|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
SCIENCE, THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE, AND DEEPER QUESTIONS:
There is a great deal being written about what science "knows about the origin of the universe". The truth is that science does not now and never will be able to know and explain the origin of the universe for a very simple reason. All accepted science laws requires some initial conditions to be known and from those conditions, science makes predictions based on the laws of physics. The initial conditions of the universe are not, however, amenable to determinate experiment, and it is almost certain that it will never be known how that came to be. Therefore, science can never fully explain the origin of the universe was from initial conditions which physics calculations show was a precisely ordered (and extremely low probability) state to begin with. Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
It should be noted that the questions raised in this essay about the knowledge of the big bang or other origin details of the universe do not, we believe, in turn raise questions about most basic religious beliefs concerning God's involvement in the origin of the universe, but rather about the probable inability of science to ever know with any precision how the universe actually originated or operated in detail.
There almost certainly was, however, some form of a big bang consistent with a creation event, and science had determined that it was a very unusual "bang" much more consistent with Design than chance.
We agree with Professor Geoffrey Chew Ph.D. Physics who has said; "Appeal to God may be needed to answer the "origin" question: "Why should a quantum universe evolving towards a semi classical limit be consistent?" In laymen's terms, Dr. Chew is saying that the deepest law of physics (quantum mechanics does not answer the question of consistency in the evolution of the universe.
Where Did The Universe Come From? New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God We recommend listening to the lecture by physicists H. Ross. (Note; we do not agree with all of Dr. Ross's conclusions, but he does show how science fits at least some creation models/beliefs.)
Some leading physicists are working on mathematical models which do not require initial conditions, but if they do find such a math model, there will almost certainly be no proof, and no reason to believe, that it is more than a mathematical trick . Variations on the big bang theory will become more commonplace as EXPERTS RAISE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BIG BANG MODEL AND STRANGE CONCEPTS SUCH AS DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY. The big bang theory probably contains an essential truth of creation, but the details of the physics models don't fit reality as well as cosmologists would have us believe. The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang . Problems of the Big bang Theory.
Physicists can, of course, analyze the present state of the universe, and from that know something about the initial conditions of the universe (without knowing how that came to be.) The initial conditions are known to have been extremely unusual and improbable to a degree that is inexplicable by science and totally inconsistent with chance. In his book the emperor's new mind" Mr. Roger Penrose one of the leading physicists in the world, says; "in order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes". (Note, he uses the term creator!)
Mr. R. Penrose, the world class physicist, then calculates a probability of 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros that such conditions would happen by chance without a creator. That is about one chance in 1000 million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million! The initial conditions of the universe were improbable, if one only invokes chance, to a degree essentially beyond human comprehension.
If science simply says the universe originated from a super dense ball of matter in a big bang, the question still remains, where did the ball of matter come from and why was that ball of matter in such an extremely improbable ordered state. There will always remain the unanswered question as to "why" the initial conditions were ordered the way they were. An even deeper question is where did the laws of physics come from to begin with and who breathed energy and reality into those laws?
The laws of physics and the initial conditions interact, but the initial conditions are not determined by the laws of physics themselves. The initial conditions determine the point from which the laws of physics start operating. You may refer to the following site which has a more technical discussion of WHAT ROGER PENROSE HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE SPECIAL STATE OF THE UNIVERSE (SEE THE SECOND PAPER ON THE LINKED SITE.)
Since science by definition can never see what if anything existed before the beginning of the universe, science can never see how the initial conditions came to be what they were. (Note again, there are some scientists who are theorizing about initial conditions or the possible lack of them, but their theories are inherently not provable and depend on very questionable assumptions and not on what science does and can know.)
In his book "a case against accident and self organization" Mr. D. Overman says "referring to physicists S. Hawkings, the main proponent of no boundary condition models of the universe, "Hawkings emphasizes that his no boundary concept is only a proposal and not even a theory. He admits that it cannot be deduced from another principle already known to be true." Mr. Overman then says; "he uses regressive reasoning without any verified principle in the sequence to support his proposal." There is no known law of physics which doe not rely on boundary/initial conditions and no known physical principle to indicate that theories without such conditions represent any of reality.
Even if you ignore the problems of the initial conditions and origin of the laws of physics, at the energy/density levels near the beginning of the universe, the laws of physics almost certainly break down. This is another reason that science cannot truly address the very beginning of the universe. It is accepted by almost all physicists that such is the case and new laws would have to replace the laws of physics as we know them at the actual beginning of the universe. Such new laws would be untestable since it is not possible to generate conditions which even approximate the true beginning of the universe.
It is certainly true that science can, in any case, tell us a lot about the history of the universe based on measured conditions which exist now and which can be observed in electromagnetic radiation which left stars millions or billions of years ago. That is still, however, far far different from telling us about how the universe came to be in the first place.
Even the great physicists Stephen Hawkings himself has recognized that the existence of the universe itself as we observe it, is extremely improbable. That is in fact true in many ways. Mr. Hawkings has stated "if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." that is not disputed by any reputable physicists and it points to a creator.
The very small chance that the expansion rate would be so precise as calculated by Hawking must be multiplied by the other extremely small chance of the order of the universe being precisely as needed for life (such as calculated by the other great physicists Roger Penrose.) the combined factor of these two extremely small probabilities make the universe obviously strangely and nearly perfectly tuned for the existence of life. From inside the universe, the universe is almost certainly designed for the existence of life. "The Privileged Planet".
There are theories which depend on the existence of an actual infinity of other universes to explain away the need for a designer. Those theories are not testable and not scientific unless they make some predictions which in fact fit reality better than current physics theories.
Science simply has no hard (testable) way (and probably never will have) to look at the universe from outside the universe. for a scientists to address the origin of the universe as science and we know it, is like someone being trapped inside of a cave which is perfectly made with all that is needed to sustain and nurture life, with the observer inside never having been or being able to go outside. If the cave inhabitants could not get any form of signal from outside of the cave, it would not possible for them to know what the outside is like. Similarly, the laws of physics determine what goes on inside the universe, but probably tells science little if anything at all about what exists outside of the universe. Unless in the future some form of signal is found and proven to have originated outside this universe, science will never know what if anything is outside the universe.
There is a more general truth that science is limited in the questions it can answer by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Scientists do, of course, get involved in PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING ABOUT THE DEEPER QUESTIONS OF EXISTENCE. THIS IS FINE AS LONG AS THE PHILOSOPHY IS NOT CONFUSED WITH ACTUAL SCIENCE.
Materialistic and atheistic scientists would like us all to believe that science can explain all of the universe. The reality, however, is that all that science can explain is the relationships that occur in the universe as it exists where tests can be performed (for example how force or gravity effects a mass.) Astronomer sees a 'brake' in cosmic expansion. This is one more indication that science doesn't really understand the cosmos.
Speaking about mass (the property of matter which resists acceleration and which responds to a gravitational field, remember that science cannot even tell us why the mass property is the same for acceleration and gravity. For that matter science can tell us that you can turn mass into energy (and visa versa) and the relationship is e=mc^2. But science cannot tell us what energy is, but only what effects energy has and the relationship between mass and energy. We know the effects of energy but not what it is at the most basic level.
Noted physicists F. Tippler has said; "according to general relativity, only in spacetimes where the total energy is necessarily finite (in the so-called asymptotically flat spacetime) does "energy" have a well defined meaning" (It is believed but not proven that our universe is such a flat spacetime, but science only has guesses (and theories based on assumptions and which do not fit all the facts) as to fundamentally why the universe is flat.)
The relationships science finds (like e=mc^2) are described by mathematics. Even if science were to find a set of mathematics, however, which could be used to describe the universe, the question would remain; "why does the universe behave according to such relationships and why does the math work? THE ABILITY OF MATHEMATICS TO DESCRIBE THE UNIVERSE FAIRLY ACCURATELY AT ALL IS VERY PROFOUND.
Additionally, remember, science only approximates reality with models
(essentially the mathematical models which relate one parameter to another.)
science is also limited to those relationships that are repeatable in the
laboratory and science obviously cannot create new universes in the laboratory
and must rely on indirect evidence even to generally describe the history and
behavior of the universe.
Such limits of science are found in all of science. Deep questions, such as
"why" did the universe "originate" in the first place or what is consciousness
(more than a description as to what effects consciousness has), cannot be
effectively addressed by science.
Science in fact knows even less about the origin of consciousness than the origin of the universe. Science is very limited in addressing all such non material questions. On page 83 of the book "QUANTUM QUESTIONS, MYSTICAL WRITINGS OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST PHYSICISTS" there is a quote of scientist Erwin Schrödinger on histories greatest scientists. He says; "the scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. ------- it cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, god and eternity." The characteristics and properties he is taking are not measurable directly by science.
Science is not only limited to measurements inside the universe, science is outside of our human nature. Also on page 83 of the book there is another quote of physicists E. Schrödinger. He says; "we do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside." We agree that true science refers to the material world and actually has almost nothing to say about that which has deep meaning to mankind, namely spirit and soul.
Fundamentally science is very powerful only for material/energy interactions of various types which go on inside the existing universe. Even inside the universe there are many IMPROBABILITIES OF THIS UNIVERSE WHICH SCIENCE CANNOT EXPLAIN
While we believe that there was a creation event which formed the universe, that does not mean that it can be explained by science. As a matter of fact, naturalistic explanations for the "big band" have several problem areas:
1) The standard model of physics used in big bang makes certain predictions such as the existence of single pole particles called monopoles which have not been found to exist.
2) The actual big bang is not described by the standard model and if one invokes quantum mechanics one is left with an extreme probability of in regards to the existence of the mass of the universe coming into being for billions of years. (This is not prohibited by physics but does represent an improbability that is beyond credulity.)
3) The big bang model does not explain the flatness of spacetime.
4) Not all of the microwave background pattern fits the big bang standard model, even with inflation (which itself has problems.)
Science is profoundly very limited in what it can say is "proven to be true" about the deeper "why" questions of the universe and reality than is generally known to the public. This fact is far too often not even recognized or at least not acknowledged within the science community itself.
Ask an Astrophysicist: Cosmology. The site has quite a bit of good information. Note, however, that the answers leave the "why" (is the universe that way) questions unanswered at a basic level.
Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins
Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible
Hubble's deepest shot is a puzzle.
There are those who believe the big bang theory as generally understood is not correct.
Library of questions on cosmology.
Weyl curvature hypothesis. (Trying to explain the universe starting out in an extremely improbable state of order. It also tries to eliminate the need for universe inflation at much faster than the speed of light in the beginning.)
The Designed "Just So" Universe
Bigger 'Birthmarks' In The Sky May Deflate Theory Of Cosmic Inflation
Masks of the Universe : Changing Ideas on the Nature of the Cosmos