Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Woodart]

The key concept is “so far” – we have only been observing for short time. What if it is just moving? I think moving is as plausible as expanding.

So you accuse all cosmologists of weak speculation. How would you describe what you are saying? Where is your empirical evidence? Where are your peer reviewed papers? What popular science books have you published on your theory? What technical books have you written on your theory? What predictions does your theory make? What is the mechanism which explains your theory? What falsifiable experiments can be made? How many independent teams of cosmologists have the same results as you from the falsifiable experiments you have made?

10 Alternatives To The Big Bang Theory

[Sy Borg]

Greta wrote:
Expansion is less speculative than any other idea in the area, though. The universe has been expanding for as long as observations have been made. That's what we know. Note that a huge number of tests have been run by people know who many times more than us about this that have all confirmed the idea of Alan Guth's cosmic inflation theory. This is not just intuition or guesswork but the conclusions so far on the basic of numerous observations and testing of conditions. Scientists particularly tested cosmic inflation because it was counter intuitive but the results of observations have largely been consistent with the concept, so far.

The key concept is “so far” – we have only been observing for short time. What if it is just moving? I think moving is as plausible as expanding.

Yes, but that's 13.8 billion years of evidence for expansion and no evidence so far for other options. That's where we are up to.

Many other hypotheses have been discounted one by one in the meantime. There's been much thought about the possibility of universal breath-like dynamics through reality. I always liked the idea of reality being much more alive, or potentially alive, than we suspect.

Or it may be that we have a constantly-expanding cosmos which, under the right conditions, explodes into energy that generates enough gravity to create enough balance for matter and life to exist. Or we may be hamstrung by perspective issues as regards our relationship to time - is the arrow of time entirely ontological or to some extent perceptual? Then we we are on the inside looking out and never have the luxury of an outside-in perspective.

However, science - which is basically a collection of knowledgeable people's most broadly shared perspectives - must present the very most conservative and unexciting picture of reality possible so as to maintain rigour. Science refers to the bottom line - that which we can be pretty sure is the case (or something like it). So the models of science only present a sketch of reality. They are far more reliably accurate sketches than many less educated anti-science agitators would suggest, but they are only sketches of reality, not reality. Would the Mona Lisa be as effective if presented as a pencil sketch? Then again, the painting is very much less again than the objectified flesh-and-blood subject herself who sat for the portrait.

I like to think of spirituality as personal science. You have science for the many - the things that most of us agree on or are investigated using broadly agreed, tried and tested principles that gained popularity with Democritus and Aristotle. Then you have the science of the self, observations and reporting about what happens "within our event horizon" (actually it's more the inner horizon if I'm going to use a black hole analogy) and this has perhaps been best explored so far by Buddhists, although neuroscience is now making progress.

[Woodart]

Greta -
One of the things I like least about the big bang theory – is the bullying within the scientific community to conform. Penrose and Hawking received the Wolf prize for their Big Bang thinking. Now Penrose has a new idea. I think there will be others. It is not 13.8 billion years of evidence – it is 40 to 50 years of best guessing. Origin of the universe is not applicable to the Mona Lisa or any other model. In many ways the scientific community is like the church that censored Galileo. I am a card carrying member of the flat Earth society. In 1000 years they will say that of all of us!

[Sy Borg]

Greta -
One of the things I like least about the big bang theory – is the bullying within the scientific community to conform. Penrose and Hawking received the Wolf prize for their Big Bang thinking. Now Penrose has a new idea. I think there will be others. It is not 13.8 billion years of evidence – it is 40 to 50 years of best guessing. Origin of the universe is not applicable to the Mona Lisa or any other model. In many ways the scientific community is like the church that censored Galileo. I am a card carrying member of the flat Earth society. In 1000 years they will say that of all of us!

Penrose still agrees that the big bang/inflation is the most likely reality but he now thinks differently about potential states of reality prior to inflation.

The evidence comes from looking out into space and observing light from the past. Scientists aren't just guessing like us, they have come to these conclusions after decades of painstaking experiments. I consider theirs to be the much more informed opinion on the matter.

[Woodart]

Penrose still agrees that the big bang/inflation is the most likely reality but he now thinks differently about potential states of reality prior to inflation.

I think the before and after changes the whole idea - and I think if he lives long enough the idea will change more.

The evidence comes from looking out into space and observing light from the past. Scientists aren't just guessing like us, they have come to these conclusions after decades of painstaking experiments. I consider theirs to be the much more informed opinion on the matter.

Interesting - I feel the evangelical pressure from you and others. We wouldn't want to loose any sheep out here in the wilderness. I guess we are all somewhat insecure about our ideas. I don't think we glean that much information from space - not yet. Yes scientists are guessing - Penrose is and many people are mad about it.

[-1-]

This bullying among the scientists and within the scientific community.

The issues are much more complex than I understand. I understand, however, that top-notch scientists understand a lot about the issue which understanding is far beyond what I can ever hope to understand.

If the above is applicable to you, as well, then please read on.

The bullying goes on against guessers. Because guesses are a dime a dozen -- nay, a million a dozen. I have developed several of them myself, and I hardly know the subject.

The guesses are NOT accepted... because of what exactly they are. Guesses.

There is support for the guesses, and opposition to them. But until they successfully show that there is hard evidence to support that the guess is right, there is bullying.

Those who support the guesses are the underdogs, and everyone likes an underdog. They are seen as maverick thinkers, misunderstood geniuses, and oppressed theoreticians. Whereas they are NOT... they are only groundless arguers, until evidence shows up that support their theories.

So those who do not guess are sitting in their thought-bunkers safely, and the guessers are out there, exposing the vulnerability of their position. This you see as bullying; I see it as a valid treatment of guesses. Guesses ought not to be taken at face value or as valid, at all. They can be entertained as thought-experiments; they can be interesting reading (or boring, depending on your literary preferences); they can be prophetising. But they are not supported by evidence, so the scientific community does not support these theories as valid, either. This is completely inline with the philosophy of science.

[Eduk]

Woodart.
1. I attempted to debate with your post number #37. You asked the question of how could an infinite universe get more infinite. I attempted to ask what you meant by infinite.
2. Your response was to call my entire post weak speculation, without addressing a single point (of which I made many).
3. Then through a series of posts you insist that cosmologists have very little evidence. Although you don't demonstrate this is true or that this is consequential. And insist all cosmologists are engaged in weak speculation.
4. I then ask how you would gauge your own theory on the breathing universe. Is this weak speculation?
5. You post a link to a YouTube video which doesn't seem related to anything I said?
6. You then accuse the scientific community of bullying. Without providing any evidence. I didn't realise you were a scientist? I was under the impression that in the scientific community if you can prove something with empirical evidence then people will be quite pleased on the whole. Of course scientists are normal human beings and they bully just like all other normal human beings but it doesn't seem systemic to me. Indeed the great strength of science is that it doesn't matter how much you are bullied or bully, if the evidence shows something then the evidence shows something. And if you like to bully and hold onto outdated opinions then you will be left behind.
7. You then argue that we have 50 years of evidence of expansion. But you don't seem to understand that the objects that are being measured are billions of light years apart. It is possible that the universe was setup 50 years ago as a trick to make it look like there is billions of years of evidence. But that doesn't seem worth worrying about.
8. You then accuse Greta of evangelically, attempting to explain the informed consensus of expert opinion. I don't know what Christianity has to do with anything Greta has said? I'm not sure how you define evangelical? Can you carefully explain yourself.
9. You then say people are mad at Penrose, again without giving any examples.

All along people have been attempting to debate you. Ask you why you felt a certain way. Attempting to correct any inconsistencies. Point out what the science says on a subject and provide an explanation (as best they can) as to why the science says what the science says. But this all seems to be taken as an attack on you? My first post was simply asking how you define infinity, this is not an attack? Unless you feel that any questions at all are an attack? But this only makes sense from one perspective.

Could you try to be a little less defensive and have an actual debate rather than an argument. We are after all on a philosophy forum not Facebook. There is no need to insult anyone.

Oh and you keep pointing out that theories evolve and change as a reason why any current theory is bad. This is the scientific process. Newton's theories have evolved and been improved upon. Darwin's theories have been improved and evolved. Einstein's theories have evolved and been improved. They were not all idiots. Those theories have led to immense progress. No scientist imagines that they are done with theories, or they would stop. All scientists accept they are wrong almost all the time.

Oh and finally much like speculation you could argue all theories are guesses. This is logically consistent in a way. But it doesn't mean all theories are bad. It doesn't mean all guesses are equal.

[Woodart]

Eduk wrote:
1. I attempted to debate with your post number #37. You asked the question of how could an infinite universe get more infinite. I attempted to ask what you meant by infinite.

Thank you for a clear presentation of your arguments – I think they are very good.

Infinite is a tricky concept. It is hard to know exactly what it is. The best way that we understand infinite is through mathematics. Mostly we imagine numbers incrementing eternally or some variation of this idea. However, we don’t really know infinite – we imagine it through math or some other analogy. For us it is a concept and we do not know for sure – if – it exists. Mathematically it exists but math is a concept – not in a real sense. I think the speculation that it exists in the real world is exceedingly strong – so – the existence of infinite is probable. Therefore I think the idea of infinite is theory (speculation) but very strong theory.

Eduk wrote:
2. Your response was to call my entire post weak speculation, without addressing a single point (of which I made many).

I do not think your entire post is weak speculation – parts of it is. I did address some points. Let’s not live in the past or quibble. You have an excellent post now – let’s move forward.

Eduk wrote:
3. Then through a series of posts you insist that cosmologists have very little evidence. Although you don't demonstrate this is true or that this is consequential. And insist all cosmologists are engaged in weak speculation.

I do not contend that all cosmology is weak speculation – some of it is weak. The idea of a singularity is weak speculation. A singularity is defined as infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past? That everything, essentially, came from nothing – defies all logic. We did have an expansion 13.8 billion years ago – but that it came from a singularity is a weak explanation. We need to explain why the big bang happened – but – we need to do it within the laws of physics that we know and see. A singularity is outside the laws of physics.

Eduk wrote:
4. I then ask how you would gauge your own theory on the breathing universe. Is this weak speculation?

Breathing is weak speculation for sure. Probably very weak.

Eduk wrote:
5. You post a link to a YouTube video which doesn't seem related to anything I said?

You asked if I had expert advice to alternate theories of the Big Bang. Yes - 10 Alternatives To The Big Bang Theory – is expert alternatives. Are they cogent? Some are – some not. Are they true – no one knows because it is all speculation. Are you asking if I have experts saying the universe is breathing? No I do not because there is no evidence I can see. I raised it as an absurd example – much like the idea of a singularity. From my point of view the singularity and breathing have the same evidentiary weight.

Eduk wrote:
6. You then accuse the scientific community of bullying. Without providing any evidence. I didn't realise you were a scientist? I was under the impression that in the scientific community if you can prove something with empirical evidence then people will be quite pleased on the whole. Of course scientists are normal human beings and they bully just like all other normal human beings but it doesn't seem systemic to me. Indeed the great strength of science is that it doesn't matter how much you are bullied or bully, if the evidence shows something then the evidence shows something. And if you like to bully and hold onto outdated opinions then you will be left behind.

Your point is well taken. However, there is a lot of politics in science because so much is on the line. I think empirical evidence wins in the end – the purity of science. People lobby for their own interests and ideas. You are doing it now – and – very well I might add. Nothing wrong with it – I appreciate you clarifying many things.

Eduk wrote:
7. You then argue that we have 50 years of evidence of expansion. But you don't seem to understand that the objects that are being measured are billions of light years apart. It is possible that the universe was setup 50 years ago as a trick to make it look like there is billions of years of evidence. But that doesn't seem worth worrying about.

No – I did not say or mean 50 years of evidence. 50 years of collecting evidence is a big difference. You are attempting to twist my logic and I think dishonest on this point.

Eduk wrote:
8. You then accuse Greta of evangelically, attempting to explain the informed consensus of expert opinion. I don't know what Christianity has to do with anything Greta has said? I'm not sure how you define evangelical? Can you carefully explain yourself.

You missed my point (similar to #7). We all pressure each other to conform to ideas. This is the debate process – whether it be in a philosophy forum or scientific laboratory.

Eduk wrote:
9. You then say people are mad at Penrose, again without giving any examples.

Penrose has said Hawking is at odds with him because of his new theory on the Big Bang. Penrose & Hawking received the Wolf prize for their Big Bang theories. Now Penrose is partially abandoning ship. Hawking is still on the old ship.

Eduk wrote:
There is no need to insult anyone.

I have insulted no one – nor do I intend to.

Eduk wrote:
Oh and finally much like speculation you could argue all theories are guesses. This is logically consistent in a way. But it doesn't mean all theories are bad. It doesn't mean all guesses are equal.

I should have said educated guesses.

[Eduk]

Woodart thank you for your very fair minded reply, appreciate it.

I think the speculation that it exists in the real world is exceedingly strong – so – the existence of infinite is probable. Therefore I think the idea of infinite is theory (speculation) but very strong theory.

This is certainly a commonly held belief. Personally I'm not convinced. Infinity is a mathematical concept sure, I may be wrong but I'm not sure it's proved useful unless infinities cancel each other out? May be some mathematicians who can help with that? But in the real world infinity is defined as something without end. Defining things by what they aren't is notoriously bad. Infinity is no different in my mind. I've never seen anything that didn't end. For me infinity is basically undefined.

The idea of a singularity is weak speculation. A singularity is defined as infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past? That everything, essentially, came from nothing – defies all logic. We did have an expansion 13.8 billion years ago – but that it came from a singularity is a weak explanation. We need to explain why the big bang happened – but – we need to do it within the laws of physics that we know and see. A singularity is outside the laws of physics.

I get your point, I too believe existence is logically impossible. But here we are. If the universe didn't begin then the only logical option is that it has always been. For me this is just as logically impossible. I think, and I may be wrong again, that cosmologists are just using Occam's razor and using the theory with the least assumptions. We observe the universe is expanding. So we assume that this expansion came from a point (anything other than this just raises more assumptions). You are right though, there are massive problems with saying the universe started as a singularity. Not least that the laws of physics are a complete unknown at that 'time'.

No – I did not say or mean 50 years of evidence. 50 years of collecting evidence is a big difference. You are attempting to twist my logic and I think dishonest on this point.

I apologise then, that is what I honestly thought you meant. Thank you for correcting me.

We all pressure each other to conform to ideas. This is the debate process – whether it be in a philosophy forum or scientific laboratory.

Ideally empirical evidence wins though

Penrose has said Hawking is at odds with him because of his new theory on the Big Bang.

At odds with him? or mad? Like they are no longer on speaking terms. Again scientists are human at the end of the day. I'm sure lots of scientists are genuinely mad with each other, perhaps even with good cause. But it isn't the scientific process to be mad at empirical evidence, and again evidence trumps personal feuds.

[Fan of Science]

Infinity has a simple definition in mathematics --- it refers to the number of elements in a set not being finite. It's also not simply a concept where one can think of adding another number to a large number and eventually get to infinity. How would that work? If we had a large number, N, and we added 1 to it to get infinity, then, we could subtract 1 from infinity to get N. But if you subtract 1 from infinity, you still end up with infinity. Because if you can count to N, you can certainly count to N + 1. This means that infinity is its own precursor.

[Fooloso4]

I think Kuhn’s sociology of scientific knowledge is instructive with regard to resistance to new ideas. The old guard protects its own and generally it is a new generation less dyed in the wool who take up new ideas, are less likely to discount phenomena that does not fit with established views, and interpret evidence differently. This is not to suggest that there will be a scientific revolution with regard to the Big Bang but it cannot be ruled out. It may instead be more a matter of tweaking, and this in time may lead to significant differences in how the Big Bang is understood.

There may be some bullying going on and no doubt intransigence, closing of ranks, etc., but in the long run this is not what determines scientific consensus. In the meantime we are spectators watching the action that takes place by participants whose club we are not qualified to join. But anyone can join the online philosophy club and anyone who has an opinion can fancy themselves philosophers and think they are doing philosophy because they are expressing ideas.

[Woodart]

Fooloso4 wrote:
This is not to suggest that there will be a scientific revolution with regard to the Big Bang but it cannot be ruled out. It may instead be more a matter of tweaking, and this in time may lead to significant differences in how the Big Bang is understood.

I think the idea of the singularity will not hold water over time. The fact that Penrose says that there is evidence of the universe before the big bang – cast doubt on the idea of singularity. These things take time to develop – and – I am sure it will.

Fooloso4 wrote:
There may be some bullying going on and no doubt intransigence, closing of ranks, etc., but in the long run this is not what determines scientific consensus. In the meantime we are spectators watching the action that takes place by participants whose club we are not qualified to join. But anyone can join the online philosophy club and anyone who has an opinion can fancy themselves philosophers and think they are doing philosophy because they are expressing ideas.

Empirical science always prevails – but – it may take a while.

Even Roger Penrose is an armchair philosopher.

[Atreyu]

The main problem with BB theory is that it rests on a shaky assumption ---> fixed mass. The general idea is that all known mass came into existence a very short time after the BB, and since then it has been fixed in value, neither increasing or decreasing, and that this is fixed state, at least for eons. This is very shaky ground, for if mass is NOT fixed, then the entire structure collapses immediately.

And there is lots of evidence that total mass is growing, evidence which modern science is willfully ignoring and casually dismissing. I mean specifically that all large cosmic bodies are growing in mass. Once science acknowledges this possibility a new model can be developed that does not assume all known mass compacted to a point.

[-1-]

"The general idea is that all known mass came into existence a very short time after the BB,"

This is not what I've heard. I've heard that all the matter and its subcomponents (which obviously had mass) had been contained in a volumetric space which had the extent of our times' sowing thimble.

I've been defeated in BB arguments before, for my not knowing the well-established facts. I stand to be corrected again, but this, above, is my understanding, and if my understanding is correct, then your premise, of mass coming into existence, therefore, is false.

-- Updated 2017 July 26th, 6:02 am to add the following --

Geez. Make "sowing thimble" into "sewing thimble". Amma immigrant, what can I say.

-- Updated 2017 July 26th, 6:06 am to add the following --

And there is lots of evidence that total mass is growing, evidence which modern science is willfully ignoring and casually dismissing. I mean specifically that all large cosmic bodies are growing in mass.

The large bodies becoming larger is not equivalent at all to the total mass of the universe increasing. In fact, the total mass can stay the same, and large bodies can gain mass, quite nicely and as peacefully concurrent events.

This you should have seen, Atreyu. And please don't tell me I am giving you too much credit.

[Ranvier]

Resounding yes!
BB is an oxymoron by placing "theory" next to big bang. It's not even a hypothesis, which requires at least a proposed method of experimental testing. It's a mere proposal for a model that would bring us closer to formulate most plausible explanation out of urgency to come up with something other than creation "theory" See what I did there... It's actually quite sad that well respected theoretical physicists and astronomers make such unscientific frivolous claims.