What came before the Big Bang is not a science question

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 6, 2017

Big Bang, Cosmology, Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, Naturalism}

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

This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time. — Big Bang/NASA

From Rachel Feltman and Matthew R. Francis at Popular Science:

The main reason some physicists obsess over the beginning of the universe is because so much evidence points to there being one. But what if our universe grooved within an ageless multiverse—like a patch of ground from which countless flowers bloom. In this model, each universe has a big bang and keeps its own time. In the most popular version, each universe might even have its own version of physics too. Infinite possibilities yield infinite results: Some say this theory explains life itself.

We’d have to be extremely lucky for a single big bang to create a universe with the perfect conditions for life as we know it, but if new universes are springing up all the time, it’s no wonder one of those cosmic neighborhoods turned out just like ours. The universes in this garden grow or wither according to their own rules, while the multiverse around them goes on without a beginning or an end. It’s an elegant blend of change and timelessness, a floral brew many cosmologists are still sipping. More.

Stop, wait, we’ve heard this What if? Many times before.

Science isn’t about What if? It is about How, exactly?

These people are advertising in no uncertain terms that they are willing to cling to any old What if? of a multiverse to avoid evidence of fine-tuning of our universe. That’ll be the death of science, of course.

But post-modernist scientists choose the boutiques in which they shop for concepts, so they can be marchin’, marchin’ against the “end of science” on account of a local political squabble, choosing to ignore the slow creep of non-evidence-based thinking into science in general, to say nothing of looming identity politics wars.

Note: Popular Science ended comments in 2013. Too much “other side” to deal with.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?

and

Eureka! Scientist discovers that the post-modern left hates science the way it hates every form of external reality

Comments

St. Athanasius (c. 298 – 373) – Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen) “§39. "For we must not think there is more than one ruler and maker of Creation: but it belongs to correct and true religion to believe that its Artificer is one, while Creation herself clearly points to this. … … For this is why the Artificer Himself made the whole universe one, lest by the coexistence of more than one a plurality of makers should be supposed; but that as the work is one, its Maker also may be believed to be One. Nor does it follow from the unity of the Maker, that the Universe must be one, for God might have made others as well.”Sojourner_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

"I understand, but I’m cool with the multiverses where infinite possibilities exist. In one such, an eternal being, God, must have existed or was created." precisely...So now you need a finely tuned multiverse that specifically forbids an intelligent life form from ever being able to manipulate the universe to universe process (or traverse from universe to universe). Besides that a designer or God become inevitable. Fine tuning is like an infintie rodeo rider that just won't fall off - you can bump it down the line but its still there riding no matter how you buck.mikeenders_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Again forgive me. I find the website and the comments very helpful. I am learning and trying to make sense of things. I remember viewing a debate on YouTube, I think it was in London between one of the '4 Horseman' and a Jewish PhD. I believe the debate was sponsored by a Jewish Intellectual Organization. I give this detail only to provide information for someone who might be interested in the debate. In the debate, the PhD argued on this point of an infinitely aged universe or universes. He made a strong philosophical, and I believe qualitative, argument that it would be impossible to live in any of the finite timed universes, because the infinite time existing before the creation of the finite timed universe would never allow that universe to exist. He gave many cites. The Horseman was unable to counter this point. Has someone heard of this argument and would you comment on its strength? Thank you. Mark from COMark from CO_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Science has never been afraid to investigate supernatural hoaxes, because hoaxes aren't real and "science" exposes the falsity of the supernatural. But the beginning of the universe is no supernatural hoax, there is no falsity to its obvious beginning, hence "science" is no longer interested in exploring that particular "hoax", because they're put off by the irrefutable evidence for a supernatural Beginner. When the "just so" stories don't pan out, fall back on the "maybe so" stories.Charles_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

"...they are willing to cling to any old What if? of a multiverse to avoid evidence of fine-tuning of our universe. That’ll be the death of science, of course..." Great catch News! This is exactly what it is about...but there more... There is a great need in our society to hear the assurances that science is standing where it ought to be; behind the godless wall, so that people like rvb8 can sleep well and not to worry about any accountability to anyone, especially supernatural...J-Mac_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Stop, wait, we’ve heard this What if? Many times before. It looks like What ifs and Maybes have become widely used instead of the actual evidence. Dr. Sean Carroll (also called Dr. Maybe) have become a master and the leading scientist of the What if and Maybe "evidence... Who can argue with this kind of science?J-Mac_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

I understand, but I'm cool with the multiverses where infinite possibilities exist. In one such, an eternal being, God, must have existed or was created. I prefer "must have been" but I'll take "was created", at a guess out of chance interactions of plasma followed by random mutations, then, with inevitable accretion of consciousness, engineering His own mutations.Belfast_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Even if you have an infinite number of universes, don't you still need to explain the origin of the laws of physics that govern them and the universe-generating multiverse?Macauley86_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply