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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
KF
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. KF
As to:
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:
The evidence for the forbidden scientific theory of the “traditional tales of creation” comes from quantum mechanics and is as such:
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.”
An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”
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”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”,,,
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,,,
,,, 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.”
As to the first few comments from the combox:
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,
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:
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.
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.”
Verse:
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.
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 @ 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.
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.
KF