Steady State Universe - Philosophical Implications

[Theleb K]

Ok, infinity keeps cropping up here and it makes me make this face - . Why? To my (small and somewhat addled) mind, infinity or "the infinite" is a nonsense that mathmeticians use instead of saying, "actually, we just don't know," or "Hmm, our equations just break down round about here..."

For example, take the old maths riddle of infinite distance between an arrow and its target ie. when you keep halving the distance that an arrow has to travel after leaving a bow you find that it never actually reaches the target!

Now, everyone knows that this is cobblers. If, in reality, you shoot an arrow accurately at a target lying in range of the bow and nothing intervenes to alter its course it will hit it! If the sums do not recognise this then there must be something missing from the equation...

Look at it another way. Consider a statement that we've all heard at some point or other: "Space is infinite."

How can it be??? If space was infinite than none of us would be here; there'd be no room, only space in the locations where each of us is.

As I said, I'm no scientist and I don't have the answers, but I know something woolly when I hear it (no sheep puns please!)

 

[Ursa major]

Thinking back too many decades to a maths lesson in Wolverhampton....

Wasn't the business about halving the distance each time a way of working out which of two arrows (one travelling twice the distance, but at twice the velocity, of the other) reached the target first? (The answer being the slower, because it was always just ahead of the faster, if I remember correctly.) No one doubted that both would hit the target. (Well, I didn't, I think! Or was it a dream....)

 

[Space Smith]

I once read, or partially read because it became increasingly difficult for me, a great book called "Infinity and The Mind" by a fella called Rudy Rucker.

He said there were three kinds of infinity:
1/Physical
2/Mathematical
3/ Philosophical/God type inifinity stuff

1/ His physical infinities included mulit dimensional, "quantum splitting", inifinite big bang/big crunch scenarios and so on

2/ Mathematical. Consider the series of numbers
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 (the so called "natural" numbers)

then consider the square numbers 1,4,9,16,25 etc

Both go on for ever and are infinite series. But the first infinite series is somehow "bigger"

Then you get the rational numbers and irrational with scope for further degrees of infinity.

There's a well known scenario whereby you get sent to hell but every year the devil says you get out if you choose the number he's thinking of. If that number is a natural number, no matter how large, eventually starting at 1 in the first year and 2 in the second year, you can count yourself out of hell. But for other number series, what if the devil has nominated 2.23465788999 etc etc and you never get there because you are still calling out 1.88989797 etc etc Well Don't know if anyones the wiser but infinity comes in different "sizes"


3/ We've said a little about the "God stuff" on threads above. The question should be Is the universe conscious ? I would say "yes". Because I am God (in the local sense) . The individual Self and the universal Self are One
Those "denying" "God" may actually be affirming their "godhead" by living life on their own terms. It becomes one of perspective/semantics and so on...I believe there is continued consciousness after death and there's evidence of that. This to me establishes a sort of consciousness that isn't dependent on coarse matter.

(Connected with other bodily existence, some claim astral projective powers. Something I have attempted but with no real success, except for a very minor almost comical experience. The reason I've thrown this idea in is that "those claiming" AP experiences say there is an "astral limit" on how far one can project. A curious limitation considering the seeming supernaturalness of astrally projecting -if true also an indication that as has been said recently, spirit and matter coexist.A consideration that was at the back of mind when I first started the thread)

 

[Delvo]

To my (small and somewhat addled) mind, infinity or "the infinite" is a nonsense that mathmeticians use instead of saying, "actually, we just don't know," or "Hmm, our equations just break down round about here..."

It isn't. It just needs to be used in the right places, and you're using bad examples that try to use it in the wrong places.

For example, take the old maths riddle of infinite distance between an arrow and its target... If, in reality, you shoot an arrow accurately at a target lying in range of the bow and nothing intervenes to alter its course it will hit it!

If the target's an infinite distance away, then by definition it's not within range, so it doesn't meet one of the requirements you gave us yourself for the arrow to hit it. By declaring a finite distance to be a requirement in order for the arrow to hit it, you've just proven yourself that it will NOT hit a target at an infinite distance.

when you keep halving the distance that an arrow has to travel after leaving a bow you find that it never actually reaches the target!

Well, half of infinity is just infinity. (If the half were a finite number, then the whole would just be a bigger finite number, not infinity.) So there's really no such thing as travelling half of infinity; you'd have to travel infinity just to get to the halfway point!

What you're really describing with the halves is a target at a finite distance away, not infinite. And in that case...

If, in reality, you shoot an arrow accurately at a target lying in range of the bow and nothing intervenes to alter its course it will hit it! If the sums do not recognise this then there must be something missing from the equation...

Or you're using the wrong equation.

There are at least two ways to describe what's wrong here. They're really the same thing, but worded differently.

1. Arrow flight doesn't go by halves like that, so you're using the wrong procedure (incorrect data or inapplicable equation) to predict what it will do. Garbage in, garbage out.

2. By describing a hypothetical arrow that does fly by halves like that, you've introduced another factor that you didn't announce that you were introducing: you're slowing the arrow down. When you said the arrow would hit the target, you were assuming inertia applied, but when the arrow is slowed down (infinitely slowed down, actually), inertia no longer applies. The way you described the arrow's movement simply blocks its path just as surely as putting up a physical barrier in the way would have done so.

Either way, you were trying to use one situation's rules in what you had defined to be a different situation that would need different rules.

Consider a statement that we've all heard at some point or other: "Space is infinite."

Not necessarily; it might not be, but I'll play along...

How can it be??? If space was infinite than none of us would be here; there'd be no room, only space in the locations where each of us is.

I don't get why you think this. It's like saying that because the number line runs out to infinity somewhere way out there to the right,, it can't have the numbers 2 and 948.1 on it.

 

[mosaix]

Nice post Delvo.

 

[Theleb K]

Hmm, some intersting stuff here... I think perhaps SS summed it up best by making the distinction between "mathematical" and "physical" infinity.

We can all accept that the sequence 1,2,3,4,5 etc.. is at least potentially infinite. Equally, whatever world view you hold, ultimately you have to come to grips with the problem of infinity (God, universe whatever) However a "physical" infinity is a bit harder to pin down isn't it?

Our (or at least my) experience shows us a universe of finite things which natural processes bring into being and then alter at a steady or variable rate into something else upon which the same or different processes also act. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the universe as a whole to behave any differently, or to put it another way - what evidence is there that it should?

On this basis, and setting the infinity issue aside for a moment, I don't like either the Steady State or the Constant Expansion theories... but who knows?

 

[Space Smith]

Ah found it !

This was the book I read recently that mostly prompted my line of thinking, leading to the original post:

"From the Back Cover
Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support. What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done.
He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory!
Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe. "

Amazon.com: Big Bang Blasted: Books: Lyndon Ashmore

 

[HardScienceFan]

are the cosmologists' minds really expanding?

 

[Space Smith]

are the cosmologists' minds really expanding?

Just to reiterate the old saying "As above, so below", I reckon the "task" that a transient being living "three score and ten" has in contemplating "Life The Universe An Everything" is some how wrapped up with the universe's fate itself. (A clumsy attempt to explain my thinking)

Cosmologists ? Well. I wonder how up to date they are with theoretical physics and how much they are theologians rather than empiricists ?

 

[Jackolsman]

Cosmology is a difficult field because it is mostly theoretical. To be a cosmologist and not to be up-to-date on theoretical physics seems to be an absurd contradiction.

I am very caught up in this topic at the moment, though I am getting really tired by now. I've read a couple books about hyperspace theory, wormholes, the universe and the multiverse. I am looking forward to posting some ideas here that I have come across.

 

[Spartan27]

Interesting topic of discussion, in my humble opinion theology is science cause science cannot explain the human belief system. Maybe one day science and the fundamental elements of theology and why we "believe in something" can exist together in harmony.


ooopss....I just woke up.

 

[Phil Janes]

Cosmology is a word scientists use to elevate their own religions to a status outside of what the government is prohibited from giving financial support. In the USA, the socalled "standard model" is the religious establishment. Heretical views of cosmology are banned from universities, government grants and bublication in peer reviews.

All cosmologies, including Big Bang, are religious in nature and do not belong in scientific texts.

 

[j d worthington]

Interesting topic of discussion, in my humble opinion theology is science cause science cannot explain the human belief system. Maybe one day science and the fundamental elements of theology and why we "believe in something" can exist together in harmony.

Actually, science has come very close to explaining it very well... and has done so for at least a century and a half. Read some of the anthropological books on the subject.

As for cosmology being a religion... no, as cosmology is based on observable evidence. Religion requires a belief; science requires evidence on which to base a model -- which itself is always open to change depending on new evidence. Yes, individual scientists are prone to their own hobby horses, but science itself -- the scientific method -- is designed to make short shrift of those which aren't supported by evidence, as one of the designs of that method is to constantly question and try to disprove (or falsify) any given theory or hypothesis.

Which, in turn, is the reason why such things as the Big Bang replaced the Steady State model... because the evidence mounted in favor of the Bang. Should the evidence mount in favor of a return of Steady State, then that will once again have preference... or if evidence mounts in favor of a new model, that will eventually become the standard. So far, the Big Bang isn't being seriously questioned as a whole, though certain aspects of it are indeed undergoing change (the idea that there were multiple big bangs, for instance, instead of only one... which ties in with certain aspect of particle physics as well).

Just as more mountains of evidence continue to pile up in support of a modified version of Darwinian evolution, while there is no evidence to support the idea of "intelligent design" or "creationism". But it is a modified version that is constantly undergoing "fine-tuning" on the details, because it is based on evidence, not what one wants or doesn't choose to believe. The same is true with cosmological theory; without the evidence to back it up, it is at best an hypothesis; but nothing is allowed to become an unassailable position in science, as one of the basic tenets of any scientific model is that it is falsifiable; present the evidence to challenge it, and let it be peer-reviewed, tested, argued over, and retested. That is how science works, even in its most basic tenets. Religion argues from a belief outward, not from evidence.

 

[Phil Janes]

Thanks for the sincere reply, J.D.

I agree that much of the standard model is supported by evidence. I think it is unfortunate that Big Bang is widely accepted as part of the standard model. The evidence that the universe is expanding today should not be seen as evidence that it started from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. That is extrapolation ad absurdium.

Furthermore, Big Bang is based on the religious assumption that the universe is finite. Arguments that the universe had to be finite seemed, for a while, to be persuasive, and new arguments to the contrary are simply ignored. The question is considered a closed argument by the Big Bangers, who have closed their minds to the issue.

When we speculate beyond the bounds of proof, we get into the realm of cosmology, which has always been a matter of religion. The penalty for heresy in Galleleo's day was more severe, but the high priests of todays established religion still have the power to impoverish those who dare question Big Bang.

 

[Sephiroth]

It's not extrapolation ad absurdium, it's supported by solid theoretical evidence. Yes, the theory might be wrong, once we get the opportunity to test it, but it is not idle speculation. And the reasons for it are far more profound than 'the universe is expanding today, therefore...'

And the Big Bang is not based on any religious assumption, nor does it even assume, necessarily, that what we traditionally refer to as the 'universe' is even all there is.

It's currently the best-accepted theory because all of the mathematical and physical scientific evidence points to its being true. The theory, furthermore, is subject to change every time we discover something new.

In what way, pray tell, is such a theory religious? Something is not either 'the truth', or 'religious belief'. Some things are our best informed guess at the truth. These are not religious beliefs!!!!!!!!

Regarding infinities, in response to what someone said earlier: there are more than one kind of mathematical infinity, and they can be added and subtracted, multiplied and divided. The mathematics of it is way beyond me (see Georg Cantor), but it's an important part of the complex differential calculus with which cosmologists work, without which many of the theories would be non-remormalisable.

 

[j d worthington]

And, ultimately, that's what it comes down to. The Big Bang certainly didn't get immediate acceptance. The evidence had to mount for several decades before it was (very reluctantly, in many cases) accepted -- because the steady-state model was much more in line with the inherited nineteenth-century positivist thinking that denied a beginning or end to the universe -- if one can call the Big Bang and entropic decay such, which is debatable -- and therefore the idea that the universe apparently had a beginning (which, again, is a questionable view, as there are many theories about what lies behind the Big Bang (or set of) that don't necessarily posit a true "beginning", simply a different state (or field) of energy that we're only just beginning to get a glimpse of).

This is the same as with Einsteinian physics, which was very reluctantly accepted by the established authorities, because it seemingly made hash out of several long-accepted ideas in physics; when the truth is it modified them... it did not replace them. In the end, it's the evidence that decided on the acceptance of the Big Bang model, and so far, that model remains supported (though, again, as is so common with our growing understanding of how the universe works, modified) by the evidence.

This can by no definition be called "religion", as a religion does not rely on any form of verifiable, testable, or falsifiable evidence:

NOUN:

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The only one of these that even comes vaguely close is #4, and even that is highly debatable, as (in light of all the surrounding definitions and connotations) it would tend to be related to a spiritual or mystical, rather than scientific idea, which relies on constantly being tested against new evidence, not to mention the very tendency of scientific inquiry to try to prove an idea wrong....

The word "religion" gets thrown around far too easily these days, and used where it really has no application; which is not all that surprising, as we really do have a tendency toward serious malapropism in modern culture....

 

[Michael01]

I'd have to agree that cosmology (the Big Bang) is definitely not a religion, and certainly not "idle speculation." Oh, I've heard stories that some idividual scientists will argue their convictions as vehemently as any religious person but, as both j.d. and Sephiroth explained, science itself - the scientific method - isn't meant to be that way. If the Big Bang theory doesn't agree with the evidence, it will be trashed (however reluctantly) just as the steady state theory was. This kind of thing does not happen within particular religions (although some sects might break away from older ones and form new religions - this is not the same in any way; new theories will still be developed using the scientific method, which doesn't change).

On the other hand, science is a belief system, and - like religion - it is based on certain assumptions that can't be proven. One of the assumptions is that we can trust our senses, or our brains' interpretation of sensory perception, etc. Empirical evidence is part of the foundation for the scientific method, and if it turns out that we really cannot trust our senses, then that would mean it is a false belief ... and, well, that's something that sort of makes my mind do twisties.

In any case, I'm pretty well convinced that we can trust our senses (at least to a degree). Sure, philospically speaking, that wall in front of me might be an illusion, but it still hurts when I walk into it!

So I think science is pretty much on the right track, although I do not discount certain ideas expressed by spiritual beliefs.

There is still the issue that other belief systems are (you might as well say) banned from public schools in America. That is regrettable to some degree, but honestly I'd rather teach my child about religion myself anyway - rather than have the government decide which religion he should learn.

 

[Phil Janes]

Sephiroth: “It's not extrapolation ad absurdium,...”

It is absurd to extrapolate 13.7 billion years into the past—to 10-42 second after the alleged big bang—when there is so much we do not understand about the present!

The standard model dismisses the question, “What causes gravity,” by pontificating that, “Gravity is a fully understood mathematical property of space. Gravity is therefore commanded to obey Newton’s simplistic formula at all distances and at all times.” Hell! We haven’t actually settled the questions of the speed and the range of gravity. Even within standard model congregations, there are those who think gravity propagates at c, while others still cling to Einstein’s assumption that gravity’s reach is instantaneous at all distances–--within the finite universe.

Sephiroth: “It's currently the best-accepted theory because all of the mathematical and physical scientific evidence points to its being true. The theory, furthermore, is subject to change every time we discover something new.”

When they discovered that the spin of galaxies exceeds the standard model’s speed limit, did they doubt Newton’s sacred formula for one second? No; they ordered the galaxies to increase there mass by 90% on penalty of excommunication from the universe.

That missing 90% of the mass is also necessary to protect the Church’s teachings about the age and size of the universe. Einstein calculated the total mass necessary to make the universe gravitationally open or closed; that calculation is mathematically impeccable, but its validity depends on a perfect understanding of gravity and the assumption that there is no mass outside of our own finite 4D space-time continuum.

True; there was some debate over whether the universe could be infinite—Olber’s paradox [link to Wikipedia not allowed], for example. Unfortunately, the Finitists prematurely declared victory in that debate. Due to the great success of Einstein’s special relativity, the gang rallied round their poster boy and became politically powerful enough to shut down every heretical cry from the wilderness. Thus, the standard model club became the religious establishment.

Sephiroth: “In what way, pray tell, is such a theory religious?...”

The standard model is religious in the sense that it holds its own beliefs to be sacred. The universe must comply with the formulas, rather than formulas being called into question. It is religious in the sense that its founders decided the outcome of the finite-or-infinite debate without hearing the final arguments. The whole subject of cosmology is religious in the sense that it seeks answers that can never be proven. Every major and minor religion has its own cosmology, which it defends assiduously. In the middle ages, heretics were burned at the stake; today, they are denied government grants and employment by institutions that receive government grants; they are banned from publication in peer-review journals and are only published in rags that specialize in alien abductions; they are ridiculed as crackpots and barred from the establishment’s social functions. Pretending to have proven ones own version of cosmology upon unproven assumptions cannot elevate that cosmology to the status of science. It is only thru political clout that the standard model has become the religious establishment of the scientific community.

I have my own infinite-universe cosmology, and yes, I do admit that it is as much religion as science. If my tiny “church” enjoyed a tiny fraction of the government funding that now goes into developing the liturgy of Big Bang, I bet I could deliver some new scientific discoveries. No, I will never ask the government to fund my cosmological studies; that would violate the 1st Amendment. But, where my cosmology offers alternative solutions to scientific puzzles, perhaps those matters should get some of the crumbs that fall from Big Bang’s communion plate.

Sephiroth: “Regarding infinities, in response to what someone said earlier: there are more than one kind of mathematical infinity, and they can be added and subtracted, multiplied and divided.”

Yes! Infinity is not a number; it is a catchall term for any and all quantities that are too great to be represented by numbers. I believe in a fractal universe. A fractal is an infinite space, but only a fraction of that space exists. Existence is an infinity of actuality within a greater infinity of possibility. And there is an infinity of degrees of existence—from each and every person’s imagination to our collective experience, and from all possible futures to that which is the universally agreed-upon past.

J.D.: “The word "religion" gets thrown around far too easily these days, and used where it really has no application; which is not all that surprising, as we really do have a tendency toward serious malapropism in modern culture....”

“Theory” is another word that is often used malapropriately. A theory must be testable. Big Bang is a model, not a theory. There seems to be a great rush toward discovering a “theory of everything”. I sometimes refer to my own model as a TOE; I immediately clarify that I mean my model suggests a theory to explain just about anything physical. When I recognize a flaw in my model (and, yes, I am still open minded enough to recognize an occasional flaw), I say that I have stubbed my TOE.

Michael01: “I'd have to agree that cosmology (the Big Bang) is definitely not a religion, ...”

“Cosmology” is not the same as a cosmology. This may be semantic nitpicking, but I said, “All cosmologies, including Big Bang, are religious in nature and do not belong in scientific texts.” (Perhaps I went too far; cosmologies that lead to scientific discovery should be mentioned in scientific texts.) Cosmology is not A religion; it is a category of inquiry; each religion, having substituted belief for inquiry, has established its own individual cosmology. In the middle ages, Catholic cosmology forbad Earth to orbit the Sun; the study of cosmology apart from Catholic cosmology was heresy. Big Bang became a religion when its proponents unilaterally shut down the debate over whether the universe is finite or infinite, and their cosmology became the official cosmology of the scientific establishment.

Michael01: “...new theories will still be developed using the scientific method, which doesn't change....”

New theories that challenge Big Bang have no chance of developing without government funding. Theorists dare not mention or investigate such theories, lest they be blacklisted.

Michael01: “... One of the assumptions is that we can trust our senses, or our brains' interpretation of sensory perception, etc....”

Now your diverging into philosophy. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it....”, etc., which is being discussed in the thread about consciousness-universe-consciousness.

Michael01: “There is still the issue that other belief systems are (you might as well say) banned from public schools in America. That is regrettable to some degree, but honestly I'd rather teach my child about religion myself anyway - rather than have the government decide which religion he should learn.”

I agree that public schools should not give credence to creationism, though perhaps they should be permitted to mention the fact that some valid scientific work has been accomplished by creationists, who believe, “blah, blah, blah...”; unfortunately, this gives creationists a foot in the door, which they will exploit until the courts intervene. The greater problem is that Big Bang theory model is being taught as fact, and all theories and models not in complete agreement with Big Bang are forbidden subjects; a teacher is liable to be fired for mentioning the existence of attempts to explain the cause of gravity. Have you ever heard of Fatio/Lesage [link to Wikipedia not allowed] theory? It’s been around for three centuries; it has obvious flaws, but I believe it is a promising line of thinking. Do you want your kids to graduate with a BS in physics without knowing some people think gravity has a cause—that gravity is not action at a distance without a transmitting particle? (My own model makes several major changes to Fatio/Lesage, but does rely on its underlying logic.)

P.S.: I’m a bit behind in posting revisions to my model on the net. I’m only on line 5 hours a week, which makes it difficult to set up my own blog. The most up to date version yet posted [link to BUAT not allowed] is archived at Bad Astronomy and Universe Today (BAUT), where it got an icy reception. I’m still praying for someone to make a specific criticism. How does one respond to “... good creative writing...”? If you read what I’ve posted at BAUT, please try to point out a specific inconsistency or absurdity. Do you think I should start a thread, here, about my model?

PPS: Only my third post, so no links allowed.

 

[Sephiroth]

Phil, I'm not arguing that the Standard Model is perfect, and I agree with what you are saying about its failure to account for gravity. But, there are scientists around the world now who are attempting to go beyond the SM, who recognise that the SM is a framework which, like others in the past, has served the purpose of describing the universe to a far greater degree of accuracy than anything that came before. Even now people are trying to supersede the Standard Model, whether with 'Braneworld' or 'loop quantum gravity' theories, or something else that I haven't heard of. If it were a religion, no one would be interested in going beyond it.

I appreciate the point that the scientific community can be dogmatic, and that a majority can often cling too long to obsolescent systems of understanding, but this social or personal conservatism is observable in all aspects of life, and hardly constitutes a religious belief. And the fact is that, in science, despite this conservatism, systems of understanding are constantly overturned, reinterpreted, or replaced.

Given that you have hinted that you are involved in your own, alternative line of research, I can also appreciate the point that you find the current situation frustrating. If you were to argue that too much funding and attention is devoted to the mainstream theory and not enough to other, less popular but possibly equally fruitful lines of research, then I would agree with you. But calling it a religion is, for me, resorting to hyperbole.

 

[Michael01]

"Cosmology” is not the same as a cosmology.

Oops. Quite right. I should have clarified.

New theories that challenge Big Bang have no chance of developing without government funding. Theorists dare not mention or investigate such theories, lest they be blacklisted.

I'm not so sure about the "blacklisting." It might be true; the way governments work, I wouldn't be surprised. On the other hand, like Sephiroth says, new theories (or at least revisions) are being explored by scientists today - so I'm inclined to think that this "blacklisting" is in no way universal.

Now your diverging into philosophy. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it....”, etc., which is being discussed in the thread about consciousness-universe-consciousness.

Ah, but the origins of the scientific method are in philosophy. Even Newton referred to physics as "natural philosophy."

The greater problem is that Big Bang theory model is being taught as fact, and all theories and models not in complete agreement with Big Bang are forbidden subjects; a teacher is liable to be fired for mentioning the existence of attempts to explain the cause of gravity.

Well, if this is actually the case, it is quite sad. It is still a theory, although it is based on observation and evidence (which can be misinterpreted), and should not be confused with fact. There's just no way to know for certain what occured 14 billion years ago unless we were there (which we weren't).