Sabine Hossenfelder: Physicists’ theories of how the universe began “aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation”

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 28, 2019

Big Bang}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Hossenfelder, the author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, summarizes a crowd of cool theories and concludes

The simplest way to speculate about the early universe is just to extrapolate the known theories back to even higher temperatures, assuming that the theories do not change. What happens then is that you eventually reach energy densities so high that the quantum fluctuations of space and time become relevant. To calculate what happens then, we would need a theory of quantum gravity, which we do not have. So, in brief, the scientific answer is that we have no idea how the universe began…
So, as you see, physicists have many ideas about how the universe began. The trouble is that not a single one of those ideas is backed up by evidence. And they may never be backed up by evidence, because the further back in time you try to look, the fewer data we have. While some of those speculations for the early universe result in predictions, confirming those predictions would not allow us to conclude that the theory must have been correct because there are many different theories that could give rise to the same prediction.
This is a way in which our scientific endeavors are fundamentally limited. Physicists may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories about how it all began, but these aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation.
Sabine Hossenfelder, “How did the universe begin?” at BackRe(Action)

The combox is hilarious; don’t miss it. Hossenfelder is not backing down (so far).

Comments

BR, I would argue somewhat differently regarding roots of Mathematics. It can be shown that some core aspects of the logic of structure and quantity are necessary, framework entities or aspects of any distinct possible (thus actual) world, say W. For, for W to be distinct from a near neighbour W', there must be some aspect A in W that makes it inherently different. (And yes, I am using the principle of distinct identity.) We may thus partition, W = {A|~A}, where W - A = ~A. We thus see nullity, the emptiness of the partition, so 0. A is a simple unit, a 1. ~A is a complex unit, a different kind of 1. The presence of two units leads to duality, thus 2. I add, we can even see that there is a third item the partition so, 3. These are immediately, necessarily present once there is a distinct possible world, manifesting logic of being in action. From the von Neumann construction, we proceed: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 {0,1,2} --> 3 . . . {0,1,2 . . . } --> Omega, first transfinite ordinal. We may then see that n + [-n] = 0, so from N we go to Z [which is already a vector], then for s = P/Q, we have rationals, Q. Reals come up as infinite sums of rationals, capturing pi, e etc. By bringing on rotation i*x then i*I*x = -x, we have i = sqrt -1, then complex numbers C. And more, we have set the stage for a huge necessary core of mathematics, tied together in infinitely precise coherence through: 0 = 1 + e^i*pi . Notice, I spoke about necessary beings and possible worlds. Where, some things [square circles] are impossible of being. So we may contrast the true nothing, non-being. Were it ever the case that there were utter nothing [language struggles here] such has no causal power and it would forever obtain. That a world is, points to a necessary being reality root capable of creating and sustaining worlds. Such is arguably finitely remote, as proposing an infinite succession of prior, cumulative, finite, temporal-causal stages implies impossible traverse of a transfinite succession in steps. Where positing that at any past point p that succeeds to now, the transfinite succession was already done implicitly begs the question. (And, potential objectors, we simply need to think in terms of the set of quantity implied by handwaving math teachers R* mileposted by Z*, to show why. Any transfinitely remote -H such that 1/[-H] = -h is closer to 0 than any finite 1/[-n], n in N, is succeeded -H+1, -H+2, etc thus replicating a copy of counting succession 0,1,2 . . . without ever bridging the ellipsis to p that succeeds to now. H is a transfinite hyperreal and h an infinitesimal, foundational to Calculus etc.) Further to such, our being inescapably morally governed has but one credible way to bridge IS-OUGHT. namely at reality root. That requires that the world framing necessary being is inherently good and utterly wise. A very familiar figure emerges. Where, God is a serious candidate necessary [thus eternal] being. Such either is impossible of being or else is actual. And numbers etc are classically understood as being eternally contemplated by him. So, root of reality as eternal, necessary being carries with it the reality of core mathematics and any distinct world will have core mathematics as inherent framework. The issue of our being here to explore logic of structure and quantity ties to there being a world source of eternal, hyperpowerful, inherently good and utterly wise character. Where atheists have the challenge to show God as impossible of being and otherwise accounting for reality including minded, morally governed, rational, responsible, significantly free creatures. Something that is a tad hard to do. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2019
December
12
Dec
30
30
2019
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

Tammie Lee Haynes @ 7 Intelligent Design is the only theory that can explain how math can already exist. Math is discovered, since it has always been there. Only something with great intelligence can create math. There are absolutes in the universe and only ID has an answer.BobRyan_{December 29, 2019
December
12
Dec
29
29
2019
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Dr Hossenfelder didn't mention the main point although she has alluded to it in other writings. It's true that "Physicists may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories about how it all began", but she goes off the rails when she says "these aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation" The new creation stories are way better than the traditional ones, because they're up-to-date, peer reviewed, and they got math in them. Say you were one of those ten thousand tenured theoretical physicists. To justify the NSF gravy you get out of your grants. For that, you got to write papers that get get cited by the other profs. And to do that you got to joining up with other profs with an up-to-date, peer reviewed creation story.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES_{December 29, 2019
December
12
Dec
29
29
2019
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 1: You write, "As to whether we are butting up against fundamental limits to the capacity of human science to explain what is, the only way to find out is to continue to try. The only alternative, to which the positions of even “sophisticated” theologians like David Bentley Hart resolve, is to throw up our hands, admit defeat by declaring “God did it” and leave it at that. Is this what Hossenfelder is recommending in your view?" I can't read Hossenfelder's mind so, as you suggest, I can only offer an interpretation: It's doubtful she'd advocate stopping research; she makes her living in the theoretical physics business. Her point, if I understand it correctly, is that ultimate creation stories are motivated stories. They are motivated by a need to understand why the world is the way it is.* Like other creation stories, they are metaphysical in character. That is, they deal with final causes. Observed facts are considered signposts. But generally, they are seized on as signposts because they conform to existing assumptions about what the universe should be like. The wild abandon with which origins theories have peppered the physics landscape resembles an antiquity in which each tribe had its own creation story but there were broad similarities between the stories. Only in their own imaginations, have many physicists come further. * There are, of course, searches for origins that do not meet this criterion: One may wish to know the ultimate origin of a word to settle an argument, without any higher end in view.News_{December 29, 2019
December
12
Dec
29
29
2019
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

As to:
"So, as you see, physicists have many ideas about how the universe began. The trouble is that not a single one of those ideas is backed up by evidence. And they may never be backed up by evidence, because the further back in time you try to look, the fewer data we have." - Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder
Actually there is evidence for a theory. But it is a 'forbidden' theory that she did not, indeed dare not, give serious 'scientific' consideration to. That forbidden scientific theory is, of course, the forbidden scientific theory of the "traditional tales of creation." As is obvious, atheists consider 'tales of creation' as being unscientific (although they can give no coherent reason why they think as such), yet the perfectly coherent argument for the 'tales of creation' can be formulated like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
The evidence for the forbidden scientific theory of the "traditional tales of creation" comes from quantum mechanics and is as such:
Double Slit experiment, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, as well as the recent confirmation of the Wigner's friend thought experiment, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect, Quantum Information theory, and the recent closing of the Free Will loophole.
Although each of those experiments are very interesting in their own right as to proving that the Mind of God must precede material reality, my favorite evidences out of that group, for proving that the Mind of God must be behind the creation of the universe itself, is the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum Information theory. This is because the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum Information theory deal directly with entropy. And, entropy is, by a VERY wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
“This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.” Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989) “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).” Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?
An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”
Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018 The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. - old entry wikipedia
Likewise, the present day entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that “a system can’t change while you are watching it”
Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: Sometimes this effect is interpreted as “a system can’t change while you are watching it” per wikipedia
Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment (and/or 'decoherence') is sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect.
Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018 Excerpt: The references to observations and to wavefunction collapse tend to raise unnecessary questions related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, all that is required is that some interaction with an external system disturb the unitary evolution of the quantum system in a way that is effectively like a projection operator. - per iopscience
Yet, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015 Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150414/ncomms7811/full/ncomms7811.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150415
And although many other lines of evidence can be brought forth to undermine the atheist's conjecture of 'decoherence', in short, the quantum zeno effect, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about it, is now experimentally shown to be a real effect that is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation. And thus the original wikipedia statement of, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay”, stands as being a true statement. On top of the Quantum Zeno effect, in quantum information theory we find that “one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011 Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,, No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
And as the following article states, “Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
If the statement “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”, does not send chills down your scientific spine then you are not paying attention! Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which happen to explain time itself,,,
Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/
,,, Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which happen to explain time itself, even care if I am consciously observing them unless consciousness really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is? To state the glaringly obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality. Moreover, since making accurate predictions is very important for any theory to be considered scientific in the first place, it is interesting to point out that the Bible 'predicted' that entropy, thousands of years before the 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe was even discovered, that God was the 'observer who describes' the entropy of the universe. Specifically, "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’…. Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’” Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics. Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.
As to the first few comments from the combox:
PaulTopping1:37 PM, December 27, 2019 Surely the scientific theories have a non-zero chance of being correct, unlike the traditional tales of creation. Sabine Hossenfelder1:09 AM, December 28, 2019 The chance is almost zero in the mathematical sense because there are infinitely many alternatives. Sabine Hossenfelder2:04 AM, December 28, 2019 The current ways that theories are being chosen are equally useful as random choice. Read my book if you still don't get it.
But alas, with Hossenfelder recent embracing of 'superdeterminism' , she has given up her own free will and has thus given up the option that she has any choice in the matter. As I pointed out,
,,, she (Hossenfelder) assumes that we have the free will necessary to search out and eventually choose some mathematical model, out of a veritable infinity of mathematical models, that will eventually prove that we really didn’t have the free will necessary to search out and discover that ‘superdeterministic’ mathematical model in the first place, but that the 'superdeterministic' mathematical model somehow searched out and discovered itself and let us in on its own discovery of itself after the fact. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sabine-hossenfelder-proposes-superdeterminism-to-replace-quantum-mechanics/#comment-689990
To call this position, (of assuming she has free will and yet denying she has free will) irrational is an understatement. Bruce Gordon succinctly brings the implications of 'choosing' between an "infinite variety of mathematical descriptions" into clarity in the following article:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Supplemental note: Allowing free will and/or Agent causality of God "back" into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally. Allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few notes to that effect.
November 2019 - despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855 (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ's resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{December 29, 2019
December
12
Dec
29
29
2019
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

BR, perhaps, a more modest claim is more readily warranted. Namely, that there is a core of quantity and structure that are framework to any possible, thus any actual, distinct world. Thus, the issue becomes, why is there any world, pointing to the roots and source of reality. As, were there ever only a true nothing, utter non-being . . . language struggles here . . . such has no causal capability (even a suggested quantum foam is something!), and would forever obtain. If a world is, something, a source of worlds at the root of reality, always was. Utterly independent, necessary being world root of eternal character. Blend in the credible need for inherent goodness to account for moral government from that root, and a familiar figure emerges. KFkairosfocus_{December 29, 2019
December
12
Dec
29
29
2019
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Sev, Actually, logic of being has a few things to say to us. Such as, that which begins is contingent and has a cause. Likewise, given fine tuning patterns evident in the relevant Mathematically framed models and theories, we find a deeply isolated operating point that is somehow suited to C-Chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. Then, there is another bit of logic of structure and quantity. Namely, that a causal-temporal succession of finite stage cumulative steps is not credibly going to be transfinite in the past. To begin to see that, recognise that all stages of the past (use years for convenience) have to have actually happened and to have given rise to an immediate successor that then steps forward to now. There is no good reason to reject using R* with Z* mile-posted in it to address required quantities, on which we can understand what a transfinite actual past requires. Namely, actual past times implicitly or explicitly such that they are more remote from us than any k in N is in actually counted steps from zero. (As in no games with ellipses: . . . ) So, we imagine some -p in the remote past of that character and count on, -p +1, -p+2, . . . seeing that we are counting up to a k in N beyond -p. We have no basis for reaching to now precisely because of the implied supertask of counting out an actual transfinite succession. There is no good reason to accept an actually transfinite quasi-physical past of causally successive finite stages. That is, a causal-temporal order credibly inherently has a beginning, crying out for a begin-ner. Thus, the issue becomes, to identify same. (Especially in a world with morally governed creatures where such can only be properly rooted in the source of reality, on pain of reducing our whole rationality to grand delusion.) We could raise questions on entropy, a phenomenon in the end of dissipation of energy concentrations through stochastic processes. In short, the engine of orderly change would run down in transfinite time so heat death in some form would have long since happened. But it hasn't. In short -- and we could continue -- there are other issues. KFkairosfocus_{December 29, 2019
December
12
Dec
29
29
2019
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Seversy All math that has ever been known and will ever be known is referred to as a discovery. The math is already there. Is it possible (I'm not referring to probabilities) that something with great intellect created the math for us to discover?BobRyan_{December 28, 2019
December
12
Dec
28
28
2019
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

The simplest way to speculate about the early universe is just to extrapolate the known theories back to even higher temperatures, assuming that the theories do not change. What happens then is that you eventually reach energy densities so high that the quantum fluctuations of space and time become relevant. To calculate what happens then, we would need a theory of quantum gravity, which we do not have. So, in brief, the scientific answer is that we have no idea how the universe began…
Yes? So? We have no idea how or why the universe began. This is not some new insight. By my understanding, this has been the position in physics for decades at least.
This is a way in which our scientific endeavors are fundamentally limited. Physicists may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories about how it all began, but these aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation.
There are those here who would disagree. They appear to hold that any theory that can be expressed in mathematical form is inherently superior to any that can't. As to whether we are butting up against fundamental limits to the capacity of human science to explain what is, the only way to find out is to continue to try. The only alternative, to which the positions of even "sophisticated" theologians like David Bentley Hart resolve, is to throw up our hands, admit defeat by declaring "God did it" and leave it at that. Is this what Hossenfelder is recommending in your view?Seversky_{December 28, 2019
December
12
Dec
28
28
2019
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply