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

[Philosophy Explorer]

The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Decided to check the internet for updates and I've found a link giving three theories (I don't know if I'd buy Barbour's timelessly universe, the first two theories have more meat to them).

So the question is which of the three theories appeal to you? Which do you see have the strongest arguments going for it?

The link: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... vHsYZFOlzQ

[Spiral Out]

The "big bang" is pure (and untenable) hypothesis based on fundamental misunderstandings and doesn't hold up to intense scrutiny.

The universe has always been. There is no beginning and no end. It's just there.

A more apt question might be "When did the concept of "universe" begin?"

[Philosophy Explorer]

Hey SO,

When you say fundamental misunderstandings, what do you mean by that?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The word 'universe' is usually a blanket-term to refer to everything, at least everything material including the very fabric of spacetime. Thus, it is nonsense to ask when the universe began because you are asking when time began. It's like asking 'in what space is the totality of all space located?' Or in what box are all boxes that exist located in? If the boxes are in a bigger box, then not all boxes can be in the bigger box because the bigger box is part of the set all boxes, so the question is incoherent.

I'm really not sure the link points to 'theories' but rather just ideas, possibilities speculated by scientists.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Scott stated:

"I'm really not sure the link points to 'theories' but rather just ideas, possibilities speculated by scientists."

Under what circumstances then would you consider these speculations to be theories?

Do you have a leading candidate proposal of your own that explains the origins of the universe?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'm really not sure the link points to 'theories' but rather just ideas, possibilities speculated by scientists.

Under what circumstances then would you consider these speculations to be theories?

When one is a a set of hypotheses that have been scientifically tested and confirmed, it would then be a theory, assuming we are using the terms in the scientific context and the testing is scientific meeting scientific requirements like being repeatable. That all follows from definition, correct?

Do you have a leading candidate proposal of your own that explains the origins of the universe?

As stated in my previous post, I think the very concept is nonsense (see boxes example) since I am reading universe as something that entails spacetime.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Scott,

Sorry if I'm disagreeable, but National Geographic does call the Big Bang theory a theory and indicates why. So let me ask you again when you consider an idea to be a theory? Where do you and National Geographic differ?

Oh yes, here the link to National Geographic:

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/s ... e-article/

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I think the Big Bang is a theory. It was the other three ideas in the link, mostly about time, that seemed to just be possibilities speculated by scientists rather than theories. As I said, I believe I am using the standard definition of theory in science when I say it is a set of hypotheses that have been tested and confirmed in a repeatable way. The other ideas in the link seem to be just speculations not even untested scientific hypotheses let alone theories.

[Spiral Out]

When you say fundamental misunderstandings, what do you mean by that?

What is fundamentally understood, where is the proof of such understanding and what is the universal reference that this proof can be verified against?

I think the Big Bang is a theory. … As I said, I believe I am using the standard definition of theory in science when I say it is a set of hypotheses that have been tested and confirmed in a repeatable way.

How has the big bang been "tested and confirmed in a repeatable way"?

[Philosophy Explorer]

SO asks:

"How has the big bang been "tested and confirmed in a repeatable way"?"

Well SO, the paths of all matter brings all matter together when time is reversed; furthermore there is the cosmic microwave radiation. The only thing is no one knows what triggered off the Big Bang.

[Spiral Out]

the paths of all matter brings all matter together when time is reversed

Does it? How is such a thing proven? Where is the universal reference that this is to be measured against?

There are two states of knowledge:
1. That which is apparent.
2. That which is actual.

We are only capable of the first.

[Philosophy Explorer]

the paths of all matter brings all matter together when time is reversed

Does it? How is such a thing proven? Where is the universal reference that this is to be measured against?

There are two states of knowledge:
1. That which is apparent.
2. That which is actual.

We are only capable of the first.

I'm guessing it's the Doppler shift. The scientists program their computers that would figure out the paths of the stars and galaxies (going backwards in time to a point (so they say, but I don't buy that part, more recently they're saying a small part of space)).

[Geordie Ross]

The "big bang" is pure (and untenable) hypothesis based on fundamental misunderstandings and doesn't hold up to intense scrutiny.

The universe has always been. There is no beginning and no end. It's just there.

A more apt question might be "When did the concept of "universe" begin?"

The universe has always been

The problem with that is entropy. If the universe has always existed, it should have experienced heat death trillions of years ago. It also runs into olbers paradox, in which the entire universe would be visible due to the finite speed of light and the time it takes to traverse the universe.

[Sy Borg]

Fascinating article. My understanding is that the physical Universe began 13.8 billion years ago from the BB. Given that the Universe is expanding, it must have been smaller in the past.

We may have prematurely named the Universe, figuring it's the only one. It seems a reasonable chance from what we've learned that the "Universe" is actually a cluster of galactic clusters within a seemingly endless quantum vacuum dotted with "galactic cluster clusters" in much the same way as the "universe" is dotted with galactic clusters.

[Mechsmith]

The Universe may never have had a beginning. The evidence is ambiguous, meaning that there seem to be other ways to account for the "Red Shift" noticed by Mr. Hubble.

1. If a particle (in this case a photon) is subject to the field called space time which it seems to be. (Gravitational lensing and and the "Harvard Tower Experiments) seem to show this.

2.If the field is collapsing into a massive object. Waves on a beach is a fair example. If things carried on a wave of space time would necessarily be accelerated or slowed (reversed acceleration) with the movements of space time.

3. Since waves and objects can be carried in a field. (sticks on a windswept flowing river would be a fair example) the accelerations due to gravity would result in a red shift over time and space.

4. If there were an infinite number of stars in the background of our observable universe (as predicted in an infinite and eternal universe) that would result in a universally observed Cosmic Microwave Background as the light emitted by those stars would be "Red Shifted" to the microwave length. However the "Doppler Effect" and perhaps others like our views of time, space dust and ripples (variations) in space time must also be considered.

5. If you make an Infinite, Evolving universe it may work without recourse to Singularities, Big Bangs or Creators. It does for me anyways.