Do you accept the Big Bang as the universe beginning theory?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Do you accept the Big Bang as the universe beginning theory? » Do you accept the Big Bang as the universe beginning theory?

Do you accept the Big Bang as the universe beginning theory?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Do you accept the Big Bang as the universe beginning theory?

MusicalD
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 11/16/08 - 07:49 AM: Subject: Do you accept the Big Bang as the universe beginning theory?	#1
(I know there are similar threads to this one, specifically dealing with religion. But I would like to look at this from every perspective possible.) (Please keep in mind that the opinions in this post are my own point of views coming from my limited experience and knowledge, so don't take them personally or offensively.) Hello everyone! Since I was a child, the explanations given by my parents were always religion-oriented, but I always felt attracted to the side of the science. And without a doubt, one of the most asked questions is "Where does everyone come from?" My idea is that we should understand the complexity of the universe first before understanding its origin (how can the origin of the universe be less complex than the universe itself?). This makes me wonder, are we qualified to give an explanation to the origin of the world yet? Now that our society is starting to accept scientific theories, when I hear "big bang", I feel the same weird feeling I feel when I hear Christian explanations: I just can't understand how everyone accepts it so easily. When I ask "Where did the world come from?" they will reply "The Big Bang, man!". Then I reply, "And where did that dense and hot condition come from in the first place?" Clearly, the Big Bang is not an explanation for the beginning of everything, but rather an explanation of how everything is placed in cosmos. The wrong thing is, everyone is accepting it like the former. I agree with how everything has a cause. Every change of state must have a state before, for it to be actually changed. Everything that has a start, must have an end. But we're not even sure if this world had a start, therefore an end. We are not sure if there was a starting point, or if there is going to be an ending point. We are not sure if the universe is actually infinite. We're not sure if the Big Bang even happened. We just theorize it. But we don't understand it. I don't want to start a debate of what was the first state of the universe, since as I stated before I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to understand for us with the current knowledge. I feel there's something missing, that we must understand before. But rather I want to ask you, do you accept everyone's else theories, or do you have your own point of view? I would like to hear your opinions! (as I said before, from every perspective possible)

AristocraticSodomite
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 11/16/08 - 08:26 AM:	#2
MusicalD wrote: My idea is that we should understand the complexity of the universe first before understanding its origin (how can the origin of the universe be less complex than the universe itself?). This makes me wonder, are we qualified to give an explanation to the origin of the world yet? Must we learn every minute detail about the chicken before we can state that it came from an egg? Everything that has a start, must have an end. Why? I can synthesise NaCl from sodium and chlorine and the NaCl could theoretically remain in such a form for eternity. If the interaction of Na and Cl are what triggered the Big Bang then why can't the NaCl-universe last forever? MusicalD wrote: Now that our society is starting to accept scientific theories, when I hear "big bang", I feel the same weird feeling I feel when I hear Christian explanations: I just can't understand how everyone accepts it so easily. But we're not even sure if this world had a start, therefore an end. We are not sure if there was a starting point, or if there is going to be an ending point. We are not sure if the universe is actually infinite. We're not sure if the Big Bang even happened. We just theorize it. But we don't understand it. Well we're not sure of anything. The way science works is we "theorize" based on a certain amount of evidence and then empirically test these theories in order to "understand" what is around us. So although you are right that we don't fully understand the origins of the universe the Big Bang theory is certainly a step in the right direction and we shouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand because it isn't yet fully understood or doesn't satisfy your need to irrefutably explain the existence of everything. But rather I want to ask you, do you accept everyone's else theories, or do you have your own point of view? I think it would be rather foolish to reject the best that centuries of scientific endeavour have been able to come up with just to feel a sense of self-importance. Edited by AristocraticSodomite on 11/16/08 - 08:33 AM

MusicalD
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 11/16/08 - 10:03 AM:	#3
AristocraticSodomite wrote: Must we learn every minute detail about the chicken before we can state that it came from an egg? Stating is not the same as understanding. We had to understand how the chicken body worked before we could understand they came from eggs. AristocraticSodomite wrote: Why? I can synthesise NaCl from sodium and chlorine and the NaCl could theoretically remain in such a form for eternity. If the interaction of Na and Cl are what triggered the Big Bang then why can't the NaCl-universe last forever? Isn't that interaction not a start point, but rather a change of state from both separate Na and Cl which already existed before? One of the most basic theories, the conservation of mass, makes us think everything always existed and will exist: matter just changes, doesn't starts or end. Wouldn't the same apply to the world then, which is made of matter? AristocraticSodomite wrote: Well we're not sure of anything. The way science works is we "theorize" based on a certain amount of evidence and then empirically test these theories in order to "understand" what is around us. So although you are right that we don't fully understand the origins of the universe the Big Bang theory is certainly a step in the right direction and we shouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand because it isn't yet fully understood or doesn't satisfy your need to irrefutably explain the existence of everything. I didn't talk about dismissing. I said that it's not a theory about the creation of everything as most people believe, since everything already existed before the Big Bang occurred, just in the form of a hot and dense "dot". AristocraticSodomite wrote: I think it would be rather foolish to reject the best that centuries of scientific endeavour have been able to come up with just to feel a sense of self-importance. This statement sounds really anti-philosophic. In simple words, you are stating that we should dismiss all our thinking and accept all the information that we receive without doubting it? Before believing in something, you should study (prove for yourself if possible) all the statements a theory has as proof. Otherwise, it's just believing blindly. It's not about self-importance, it's about self-awareness and identity. Edited by MusicalD on 11/16/08 - 10:10 AM

rhinogrey
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 35

Posted 11/16/08 - 10:25 AM:	#4
Scientific thought as perceived by the Western world is founded upon the mind's natural means of learning and perceiving through patterns. Science as we know it relies upon the condition of these patterns repeating in order to be testable and confirmed. Since the -beginning- and -end- presuppose a singular, non-repeating instance, I can only come to two conclusions: 1) science will never be able to competently explain the beginning, nor conceive of the end, of the universe; or 2) The concepts themselves of -beginning- and -end- as we perceive them are incomplete and no truly singular event exists in nature. To accept #2 is to radically shift one's perspective on what constitutes of a -beginning- ie, the notion that our repeating-pattern-based understanding of the world is accurate and that no event ever occurs only once. Going from this, our conceptualizing of a -beginning- can only be categorized as an absurd human abstraction/analogy. Sort of the way thinking of "God" as a benevolent man in the sky is a way of dumbing down the issue for children to grasp the basic concept of a supreme being. Such analogies are sometimes necessary for communicating a broader idea, but their simplicity impedes true understanding. Our idea of -beginning- is therefore either 1) radically incomplete or 2) correct, making it untestable by science and therefore inexplicable beyond a person's ability to intuit the nature of his consciousness. So is -beginning- truly an anomaly within the 'rules' of the universe, or must we assume no anomalies actually occur in nature and therefore our understanding of the -beginning- is the true problem? If one is to assume our model scientific thought is indeed in tune with the true nature of the universe, then it seems the only step towards understanding the -beginning- of everything is to come to understand -beginning- as a repeating pattern unto itself rather than a singular and unique event.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/16/08 - 10:55 AM:	#5
The actual science of the Big Bang theory does not include any bang. The name was given to the theory by a detractor and it fails to adequately capture what the theory is actually about. The standard cosmological model, as it is better named, is about the history of the universe between a certain point in the past and now. It is well-established by empirical evidence. It does not, however, deal with the ultimate origin of the universe and is consistent with both a universe of infinite age and a universe of finite age. Most scientists admit that we simply do not know enough about high energy and high temperature physics to adequately describe the state of the universe before a certain point. This information is usually covered in any textbook on cosmology.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

AristocraticSodomite
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 11/16/08 - 11:28 AM:	#6
MusicalD wrote: Stating is not the same as understanding. We had to understand how the chicken body worked before we could understand they came from eggs. Yes, but you stated earlier: My idea is that we should understand the complexity of the universe first before understanding its origin To be able to "understand" where a chicken came from we need only to understand its reproductive system - how it digests food or flaps its wings bears no relevance on our understanding of its origin. Similarly it seems unreasonable to say that we need to know absolutely everything about the universe before we can understand its origin - knowing about the orbits of the moons of Saturn is probably not going to be necessary, for example. Isn't that interaction not a start point, but rather a change of state from both separate Na and Cl which already existed before? Well, yes. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making. One of the most basic theories, the conservation of mass, makes us think everything always existed and will exist: matter just changes, doesn't starts or end. Wouldn't the same apply to the world then, which is made of matter? Sure, why not? Again, this bears no relevance to the Big Bang. I didn't talk about dismissing. I said that it's not a theory about the creation of everything as most people believe, since everything already existed before the Big Bang occurred, just in the form of a hot and dense "dot". Apologies, I assumed there was more to what you were trying to say than whining about people misquoting and misusing the Big Bang. This statement sounds really anti-philosophic. In simple words, you are stating that we should dismiss all our thinking and accept all the information that we receive without doubting it? Before believing in something, you should study (prove for yourself if possible) all the statements a theory has as proof. Otherwise, it's just believing blindly. Although this sounds very noble, you are confusing "all the information that we receive" with "rigorously tested and empirically supported information that we receive". It is good and necessary to challenge all commonly-held beliefs but just plain arrogant to challenge something supported so heavily by science when we are so unqualified to do so. The the finite or infinite nature of matter may be a philosophical discussion but the Big Bang theory is not.

vykk_draygo
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 177

Posted 11/16/08 - 11:42 AM:	#7
I accept it. It makes the most sense to me, and most of the evidence seems to point to it. It doesn't explain what came before this universe, only how this universe started. Therefore, the explanation is adequate for its purpose.
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?" H.P. Lovecraft

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 11/16/08 - 12:12 PM:	#8
shrugs I myself laughe at the "Cosmic bounce theory"; since it claimed to be new. But no, I do not strictly adhere to the "Big bang theory" though it is possible. When I do think about possible ways in which the universe formed; I tend to consider the possibility of what it would look like on the 'inside' if all the universe is is a set of dimensions that somehow interacted with one another at one point. As well, on the 'religious side'; maybe God made something of himself?
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301

Posted 11/16/08 - 12:26 PM:	#9
Time, along with space, started at the Big Bang. It makes no sense to ask what happend before that.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

MusicalD
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 11/16/08 - 01:43 PM:	#10
Kwalish Kid wrote: The actual science of the Big Bang theory does not include any bang. The name was given to the theory by a detractor and it fails to adequately capture what the theory is actually about. The standard cosmological model, as it is better named, is about the history of the universe between a certain point in the past and now. It is well-established by empirical evidence. It does not, however, deal with the ultimate origin of the universe and is consistent with both a universe of infinite age and a universe of finite age. Most scientists admit that we simply do not know enough about high energy and high temperature physics to adequately describe the state of the universe before a certain point. This information is usually covered in any textbook on cosmology. Thanks for clearing it up, and I totally agree with you. But my questions are, how is this the "beginning of time"? Did the time and space begin suddenly? Wasn't there a trigger for it? Or was it a change from a previous state? But don't you need time for a change of state to occur? AristocraticSodomite wrote: To be able to "understand" where a chicken came from we need only to understand its reproductive system - how it digests food or flaps its wings bears no relevance on our understanding of its origin. Similarly it seems unreasonable to say that we need to know absolutely everything about the universe before we can understand its origin - knowing about the orbits of the moons of Saturn is probably not going to be necessary, for example. Mhm, you're right there. But that's why I feel that "that something we must understand" is still missing. AristocraticSodomite wrote: Sure, why not? Again, this bears no relevance to the Big Bang. I started my post talking about the big bang, but my question went much more deeply, about what we believe about existing theories, about the probability of the existence of a beginning being the same as of the lack of a beginning, about if we have the right to make claims about our origin, etc. AristocraticSodomite wrote: Apologies, I assumed there was more to what you were trying to say than whining about people misquoting and misusing the Big Bang. As I stated, there IS more. "Whining"? Stop the offensive words and be more friendly, please. Everyone here is. Edited by MusicalD on 11/16/08 - 01:49 PM

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.