Meyer on Theistic Implications of Big Bang Cosmology

a big bang (SPIRALL) , not the big bang (SCM) see 'Distant Starlight and the age, formation and structure of the universe'Pearlman

January 30, 2017

January

01

Jan

30

30

2017

08:22 AM

8

08

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Since, from the best scientific evidence we have, mass-energy space-time were instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang, then it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of mass-energy space-time. Yet the only things that we know of that are transcendent of space-time mass-energy are consciousness and information. Here are a few quotes on the irreducibility of consciousness to material explanations

"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness. Regardless of our knowledge of the structure of the brain, no one has any idea how the brain could possibly generate conscious experience." Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.” - Sebastian Seung - Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist - “Connectome”: "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." - Roger Sperry - Nobel neurophysiologist "We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind." - Eugene Wigner "Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot." Nick Herbert - Contemporary physicist

Dr. Meyer comments on the transcendent nature of information in the following video:

“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer - Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

Thus since consciousness and information have a transcendent, i.e. beyond space and time, quality to them that refuses to be reduced to any realistic materialistic explanations, then it 'scientifically' follows that consciousness and information are leading candidates for explaining what brought the universe instantaneously into being at the Big Bang. Moreover, although atheistic physicists and mathematicians have, IMHO, grossly misused Quantum Theory to try to get around the Theistic implications of the Big Bang, the fact of the matter is that when quantum mechanics is properly used it clearly reveals that consciousness and information must have preceded the Big Bang. It is first important to note that although General Relativity primarily describes what happens within 4-D space-time, for Quantum Mechanics, space-time is secondary, even negligible, in its description of reality:

LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf

And whilst General Relativity predicts a beginning for the universe, Quantum Mechanics instead gives us evidence for how God upholds and sustains this universe in its continued existence since the Big Bang. First off, an ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:

Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1

Moreover, this 'infinite information' quantum qubit is also mathematically defined as being in an 'infinite dimensional' state:

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space

Here is bit closer look at the Theistic implications inherent in the Double slit and Quantum Electrodynamics:

Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater

Thus every time we observe/measure, (i.e. collapse a quantum qubit of), a single photon we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the infinite consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information that was known only by the infinite Mind of omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, God!

Job 38:19-20 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?” Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

And the experimental tests of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics have performed flawlessly. Here is one recent result to should be particularly unnerving for atheists.

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html “Reality is in the observations, not in the electron.” – Paul Davies “We have become participators in the existence of the universe. We have no right to say that the past exists independent of the act of observation.” – John Wheeler “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation - Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables

Myself, as a Christian, I find the Theistic implications inherent in both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to be quite comforting to my beliefs that God both created and sustains this universe. In fact, I find both theories to be very comforting to my Christian belief that God defeated death through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead: Verses and video

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth. Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the 'Theory of Everything' - Centrality Concerns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4

bornagain77

January 29, 2017

January

01

Jan

29

29

2017

08:40 AM

8

08

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." -- Ernest Rutherford

From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang.

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – in paper delivered at atheist Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party (Characterized as 'Worst Birthday Present Ever') – January 2012

Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang: Hawking, Penrose, and Ellis were instrumental in extending General Relativity to reveal that, according to the predictions of General Relativity, not only did mass-energy have a absolute (singular) beginning at the Big Bang, but that space and time also had an absolute (singular) beginning at the Big Bang:

"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

The validity of General Relativity has only grown stronger since Hawking, Penrose and Ellis extended General Relativity to include space-time:

"When this paper was published (referring to the circa 1970 Hawking, Penrose paper) we could only prove General Relativity's reliability to 1% precision, today we can prove it to 15 places of decimal." Hugh Ross PhD. Astrophysics - quote taken from 8:40 mark of the following video debate Hugh Ross vs Lewis Wolpert - Is there evidence for a Cosmic Creator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMrDO0_WvQ International team strengthens Big Bang Theory Jun 06, 2013 Excerpt: The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory. "The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe." http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-team-big-theory.html#nwlt

The co-discoverers of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) were not shy in pointing out the obvious Theistic implications of their discovery:

“The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.” Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Background Radiation

Of note: Although the term 'Big Bang' implies a disorderly event, such as events associated with explosions, the Big Bang was far from a disorderly explosion:

"The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - Mumbai TechFest - 2008 “An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you've got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ” Dr Bruce Gordon - Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 - video – 1:50 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

Of related note: Although some people, such as Hawking, have tried to get around the Theistic implications of the Big Bang in General Relativity by invoking 'Quantum Cosmology', the truth of the matter, as mentioned in post 1, is that Quantum Cosmology, whilst seemingly sweeping the Theistic implications away from General Relativity, inadvertently reintroduce Theistic implications else where. Here is Meyer's video again, as well as a Dr. Craig video, that deal with that mathematical 'sleight of hand' that Hawking tried to employ to avoid the implication of Theism for the Big Bang:

Stephen Meyer: (The inadvertent Theistic implications of Hawking’s) Quantum Cosmology – video http://www.counterbalance.org/cosmcrea/meyerqm-frame.html Cosmology: A Religion For Atheists? | William Lane Craig critiques (Hawking's) "The Theory Of Everything" movie - 28:00 minute mark – Hawking's quantum model still, despite misconceptions, implies a beginning for the universe https://youtu.be/i08-gCue7Ds?t=1687

Of related note to undermining Hawking's 'Quantum cosmology':

Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning - April 2012 Excerpt: Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.,,, They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past," they say. They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say. The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin. Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place). http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/ As a further point of interest, the Wall Theorem shows that even a quantum regime would have a beginning, and is therefore essentially to Quantum Physics what the BGV is to Classical Physics. You can read a post by Wall here where he explains why Carroll’s appeals to an eternal quantum regime are really unfounded and continue into the comments to see where he mentions his Theorem. - HeKS http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/ http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/#comment-2637787

bornagain77

January 29, 2017

January

01

Jan

29

29

2017

08:38 AM

8

08

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Of related note:

Stephen Meyer: (The inadvertent Theistic implications of Hawking's) Quantum Cosmology - video http://www.counterbalance.org/cosmcrea/meyerqm-frame.html

Also of related note:

The Return of the God Hypothesis - Stephen Meyer Abstract: Historian of science Frederic Burnham has stated that the God hypothesis is now a more respectable hypothesis than at any time in the last one hundred years. This essay explores recent evidence from cosmology, physics, and biology, which provides epistemological support, though not proof, for belief in God as conceived by a theistic worldview. It develops a notion of epistemological support based upon explanatory power, rather than just deductive entailment. It also evaluates the explanatory power of theism and its main metaphysical competitors with respect to several classes of scientific evidence. The conclusion follows that theism explains a wide ensemble of metaphysically-significant evidences more adequately and comprehensively than other major worldviews or metaphysical systems. Thus, unlike much recent scholarship that characterizes science as either conflicting with theistic belief or entirely neutral with respect to it, this essay concludes that scientific evidence actually supports such belief. http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf Intelligent Design - Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - (Return of God to science) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJNMJef-gqU Irving Bible Church (November 2, 2014) - Lecture by Stephen Meyer. - How science became separated from its Judeo-Christian foundation and how recent discoveries are returning God to science.

bornagain77

January 29, 2017

January

01

Jan

29

29

2017

04:52 AM

4

04

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Meyer has some'at to say . . .kairosfocus

January 29, 2017

January

01

Jan

29

29

2017

03:58 AM

3

03

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link