nucleosynthesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speculation? Do you call proving beyond a reasonable doubt, speculation?



Then perhaps they also need to be schooled on how infinite regress is impossible.



Already addressed this argumentation.



If God exists, then things changes from "nature did it", to "God did it".

Pretty significant change, don't you think?



Because of a quite lengthy Hell sentence that is coming your way if you dont.



You correct, it needs to be considered...so I will consider it..

*considers a past-eternal universe*

Ok, I considered it, and I reject it.



Gotcha.



You are generalizing...while I am specific.



There is. I already explained why and unless you can adequately address it, then it stands.



Keyword: future.

The argument is against an infinite past, not the future.



D: all of the above.



And?



Funny..considering the fact that Vilenkin ain't a theist...and it is his theorem lol.



A beginning is a beginning, regardless of whether or not the beginning came from a singularity point.



Syllogism test..

1. Philosophical arguments have been proven to be wrong too many times.

2. Therefore, this philosophical argument (infinite regress) is wrong.

Non sequitur. Does not follow.

Test: FAILED.

And besides faulty logic, you are being dismissive instead of simply addressing the point/argument.



Philosophical arguments are independent of relativity and quantum mechanics..so they need not realize or even acknowledge those things.

And that is the beauty of it.



Nonsense. Scientists depend on philosophy.

"Philosophy carries almost no weight other than to clarify intuitions".

Obviously. You cant be a scientist if you are unable to use deductive reasoning or draw conclusions based on inference.



I meant one-sided sticks. My bad.



Can you provide a picture of this squared circle in these geometries??

I would love to see a full round shape with an additional four sides.

Please...enlighten me of these geometries.



I agree..and the fact that I can agree with you while also maintaining my position goes to show how moot your point is.



Hmm, lets see...

1. Read and understand the paper of theorem..

Or..

2. Watch and understand the video of theorem..

All depends on which learning method you prefer...which makes it subjective.



Maybe, instead, you should work out the kinks on quantum gravity since you speak so highly of it.

Until then..BGV.

Oh please do school the cosmologists. That ought to be hilarious. Please make sure to share it with all of us.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh please do school the cosmologists. That ought to be hilarious. Please make sure to share it with all of us.

WL Craig, whose arguments and even key phrasing you seem to repeat (often nearly, if not exactly, verbatim), has already attempted to "school the cosmologists" (at least when it suits him; when he finds something he wants to use from cosmology, he has no problem doing so, nor with making inferences oft-times from his idiomatic interpretation that goes beyond what both cosmologists and the literature he uses actually warrants).
So, for example, in his article Big Bang Cosmology, Craig takes a very select group of cosmologists and cherry-picked cosmology articles (mostly popular articles, too), and then proceeds to "school the cosmologists" wherever he feels they are wrong, mostly via appeals to simplified versions of older philosophical concepts, ad hominem, and straw-man arguments, etc., but no contact with actual cosmology (at least, not after he's covered the classical results he likes).
Craig also "school[s ] the cosmologist" Vilenkin, whom he quotes quite plainly as saying that no deity is needed:

"Vilenkin has a different proposal as to how the universe could come into being from literally nothing. He explains,

Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause. Nothing can be created from nothing, says Lucretius, if only because the conservation of energy makes it impossible to create nothing [sic; something?] from nothing. . . .

There is a loophole in this reasoning. The energy of the gravitational field is negative; it is conceivable that this negative energy could compensate for the positive energy of matter, making the total energy of the cosmos equal to zero....

If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. And according to quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . . .

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed.

Craig Responds:

Grant the supposition that the positive energy associated with matter is exactly counter-balanced by the negative energy associated with gravity, so that on balance the energy is zero. Vilenkin’s key move comes with the claim that in such a case “there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing.” Now this claim is a triviality. Necessarily, if there is nothing, then there is nothing to prevent the universe from coming into being. By the same token, if there is nothing, then there is nothing to permit the universe to come into being. If there were anything to prevent or permit the universe’s coming into being, then there would be something, not nothing. If there is nothing, then there is nothing, period.

The absence of anything to prevent the universe’s coming into being does not imply the metaphysical possibility of the universe’s coming into being from nothing. To illustrate, if there were nothing, then there would be nothing to prevent God’s coming into being without a cause, but that does not entail that such a thing is metaphysically possible. It is metaphysically impossible for God to come into being without a cause, even if there were nothing to prevent it because nothing existed.

Vilenkin, however, infers that “no cause is needed” for the universe’s coming into being because the conservation laws would not prevent it and “according to quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen.” Grant that if there were nothing, then both the conservation laws and quantum physical laws would still hold. Why think that, given the laws of quantum mechanics, anything not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen? The conservation laws do not strictly forbid God’s sending everyone to heaven, but that hardly gives grounds for optimism. Neither do they strictly forbid His sending everyone to hell, in which case both outcomes will occur, which is logically impossible, as they are logically contrary universal generalizations. The point can be made non-theologically as well: the conservation laws do not strictly forbid something’s coming into existence, but neither do they forbid nothing’s coming into existence, but both cannot happen. It is logically absurd to think that because something is not forbidden by the conservation laws, it will therefore happen.

Finally, Vilenkin’s inference that because the positive and negative energy in the universe sum to zero, therefore no cause of the universe’s coming into being is needed is hard to take seriously. This is like saying that if one’s debts balance one’s assets, then one’s net worth is zero, and so there is no cause of one’s financial situation!

Now, again, when Craig "schools" cosmologists, he doesn't relies mainly on twisting around their attempts to simplify concepts, theories, and models he wouldn't otherwise understand, and applying his metaphysical prejudices and philosophical biases to what he is able to glean from the non-technical simplifications of actual literature in cosmology.
And you're right, it is rather amusing, or at least it would be if people didn't seem to take it seriously. And to rely on it for their understanding of cosmology and (when relevant) related fields in physics.