AgnosticWeb.com - Stenger\'s Cosmology

Stenger\'s Cosmology (reply)

dhw — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:18:52 +0000

George: Why does something have to spring from something else? Why can't it just begin in the simplest possible way and evolve from there? Asking for there to be some "before" to it loses any explanatory power. You get an endless regression, the "turtles all the way down" fallacy. -As a mere agnostic, I'd just like to point out that everything beginning in the simplest possible way and evolving from there constitutes a "first cause". How about this? "It" all began with simple energy which has been in existence for ever and ever. And energy begat matter, and matter begat our universe, and our universe begat life, and life begat us.-*****-I have just seen your post about Plotinus, and will try to come back it later. Thank you.

Stenger\'s Cosmology (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:38:07 +0000

George: Why does something have to spring from something else? > Why can't it just begin in the simplest possible way and evolve from there? > Asking for there to be some "before" to it loses any explanatory power. > You get an endless regression, the "turtles all the way down" fallacy.-Your 'begin in the simplest way' belies your argument. What is your definition of a simple beginning. From what? It cannot be from nothing. I feel there is no way around this thought.

Stenger\'s Cosmology (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:44:27 +0000

Why does something have to spring from something else? Why can't it just begin in the simplest possible way and evolve from there? Asking for there to be some "before" to it loses any explanatory power. You get an endless regression, the "turtles all the way down" fallacy.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:04:03 +0000

ROMANSH: The speculation that there is a before can be result from a deep misunderstanding of the models we have. > > dhw:Once again, since there are various models, none of which has led to any kind of consensus, perhaps the models we have are inadequate, as you have more or less indicated above. > > ROMANSH: Ultimately we can't know, but we can eliminate nonsense. > > dhw:The idea that our universe sprang from energy can hardly be called nonsense, and if something springs from something else, that something else must have preceded it.-My answer is simple, as I have stated. George's zero-energy state (per Guth's hypothesis) is a sum of energies and that is not nothing. It is a mathematical sum, and is something.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

dhw — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:57:51 +0000

Dhw: This, of course, would mean that nothing preceded the universe (no "before") and that everything sprang from nothing. Romansh: There is some evidence pointing to if we add up the energy in the universe then the whole lot comes to about zero. So nothing sprang from nothing ... if this observation is correct. -This is very confusing. Do you mean something sprang from nothing? How can the energy IN the universe lead to the coming into existence of the universe? If the universe sprang from energy, then energy preceded the universe and there was a before. ROMANSH: Secondly it does not just mean time did not precede this universe, but that anything preceding this universe is an incoherent concept. This of course does not mean we cannot model bounces and multiverses and no doubt other weird and wonderful concepts. What is incoherent about the idea of eternal energy preceding and spawning this universe?-Dhw: He [George] claims that the alternative is "fanciful fiction" and he is "going by the facts we know". We do not know that our universe constitutes "everything", and even with your more circumspect wording, we have no data or models that can explain how a universe can come out of nothing. We can only speculate, and scientific and philosophical wordsmiths can only twist themselves in knots describing how nothing can be something can be nothing. -ROMANSH: We can only go by what data we have and the evidence that corroborates our models. The problem is our models also predict strange things ... at the moment we don't have the acumen to test these. We have models that do give us mechanisms for how the universe came from nothing. So I don't really understand how you can say this dhw. http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo [/link] The problem with models that give us mechanisms for reality is that they just generate more questions at a deeper level. Which of course makes them all suspect. Perhaps I have misunderstood the word "models". People have theories, which include bounces and multiverses, and universes springing from energy which they did not spring from because energy could not have preceded the universe...The reception of Krauss's theory makes it abundantly clear that there is no scientific consensus. How then can anyone dismiss an alternative which allows for energy to precede the universe it gave birth to? Dhw: The hypothesis that there was no "before" is therefore as fanciful a fiction as the hypothesis that energy has been spewing out universes throughout eternity. ROMANSH: The speculation that there is a before can be result from a deep misunderstanding of the models we have. Once again, since there are various models, none of which has led to any kind of consensus, perhaps the models we have are inadequate, as you have more or less indicated above. ROMANSH: Ultimately we can't know, but we can eliminate nonsense.-The idea that our universe sprang from energy can hardly be called nonsense, and if something springs from something else, that something else must have preceded it.

Stenger\'s Cosmology (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 01:11:43 +0000

George: I just found this via twitter: > Alan Guth on the BICEP2 Results - also indicates universe zero energy state > > http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/3-q-alan-guth-on-new-insights-into-the-big-bang.html... > The energy of a gravitational field is negative. As the patch expands at constant density, more and more energy, in the form of matter, is created. But at the same time, more and more negative energy appears in the form of the gravitational field that is filling the region. The total energy remains constant, as it must, and therefore remains very small. > > It is possible that the total energy of the entire universe is exactly zero, with the positive energy of matter completely canceled by the negative energy of gravity. I often say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch, since it actually requires no energy to produce a universe.-This proposal of Guth's has been existent in his book "The Inflationary Universe on page 12 since 1997. I have it carefully quoted in my first book to point out the philosophic error. I'm not arguing physics. I understand the point thoroughly.All physics equations work from observations of this space-time. I want to know if there is anything before. Your answer is no, and I agree that time did not exist before, but somehow this spacetime appeared from something. It cannot appear from nothing. Since the universe is energy, some version of energy is eternal, a conclusion from your own statements.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:56:11 +0000

George:Perhaps we need a change of terminology. > I maintain, with Stenger, that the initial state of the universe > at time zero, was "a state of zero energy", as romansh has suggested. > Whether "a state of zero energy" is "nothing" > or whether "nothing" is "a state of zero energy" may be debated. > > If you then start to ask what was "before" this initial state, > you are implying that time existed before the initial state, > but that means the initial state was not the initial state, > so you are talking self-contradictory nonsense. > This all seems perfectly logical to me.-See my reply to Romansh. Something has also existed. Even if you call it 'a state of zero energy' it is something, not a true nothing

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:53:11 +0000

Romansh: We have models that do give us mechanisms for how the universe came from nothing. So I don't really understand how you can say this dhw. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing-Don't swallow Krauss hook, line and sinker. Note the David Albert objection, quite a valid one, in the Wiki article. I've previously mentioned others to you.- > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo-The you tube presentation is the same. Empty space is not nothing. I'm insisting on an absloute nothing, or this empty space in you tube has always existed prior to the Big Bang, and Einstein is correct in his original belief in an eternal something.- > The problem with models that give us mechanisms for reality is that they just generate more questions at a deeper level.-Yes, philosophic. > > > > Romansh: The hypothesis that there was no "before" is therefore as fanciful a fiction as the hypothesis that energy has been spewing out universes throughout eternity. > The speculation that there is a before can be result from a deep misunderstanding of the models we have. > > Ultimately we can't know, but we can eliminate nonsense.-Yes, it is possible to add up all the forces and calculate them as zero, but this universe and this space time exists. It is something. Therefore, not nonsense. Logical philosophic thought. Either eternal existence or creation. Since one cannot think of creating something from a true nothing, there has always been something eternal.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:31:29 +0000

> George:I would say that without time and space mass and energy cannot exist. They only come into existence when the symmetries are broken. > > Of course you can have any sort of fantasies you like about there having been other universes and other times and spaces. This is only natural for a writer of fanciful fiction. We on the other hand are going by the facts we know.-Where did the symmetries come from? They existed.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:29:29 +0000

David: < time and space began together. I agree. St. A is correct. The issue is what came before that event. > > George: You don't seem to understand that you are contradicting yourself in the same sentence! If time and space began together you cannot have a "before" that event, because time didn't exist.-Yes, I can. Something had to existe before the Big Bang to cause it. I said the concept was mind-twisting.

Stenger\'s Cosmology (reply)

George Jelliss — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 22:20:08 +0000

I just found this via twitter: Alan Guth on the BICEP2 Results - also indicates universe zero energy state-http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/3-q-alan-guth-on-new-insights-into-the-big-bang.html-The energy of a gravitational field is negative. As the patch expands at constant density, more and more energy, in the form of matter, is created. But at the same time, more and more negative energy appears in the form of the gravitational field that is filling the region. The total energy remains constant, as it must, and therefore remains very small. -It is possible that the total energy of the entire universe is exactly zero, with the positive energy of matter completely canceled by the negative energy of gravity. I often say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch, since it actually requires no energy to produce a universe.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

George Jelliss — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:55:16 +0000

Perhaps we need a change of terminology. I maintain, with Stenger, that the initial state of the universe at time zero, was "a state of zero energy", as romansh has suggested. Whether "a state of zero energy" is "nothing" or whether "nothing" is "a state of zero energy" may be debated.-If you then start to ask what was "before" this initial state, you are implying that time existed before the initial state, but that means the initial state was not the initial state, so you are talking self-contradictory nonsense. This all seems perfectly logical to me.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

romansh — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:16:40 +0000

You have not joined your two dots together. I have brought it up because George's statement "If time has an origin then there can be no "before"..." is a reiteration of his repeatedly expressed belief (he will correct me if I've misunderstood him) that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of everything, including time. I will let George speak to what he believes and does not believe.-> This, of course, would mean that nothing preceded the universe (no "before") and that everything sprang from nothing. There is some evidence pointing to if we add up the energy in the universe then the whole lot comes to about zero. So nothing sprang from nothing ... if this observation is correct.-Secondly it does not just mean time did not precede this universe, but that anything preceding this universe is an incoherent concept. This of course does not mean we cannot model bounces and multiverses and no doubt other weird and wonderful concepts. > He claims that the alternative is "fanciful fiction" and he is "going by the facts we know". We do not know that our universe constitutes "everything", and even with your more circumspect wording, we have no data or models that can explain how a universe can come out of nothing. We can only speculate, and scientific and philosophical wordsmiths can only twist themselves in knots describing how nothing can be something can be nothing. We can only go by what data we have and the evidence that corroborates our models. The problem is our models also predict strange things ... at the moment we don't have the acumen to test these.-We have models that do give us mechanisms for how the universe came from nothing. So I don't really understand how you can say this dhw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo The problem with models that give us mechanisms for reality is that they just generate more questions at a deeper level.- > The hypothesis that there was no "before" is therefore as fanciful a fiction as the hypothesis that energy has been spewing out universes throughout eternity. The speculation that there is a before can be result from a deep misunderstanding of the models we have. -Ultimately we can't know, but we can eliminate nonsense.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

dhw — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:27:56 +0000

GEORGE: Of course you can have any sort of fantasies you like about there having been other universes and other times and spaces. This is only natural for a writer of fanciful fiction. We on the other hand are going by the facts we know. Romansh: First a quick comment on where dhw takes you task on (that's how it read to me) on using an if statement. I disagree with dhw, here ... it is the agnostic thing to do and we can follow the logic and consequences of where an if statement leads us. So I am not sure why dhw would even bring it up. But the facts we know, I might have worded differently ... I probably would have written something like We on the other hand are going by the data and models we have. -You have not joined your two dots together. I have brought it up because George's statement "If time has an origin then there can be no "before"..." is a reiteration of his repeatedly expressed belief (he will correct me if I've misunderstood him) that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of everything, including time. This, of course, would mean that nothing preceded the universe (no "before") and that everything sprang from nothing. He claims that the alternative is "fanciful fiction" and he is "going by the facts we know". We do not know that our universe constitutes "everything", and even with your more circumspect wording, we have no data or models that can explain how a universe can come out of nothing. We can only speculate, and scientific and philosophical wordsmiths can only twist themselves in knots describing how nothing can be something can be nothing. The hypothesis that there was no "before" is therefore as fanciful a fiction as the hypothesis that energy has been spewing out universes throughout eternity.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

romansh — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:53:46 +0000

Of course you can have any sort of fantasies you like about there having been other universes and other times and spaces. This is only natural for a writer of fanciful fiction. We on the other hand are going by the facts we know.-First a quick comment on where dhw takes you task on (that's how it read to me) on using an if statement. I disagree with dhw, here ... it is the agnostic thing to do and we can follow the logic and consequences of where an if statement leads us. So I am not sure why dhw would even bring it up.-But the facts we know, I might have worded differently ... I probably would have written something like We on the other hand are going by the data and models we have.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

dhw — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:40:29 +0000

Dhw: You will both, I hope, forgive me for my ignorance, but the issue is indeed what came before our own particular time and space. GEORGE: "Our own particular time and space" is the only time and space known to exist. Cosmology is about investigating the evidence for the beginning of everything. If time has an origin then there can be no "before", no "past". -"If" does not make a theory into a fact. Cosmology cannot investigate the evidence for the beginning of everything without making the absurd assumption that everything sprang from nothing. If it did not spring from nothing, we must accept that there was something BEFORE the beginning of our universe, and so our universe cannot have been the beginning of everything, and the sequence of past to present to future (my preferred definition of time) must have existed. But of course we have no means of finding out what that something was. Scientists and philosophers may writhe and wriggle as much as they like in trying to define a nothing as a something which is also a nothing, but this hardly constitutes evidence, let alone what you go on to refer to as "facts". dhw: If, as David and I have agreed, energy is the source of everything, how do you know that energy has not been producing matter for ever and ever, with our own universe just one "event" in an endless sequence of "events"? GEORGE: I would say that without time and space mass and energy cannot exist. They only come into existence when the symmetries are broken. Of course you can have any sort of fantasies you like about there having been other universes and other times and spaces. This is only natural for a writer of fanciful fiction. We on the other hand are going by the facts we know. -Your own fantasy is no less fanciful than any other. The "fact we know" (or think we know) is that our universe had a beginning. What brought about that beginning is the subject of endless speculation, and your hypothesis that there was no "before" might ... in my view ... be better phrased as 'we have no way of knowing what, if anything, was before'. However, unlike myself, you appear to believe in your fantasy of everything from nothing, since you argue that our universe was the "beginning of everything", including time, and you extrapolate conclusions from it which you seem to think are also factual ("there can be no before"). The irony here, in the light of your differences with David, is that the hypothesis of countless past universes seems to me to offer more support than a one-off universe to the idea that eventually chance could come up with the right combination for life.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

romansh — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:34:24 +0000

< You are implying that there has always been something. > > No I'm not. There was no time for something to "always" be in. > > I keep saying this, but everyone is too set in their ways > to change their ways of thinking about time. > Actually St Augustine had the right idea on this.-Simon Blackburn (a philosopher) asked an interesting question why is nothing our default position?-But according to some hypotheses ... if we add up the energy in the universe it comes to zero. And interesting position I think.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

George Jelliss — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:21:38 +0000

You will both, I hope, forgive me for my ignorance, but the issue is indeed what came before our own particular time and space. -"Our own particular time and space" is the only time and space known to exist. Cosmology is about investigating the evidence for the beginning of everything. If time has an origin then there can be no "before", no "past".-> If, as David and I have agreed, energy is the source of everything, how do you know that energy has not been producing matter for ever and ever, with our own universe just one "event" in an endless sequence of "events"? -I would say that without time and space mass and energy cannot exist. They only come into existence when the symmetries are broken.-Of course you can have any sort of fantasies you like about there having been other universes and other times and spaces. This is only natural for a writer of fanciful fiction. We on the other hand are going by the facts we know.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

George Jelliss — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:01:52 +0000

< time and space began together. I agree. St. A is correct. The issue is what came before that event. -You don't seem to understand that you are contradicting yourself in the same sentence! If time and space began together you cannot have a "before" that event, because time didn't exist.

Stenger\'s Cosmology refuted (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:58:02 +0000

> dhw: How do you know that this universe marked THE beginning of time and space? -It obviously did for us-> dhw:How do you know that there has not been a past eternity of events? If, as David and I have agreed, energy is the source of everything, how do you know that energy has not been producing matter for ever and ever, with our own universe just one "event" in an endless sequence of "events"?-Very possible. Can't be excluded->dhw: This seems to me just as likely as a universe coming from an absolute nothing (a concept that nobody seems able to agree on anyway),-Impossible. you can't get something from an absolute nothing -> dhw:or energy producing absolutely nothing until it suddenly produces this one and only universe. -Very possible. Just as likely-> dhw: No false vacuum, and no creation ... just eternal energy eternally producing matter. How matter produced us is, of course, another subject.-Fair enough.-See my just produced entry about the Strassler version of the Big Bang