The Cosmological Argument

[Meow Mix]

That's probably my fault, worded it poorly. The negation of (zebra) is (no zebra), yes. It results in "nothing." But there's also the (idea of zebra) that we acquire when (zebra) has been realized. Much philosophical debate has gone into whether there is a negation of that, and if so what its nature might be. For instance, if we conceive of a possible world with no zebras, we have effectively placed a "blank" zebra into that world, a placemark where zebra might be. We can do that, because we still hold the idea of zebra. In the context of a possible world with no zebras, there's this big "nothing" where something should be roaming around; that "nothing" is not really nothing. It's useful.

The emptiness of form is not ¬x; in different contexts it negates different things, including the negation of "no zebras". Part of the learning referred to earlier as arational teaches one to switch between contexts to see multiple (myriad) "no zebras." Learning to switch contexts is often the more significant lesson.

I think I see what you mean. Consider a possible world where zebras never evolved: are you saying that by considering this possible world we've applied something to it (an absence of zebras)?

I'm comfortable with agreeing with this. If I were to explain it, I'd simply point out that the form still exists even in worlds where zebras aren't actualized.

Am I understanding you correctly?

I'm sure you can agree that my having justified knowledge of a capitol city isn't what makes it true that it's a capitol city. Truth is paramount. That's what I meant by knowledge is true despite justification: that we have justified belief doesn't generate truth.

Ok, I certainly agree with this. I think we find understanding below:

If it were so that truth requires justification, then justification could not be true. I believe that truth is paramount. If justification is to work, it must itself be justifiable by other things (that's not to say we need indulge an endless recursive --it stops at the point where we are convinced of a thing).


Perhaps it's important to distinguish between the proposition truth and propositions that are true. Truth is the mother of all propositions: it simply says, "true." While we use justification to guarantee propositions are true, it is the truth we find in justification that leads us to that guarantee.

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. There are two "points of view" here: the omniscient ontological point of view (truth) and the epistemic "as far as we're capable of knowing" point of view (propositions).

Truth doesn't require justification to be true, but we require justification to be aware that we've stumbled on a true proposition (and therefore to recognize truth).

In my opinion, the phrase "knowledge is justified true belief" indicates that knowledge is unconditionally true, and it's also justified. That does not (for me) leave open the possiblity of knowledge skipping over justification, but truth is another matter.

Well, it can also be given in the context that knowledge is justified [true] belief -- where [true] means that it can either be absolutely true or true to the extent that it's possible for an epistemic thinker to know.

I have justified true belief that grass will appear green to me tomorrow, and this can comfortably be called knowledge of the lesser sort -- it isn't absolute since the truth is tentative; and tied to the shortcomings of the justification.

I have justified true belief that if something exists that it exists as what it is, and this would be the stronger knowledge -- this is because the truth is absolute and the justification infinite.

Either case, though, doesn't allow knowledge to be reached while skipping over justification. You can surely come to a true belief without justification, but that true belief wouldn't be knowledge; and furthermore, you would have no means of knowing that it's actually a true proposition.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually, modern cosmology has confirmed that the universe did indeed BEGIN to exist. This point is irrefutable. We have both scientific and philosophical arguments that would lead to the conclusion that the universe began to exist. The only two questions are, how and why did the universe begin to exist.

Hi Call of the Wild, welcome to the forum.

You're not correct. The current state of the universe is confirmed to have began; but not the ontological existence of the universe itself. As a cosmology grad student I'm familiar with the scientific arguments (and as I said, it's a mathematical consequence of models that give us finite geodesics and thus a "beginning," but also a point at infinity, for instance).

I'm pretty familiar with the ontological issues as well -- I'm not familiar with any valid arguments that demonstrate the universe began to ontologically exist. Rather than mentioning them off hand, would you like to present some that you're familiar with?

True enough, the BBE does indeed represent the beginning of the entire universe, unless someone is positing one of the multi-verse theories. But the multi-verse theories have been plagued with problems and right now the standard model of the BBE remains the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

Multiverse models don't interfere with the standard BBE model, so I'm not sure why they're relevant. It doesn't require an appeal to multiverses to assert that the BBE does not indicate an ontological beginning.

You cant trace time back any further than the singularity, which is why you have to posit a supernatural cause. Before the Planck time, space, matter, or energy did not exist. So if everything natural had a beginning, whatever gave it its beginning has to be supernatural.

Actually a singularity in any true sense is an outdated concept in BBE cosmology; but you're essentially right: you can't trace time in a meaningful sense past the Planck era.

You're crossing a line by saying that space, time, matter, or energy didn't exist "prior" to the Planck era, though. It depends on what "prior" means and whether you're insisting on referring to their present states.

Your final sentence simply doesn't follow in any sense. What is natural? What is supernatural; and how do you determine that any ontological beginning must be supernatural?

We cant make physical assertions prior to the first Planck time because there was NOTHING physical in existence before this time. This is the point that those that support the kalam argument is trying to make. According to the BBE, the universe started at a singularity point. So I am confused as to why you grant that the BBE is the beginning of the current state of the universe, but speak as if it was in another state prior to Planck time, at which nothing physical existed.

How are you defining "physical?" Are you including fields, for instance?

I'm not sure why you're asserting that nothing physical existed prior to the BBE. What are you basing this assumption on? I'm familiar with the physics, so feel free to hit me with it

 

[Willamena]

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. There are two "points of view" here: the omniscient ontological point of view (truth) and the epistemic "as far as we're capable of knowing" point of view (propositions).

Truth doesn't require justification to be true, but we require justification to be aware that we've stumbled on a true proposition (and therefore to recognize truth).



Well, it can also be given in the context that knowledge is justified [true] belief -- where [true] means that it can either be absolutely true or true to the extent that it's possible for an epistemic thinker to know.

We have another word for that stuff in your head that is true only to the extent that the thinker [knows] it to be [true]. We call that belief.

"Knowledge" in the context of metaphysics brings ontology and epistemology together, revealing them in a totally interdependent nature.

 

[PolyHedral]

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to phrase all this in terms of probabilistic hypotheses?

 

[Meow Mix]

(and as I said, it's a mathematical consequence of models that give us finite geodesics and thus a "beginning," but also a point at infinity, for instance).

Specifically, this is how we end up with a "beginning" of time due to finite geodesics. Invariably, anyone who mentions this is following in Hawking's footsteps (from the Hawking-Hartle model) -- which uses a wick rotation path integral of a universal wave-function (which on an interesting side note can satisfy the Wheeler-DeWitt equations).

All that really means is that we're essentially using a mathematical trick to simplify some Minkowski-ish space problem to a Euclidean problem with an imaginary transform. The Minkowski metric tensor:

1) ds^2 = -(dt^2) + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

isn't a far cry from the Euclidean:

2) ds^2 = dτ^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

These can be equivalent if you let:

3) t = iτ

So, first you'll need your Euclidean path integral:

4) ∫Dgμv e^([1/16πG] ∫ sqrt[det g] R d^4x)

Where Dgμv is the metric determined by g in the scalar curvature R. This can be tidied up by noting that Einstein's action for gravity, Γ, is the negative of the action given in the integral above:

5) Γ = [-1/16πG] ∫ sqrt[det g] R d^4x (red added for emphasis)

So you can just define the Euclidean integral as:

6) ∫Dgμv e^(-&#915

So let's wick rotate the gravitational path integral on some arbitrary physical (modeling the universe) manifold M:

7) {-(1/16πG) ∫(M) (d^n)x * sqrt(R - 2&#923} - {1/8πG ∫(δM) (d^[n-1])x * sqrt(&#963ξ + I[Ф,g]}

R again is our scalar curvature (on g), Λ is the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant]cosmological constant[/url][/URL], σ is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_metric]induced metric[/url] of δM, ξ is the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_operator"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_operator]trace[/url][/URL] of δM's curvature, and since we're talking about the physical universe, Ф is the presence of arbitrary fields. I will be re-using (7) below.

Normally we'd need initial conditions to calculate anything, but since the whole point of this is to be looking backwards through time at the Big Bang Event, we can evaluate M on some connected boundary component with fields:

8) ∫[dФ][dg] e^({-(1/16πG) ∫(M) (d^n)x * sqrt(R - 2&#923} - {1/8πG ∫(δM) (d^[n-1])x * sqrt(&#963ξ + I[Ф,g]})

Notice, though, that (7) appears in its entirety in (8), so I can make it much easier on the eyes by equating (7) to some arbitrary variable; let's just say (7) = Q.

9) ∫[dФ][dg] e^Q

Now, (9) happens to be interpretable as a http://[/SIZEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function]wave function[/url]. It can tell us that the universe has some initial geometry σ. Recall that σ is an induced metric. To save myself some time, the wikipedia article (linked above under "induced metric" link) can explain:

In mathematics and theoretical physics, the induced metric is the metric tensor defined on a submanifold which is calculated from the metric tensor on a larger manifold into which the submanifold is embedded. It may be calculated using the following formula:

Here

describe the indices of coordinates

of the submanifold while the functions

encode the embedding into the higher-dimensional manifold whose tangent indices are denoted

.

So if we use this metric on some curve, we're ultimately going to end up with a sum; and since we have finite geodesics we're going to end up with a finite answer.

Does getting a finite answer because we used finite geodesics (based on an incomplete and most importantly simplified model) mean that, since we can only "go back" some finite distance on a timeline, that time therefore must be finite and thus must have "began?"

Nope! It just means that our model is simplified and that we're ignoring that you can use finite geodesics to measure a finite distance to a point at infinity: the finite answer doesn't mean that the point isn't in fact infinitely far away.

Here's a good analogy: consider a projective plane. We can even use an informal example of a projective plane such as, say, a painting:

In projective geometry, all parallel lines meet at a point at infinity: that's what the red lines represent in the picture above. To give a 3D perspective, artists pick a point "at infinity" for their lines to converge at.

Here's the analogy: you can use a meterstick and measure a finite distance for each one of those projective lines above, but the fact remains that they are extending infinitely toward a point infinitely far away.

------------------

Edit: Here's another thing to consider: since we can let t = iτ, saying "time as we know it began" loses all of its potency: perhaps time as we know it (t) can begin, but we'd still have some encompassing metatime iτ to work causality and such with.

 

[camanintx]

Which is why I prefer to set the issue in terms of causation. Why/How did the universe start? Why has there been a start rather than not? Presumably it started because of something other than itself. For it doesn't seem possible for something inert and impersonal/without will -- whether eternally extant or not -- (it would have to be inert etc at the starting point because we are postulating a "time before" causation) to start itself in motion. That "something other than itself" would have to somehow exist outside time and be capable of making a decision to get things moving; otherwise, it becomes part of the series we're trying to explain -- vicious infinite regress.

Relativity shows us that time is simply as aspect of space itself and has no objective existence. This is why we have no freedom of movement within time and the concept of something existing "outside of time" is meaningless. As for the possibility of an inert and impersonal first cause, how is that any less reasonable than an intelligent agent when there was no moment before the universe existed in which it could decide to make it?

 

[Meow Mix]

Relativity shows us that time is simply as aspect of space itself and has no objective existence. This is why we have no freedom of movement within time and the concept of something existing "outside of time" is meaningless. As for the possibility of an inert and impersonal first cause, how is that any less reasonable than an intelligent agent when there was no moment before the universe existed in which it could decide to make it?

To play devil's advocate here, causality can still have non-local meaning (e.g. without what we normally call time), such as is the case in some quantum interpretations.

There's also the possibility of a more encompassing metatime, imaginary time, and different temporal dimensions. It's not unreasonable for theists to propose this.

 

[shawn001]

There is no evidence a "god" created the universe for or against.

There is major evidence since it started everything evolved to its current state.

There is also evidence our universe had a starting point.

Before we could not go back to that start point because even math broke down to nonsense at the singularity.

However, we have found otherways to test and possible observe evidence that goes back before the bang.

The big bang theory though is not about what started the big bang. Just that our universe was hot and dense in the past. We can physically observe this now, back before starts and galaxies existed.

The new Planck satellite, might provide evidence of other big bangs by ripples in the CBM patterns.

If the universe didn't evolve the way it did by a lot of random events, we would not be here to ask the questions however. But, this does not prove or disprove for a fact a designer or "god" had to make it happen or is there any observations of such in what we see. The universe was more organized in the begining then what we see today because of entrophy.

The universe could still come into existence from nothing and NOT break the laws of physics. Or from the energy of other universes.

 

[Willamena]

Relativity shows us that time is simply as aspect of space itself and has no objective existence. This is why we have no freedom of movement within time and the concept of something existing "outside of time" is meaningless. As for the possibility of an inert and impersonal first cause, how is that any less reasonable than an intelligent agent when there was no moment before the universe existed in which it could decide to make it?

"God" is a blank zebra (a blank universe) in a world made possible by misunderstanding what is impossible.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hi Call of the Wild, welcome to the forum.

Appreciate’cha :0)

You're not correct. The current state of the universe is confirmed to have began; but not the ontological existence of the universe itself. As a cosmology grad student I'm familiar with the scientific arguments (and as I said, it's a mathematical consequence of models that give us finite geodesics and thus a "beginning," but also a point at infinity, for instance).

I am correct. The standard model of the big bang suggests that the BBE was the beginning of everything natural, that is all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM). Yes, its whole ontological existence began at the moment of the big bang. This holds true regardless of what the current state is or what the state was. Before the big bang, literally nothing that is considered physical existed. So there is no room for saying “oh, the big bang suggests that the current state of the universe began to exist, but not in the ontological sense”.

I'm pretty familiar with the ontological issues as well -- I'm not familiar with any valid arguments that demonstrate the universe began to ontologically exist. Rather than mentioning them off hand, would you like to present some that you're familiar with?

Again, the BBE states that the universe began to exist. STEM all came into being with the big bang. This has been scientifically confirmed within almost the past 100 years. Science has come a long way. It is important for everyone to realize that literally nothing that is considered natural existed before the big bang. So no one can make a ontological case for naturalism beyond the Planck time.

Multiverse models don't interfere with the standard BBE model, so I'm not sure why they're relevant. It doesn't require an appeal to multiverses to assert that the BBE does not indicate an ontological beginning.

It does in a way, if one postulates that our universe is but one domain in a must vaster cosmos which consists of an infinite number of domains. Now you are right, the big bang does not require an appeal to multiverses, but that hasn’t stopped some people who are running from the BB’s implications to begin to consider.

Actually a singularity in any true sense is an outdated concept in BBE cosmology; but you're essentially right: you can't trace time in a meaningful sense past the Planck era.

Well, the standard model has a singularity and it has the most empirical evidence backing it. Now, not all models need a singularity and not all models depend on a singuarlity, for example on the Hartle/Hawking model the universe begins to exist, but not a singularity point.

You're crossing a line by saying that space, time, matter, or energy didn't exist "prior" to the Planck era, though. It depends on what "prior" means and whether you're insisting on referring to their present states.

By “prior” I mean before. Since Planck time represents the first moment after the big bang at which time begins (along with everything else), there can be nothing chronologically before it.

Your final sentence simply doesn't follow in any sense. What is natural? What is supernatural; and how do you determine that any ontological beginning must be supernatural?

What is natural? Nature is anything that is bound by natural law. Supernatural is anything that is not bound by natural law. Plain and simple. What the kalam cosmological argument suggests is there had to be one necessary being, a being that is powerful enough to create a whole universe and also a being that is not dependent upon anything else for its existence. Now, these are necessary conditions, and the only being that has this kind of nature is the traditional definition we use for God.

How are you defining "physical?" Are you including fields, for instance?

I'm not sure why you're asserting that nothing physical existed prior to the BBE. What are you basing this assumption on? I'm familiar with the physics, so feel free to hit me with it

I mean that nothing that is spatial, material, and temporal existed prior to the BBE. And I am basing it on the last 100 years of good old science J

 

[PolyHedral]

Before the big bang, literally nothing that is considered physical existed.

This is not a justifiable statement.

 

[Dan4reason]

Before the big bang, literally nothing that is considered physical existed. So there is no room for saying “oh, the big bang suggests that the current state of the universe began to exist, but not in the ontological sense”.

How do you know that?

It is important for everyone to realize that literally nothing that is considered natural existed before the big bang. So no one can make a ontological case for naturalism beyond the Planck time.

How do you know there aren't things working by laws outside the universe?

What is natural? Nature is anything that is bound by natural law. Supernatural is anything that is not bound by natural law. Plain and simple. What the kalam cosmological argument suggests is there had to be one necessary being, a being that is powerful enough to create a whole universe and also a being that is not dependent upon anything else for its existence. Now, these are necessary conditions, and the only being that has this kind of nature is the traditional definition we use for God.

So how do you know that everything outside our universe are not bound by natural laws? What if there are also necessary things or forces? What if there are many necessary things in all of existence?

 

[Meow Mix]

I am correct. The standard model of the big bang suggests that the BBE was the beginning of everything natural, that is all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM). Yes, its whole ontological existence began at the moment of the big bang. This holds true regardless of what the current state is or what the state was. Before the big bang, literally nothing that is considered physical existed. So there is no room for saying “oh, the big bang suggests that the current state of the universe began to exist, but not in the ontological sense”.

Well friend, cosmology is my field (I'm a cosmology grad student); and I'm afraid I'll have to remain skeptical of your claim unless you've come across new and exotic data unknown to my entire physics department. However, it seems more likely to me that what you're referring to as the "standard model" is actually a collection of outdated models championed by Hawking and Penrose during the infancy of Big Bang cosmology.

Even as early as 1988 the notion of a singularity was already an outdated concept. Hawking himself declares this in "A Brief History of Time" quite clearly:

There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe.

In fact, cosmological singularities at the Big Bang Event have been ruled out quite a bit longer than '88, so it simply seems to me that your information is far out of date. Modern BB models don't incorporate singularities even without a quantum theory of gravity.

Again, the BBE states that the universe began to exist. STEM all came into being with the big bang. This has been scientifically confirmed within almost the past 100 years. Science has come a long way. It is important for everyone to realize that literally nothing that is considered natural existed before the big bang. So no one can make a ontological case for naturalism beyond the Planck time.

Science has indeed come a long way since the 70's

More seriously though, I'm wondering where you're getting the notion that energy and matter "came into being" with the Big Bang. That wasn't even a feature of the outdated singularity models. Where is this idea coming from?

It does in a way, if one postulates that our universe is but one domain in a must vaster cosmos which consists of an infinite number of domains. Now you are right, the big bang does not require an appeal to multiverses, but that hasn’t stopped some people who are running from the BB’s implications to begin to consider.

I think you seriously misunderstand what the BB's implications include, however. That the universe began to ontologically exist is not one of them.

Did you catch my post where I explained in detail why that notion is fundamentally mistaken? You can either check a few posts above this one or follow this link.

Well, the standard model has a singularity and it has the most empirical evidence backing it. Now, not all models need a singularity and not all models depend on a singuarlity, for example on the Hartle/Hawking model the universe begins to exist, but not a singularity point.

Again, singularities are an outdated concept for a long time now. They might still be prevalent in popular science (I don't know, just guessing that it might be) but in the actual world of cosmology they've been a fairly extinct idea for several decades now. I may just be a grad student, but I'm exposed to a lot of the things the cosmology community studies, talks about, and researches; and it's not a secret that Big Bang singularities is considered to have been a mistaken idea during the infancy of cosmology.

By “prior” I mean before. Since Planck time represents the first moment after the big bang at which time begins (along with everything else), there can be nothing chronologically before it.

"Prior" is a tricky word when discussing the Planck epoch; that's all I wanted to get across. English is only built with the sensibilities of a single temporal dimension following a single gradient; the maths are much better equipped to talk about time at this level. This is why I took the time to explain some of it in the post a few posts above this one.

What is natural? Nature is anything that is bound by natural law. Supernatural is anything that is not bound by natural law. Plain and simple. What the kalam cosmological argument suggests is there had to be one necessary being, a being that is powerful enough to create a whole universe and also a being that is not dependent upon anything else for its existence. Now, these are necessary conditions, and the only being that has this kind of nature is the traditional definition we use for God.

I could argue the semantics of "natural" and "supernatural" (the definitions given are not sufficient), but that would be pretty far off topic. If you'd like to join me in another thread about those definitions I'd be glad to clarify.

I mean that nothing that is spatial, material, and temporal existed prior to the BBE. And I am basing it on the last 100 years of good old science

J

Please don't take this in a rude way, but it seems to me rather that you're basing it on cosmology that's almost half a century out of date. Even if Big Bang models with singularities were still in use (they aren't), I'm curious where you got the idea that energy and matter "began" with the BBE itself -- even the singularity models don't assert that. I can't think of where you got that idea other than possibly from wishful theistic thinking.

In any case, I'm enjoying the discussion -- let me know if you want to engage in a thread about the terms "natural" and "supernatural." I don't think those terms are as simple as you think.

 

[PolyHedral]

More seriously though, I'm wondering where you're getting the notion that energy and matter "came into being" with the Big Bang. That wasn't even a feature of the outdated singularity models. Where is this idea coming from?

Pop science, of course.

 

[shawn001]

[/font][/color][/font][/color]

Well friend, cosmology is my field (I'm a cosmology grad student); and I'm afraid I'll have to remain skeptical of your claim unless you've come across new and exotic data unknown to my entire physics department. However, it seems more likely to me that what you're referring to as the "standard model" is actually a collection of outdated models championed by Hawking and Penrose during the infancy of Big Bang cosmology.

Even as early as 1988 the notion of a singularity was already an outdated concept. Hawking himself declares this in "A Brief History of Time" quite clearly:

[/color]

In fact, cosmological singularities at the Big Bang Event have been ruled out quite a bit longer than '88, so it simply seems to me that your information is far out of date. Modern BB models don't incorporate singularities even without a quantum theory of gravity.



Science has indeed come a long way since the 70's

More seriously though, I'm wondering where you're getting the notion that energy and matter "came into being" with the Big Bang. That wasn't even a feature of the outdated singularity models. Where is this idea coming from?



I think you seriously misunderstand what the BB's implications include, however. That the universe began to ontologically exist is not one of them.

Did you catch my post where I explained in detail why that notion is fundamentally mistaken? You can either check a few posts above this one or follow this link.



Again, singularities are an outdated concept for a long time now. They might still be prevalent in popular science (I don't know, just guessing that it might be) but in the actual world of cosmology they've been a fairly extinct idea for several decades now. I may just be a grad student, but I'm exposed to a lot of the things the cosmology community studies, talks about, and researches; and it's not a secret that Big Bang singularities is considered to have been a mistaken idea during the infancy of cosmology.



"Prior" is a tricky word when discussing the Planck epoch; that's all I wanted to get across. English is only built with the sensibilities of a single temporal dimension following a single gradient; the maths are much better equipped to talk about time at this level. This is why I took the time to explain some of it in the post a few posts above this one.



I could argue the semantics of "natural" and "supernatural" (the definitions given are not sufficient), but that would be pretty far off topic. If you'd like to join me in another thread about those definitions I'd be glad to clarify.



Please don't take this in a rude way, but it seems to me rather that you're basing it on cosmology that's almost half a century out of date. Even if Big Bang models with singularities were still in use (they aren't), I'm curious where you got the idea that energy and matter "began" with the BBE itself -- even the singularity models don't assert that. I can't think of where you got that idea other than possibly from wishful theistic thinking.

In any case, I'm enjoying the discussion -- let me know if you want to engage in a thread about the terms "natural" and "supernatural." I don't think those terms are as simple as you think.

Meow Mix, I am curious about a few things. Very cool you study cosmology.

"Even as early as 1988 the notion of a singularity was already an outdated concept"

If you "run the movie backwards" what do you get at planck time?

 

[shawn001]

Meow Mix, also one more question for the moment.

Black holes are still considered singularities?

 

[PolyHedral]

If you "run the movie backwards" what do you get at planck time?

Inflation, I believe.

 

[shawn001]

Inflation theory is basically after the singularity happens though in that model. In an extremely small fraction of time the universe expanded very rapidly according to inflation theory.

Then they thought it would it would slow down because of gravity, but instead found its speeding up faster then light. Space that is, not matter, matter is dragged along with it as space stretches.

WMAP Inflation Theory

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well friend, cosmology is my field (I'm a cosmology grad student); and I'm afraid I'll have to remain skeptical of your claim unless you've come across new and exotic data unknown to my entire physics department. However, it seems more likely to me that what you're referring to as the "standard model" is actually a collection of outdated models championed by Hawking and Penrose during the infancy of Big Bang cosmology.

Not quite. The Standard Model is actually a Friedman-Lemitre model and it precedes the Hawking and Penrose theorems of the 70’s.

Even as early as 1988 the notion of a singularity was already an outdated concept. Hawking himself declares this in "A Brief History of Time" quite clearly:
in fact, cosmological singularities at the Big Bang Event have been ruled out quite a bit longer than '88, so it simply seems to me that your information is far out of date. Modern BB models don't incorporate singularities even without a quantum theory of gravity.

Granted. As I said before, the argument doesn’t depend upon a singularity point. As long as the model in some way suggest that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past, then the argument is justified. But a singularity is not necessary. Speaking of Hawking, he said “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang” (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, pg. 20.) Even if modern BB models don’t incorporate singularities, when you probe deep into them, they all suggests the universe is not past eternal but had a beginning at some point in the finite past. Once again, the standard bb model has the most empirical evidence supporting it, and it does suggest a singularity.

More seriously though, I'm wondering where you're getting the notion that energy and matter "came into being" with the Big Bang. That wasn't even a feature of the outdated singularity models. Where is this idea coming from?

The idea is coming from the implications of the model. As physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler point out “At this singularity, space, and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so if the universe originated at such a singuarlity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo” (Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principal, 1986, pg 442). Now as I said before, if you want to take a Hawking/Hartle model at which there is no singularity, that is fine also. But even on that model the universe still begin to exist. A singularity is not necessary and I only use the standard model because it has the most evidence supporting it. Any model that will suggest the beginning of the universe from a finite past can be used to support premise 2 of the KCA, that the universe began to exist.

I think you seriously misunderstand what the BB's implications include, however. That the universe began to ontologically exist is not one of them.

What the BB tells us is that the universe began to exist. In order for something to begin to exist, there must have been a time where it didn’t exist. The word “Ontological” is a study of existence. If the universe began to exist, there was nothing ontological about it :0)

Did you catch my post where I explained in detail why that notion is fundamentally mistaken? You can either check a few posts above this one or follow this

I will definitely check it out.

Again, singularities are an outdated concept for a long time now. They might still be prevalent in popular science (I don't know, just guessing that it might be) but in the actual world of cosmology they've been a fairly extinct idea for several decades now. I may just be a grad student, but I'm exposed to a lot of the things the cosmology community studies, talks about, and researches; and it's not a secret that Big Bang singularities is considered to have been a mistaken idea during the infancy of cosmology.

Point granted. The standard model needs to be modified. We need to use quantum physics at that point and no one is sure how this is to be done. But even when modified, the prediction that the universe had an absolute beginning is not negated. The Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem of 2003 showed that any universe that has been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. So, the second premise of the kalam is still confirmed by modern, not outdated, but modern cosmology.

"Prior" is a tricky word when discussing the Planck epoch; that's all I wanted to get across. English is only built with the sensibilities of a single temporal dimension following a single gradient; the maths are much better equipped to talk about time at this level. This is why I took the time to explain some of it in the post a few posts above this one.

Fair enough. But it is worth mentioning that if/since time had a beginning, whatever gave it its beginning had to transcend (or exist beyond) time itself.

I could argue the semantics of "natural" and "supernatural" (the definitions given are not sufficient), but that would be pretty far off topic. If you'd like to join me in another thread about those definitions I'd be glad to clarify.

It is quite simple. You are made up of matter. You occupy space. You live in time. You are bound by natural law. God is immaterial, non-spatial, and timeless, and he isn’t bound by natural law because natural law doesn’t apply to anything that is not natural.

Please don't take this in a rude way, but it seems to me rather that you're basing it on cosmology that's almost half a century out of date. Even if Big Bang models with singularities were still in use (they aren't), I'm curious where you got the idea that energy and matter "began" with the BBE itself -- even the singularity models don't assert that. I can't think of where you got that idea other than possibly from wishful theistic thinking.

Look up the Standard Model of the big bang. You will see where I got it from.

In any case, I'm enjoying the discussion -- let me know if you want to engage in a thread about the terms "natural" and "supernatural." I don't think those terms are as simple as you think.

Indeed it is a stimulating discussion. And I do want to engage in a natural/supernatural thread. Hey, you said you studied cosmology. Is that an individual course or do you have to study astronomy in order to take a cosmo course?? Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix, I am curious about a few things. Very cool you study cosmology.

"Even as early as 1988 the notion of a singularity was already an outdated concept"

If you "run the movie backwards" what do you get at planck time?

That's exactly the point: we don't really know. Relativity breaks down at this point (which is what nudged physicists to suggest the existence of singularities in the first place: how else to explain an infinite answer to an equation that may not even apply?)

I'm not arguing that modern cosmology asserts the universe had no ontological beginning. We don't really have the data to assert that. I'm arguing that there is no data either way, and that to assert that there was an ontological beginning is far too presumptive to base an argument off of.

Meow Mix, also one more question for the moment.

Black holes are still considered singularities?

As far as black holes are concerned, "singularity" just means that the descriptive geodesics (think of them like "paths" that things take through different geometries of space) aren't smooth; e.g. it's possible to get an infinity as an answer if we ask the question in the wrong way.

"Singularities" are what happen when cosmological models essentially "divide by zero" because the models are oversimplified for the task at hand -- not literally dividing by zero (though I imagine there are a few singularities that are a consequence of that), but it's a good analogy.

Imagine that a programmer is trying to make a simple program to better visualize his finances: he sets up his program such that he types in the number of items purchased and then the price of objects purchased. This works great for most circumstances, but as soon as he starts to try to use the program in a new and novel way he might be surprised by weird results simply because the program wasn't built for that: say, he tries to calculate $1 / 0 apples.

It's not that his program is "wrong," it's just that it's oversimplified for the task at hand. Same thing with the physics: our models of the universe on every level of science are inherently in simulacra as they say in philosophy of science: they're all fundamentally metaphysically wrong but nevertheless sufficient for most tasks we have for them. (Recall how well Newton's laws of gravitation work here in the calm conditions of Earth, but were fundamentally incorrect when it comes to relativistic accelerations, masses, etc.)

In fact, when we talk about cosmological models of black holes, we're usually talking about electrically neutral black holes with ideal quantum characteristics and manageable rotation: it's sort of like describing a table by using a theory that gives answers on perfect cubes. Sufficient for some tasks maybe, but inherently incorrect.

So, singularities don't really exist in their most commonly understood context for the same reason that particles aren't really Euclidean points: it's physically and metaphysically impossible and noncognitive for these respective things to be zero-dimensional.