Two recent posts related to cosmology are not in accord with current science. One claims that there is nothing outside of spacetime. The other claims that spacetime is not finite, that it had no beginning. Both conflict with the Big Bang cosmology.
Like all cosmologies, the Big Bang cosmology is a mathematical model based on physics (also mathematical models) that was derived to explain a spacetime expansion observed by astronomers. The Big Bang model has made some predictions (elemental composition of the universe and the cosmic microwave background) that have been confirmed by further observations. The Big Bang model is not perfect, it does not, for example, accurately predict some galaxy distributions, but it is the best available so far.
Because our spacetime is expanding (remember that the spacetime expansion is an observation, not a prediction of a mathematical model), mathematical proofs based on physics predict that any more accurate model that replaces the current Big Bang model must also include a spacetime contraction to an infinitesimal point, a Bigish Bangish sort of beginning.
So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning and there is definitely something outside of spacetime. Does that automatically imply that God exists and created spacetime? Alas, no. We know very little about whatever is outside of spacetime because we cannot see very well there. We do know a few things:
Whatever is outside of spacetime has the capability to generate and maintain the infinitesimal point that would expand into the spacetime that we see around us.
Whatever is outside of spacetime has the capability to initiate and maintain our expanded spacetime.
If we consider the physics of spacetime, we can infer a few other things:
Whatever is outside of spacetime probably has the capability to generate and maintain wave functions for all (10\^80 or so) of the fundamental particles in our universe.
Whatever is outside of spacetime probably has the capability to generate and maintain entanglement relationships between all (still 10\^80 or so) of the fundamental particles in out universe and every other particle that each particle ever interacted with.
Whatever is outside of spacetime probably has the capability to generate and maintain Minkowski transformation relationships between every fundamental particle in our universe and every other fundamental particle in our universe.
Apologies to any who are not familiar with the physics terms, but it would take a long time to explain them. The justifications for all three of those inferences are basically the same: particles in our spacetime always behave as if wave functions, entanglement, and Minkowski relationships have a real physical existence, but we cannot directly observe any feature of our spacetime that would support them.
As far as I know, in the century or so since wave functions, entanglement, and Minkowski relationships have become accepted science no physicist has been able to produce a verifiable theory (a mathematical model) describing how those observed behaviors fundamentally work. We know what they do, we do not know what they are. The only way that we can generate them is in computer simulations.
Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.
Which implies strongly that we live in a creation made by someone or something.
Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least possible.
Where’s the science? Without a shred of empirical evidence or demonstrated cause-effect, you arbitrarily (and repeatedly) attribute currently unexplained phenomena to an assumed “whatever is outside of spacetime,” but fail to demonstrate that there is ANYTHING outsiide of spacetime.
Calling an unsupported assertion an “inference,” as you do repeatedly, does not make it an actual inference.
This isn’t Kalam, this is “god of the gaps.” And it’s bunk.
>So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning
The big bang describes the ‘beginning’ of the expansion of the universe from a hot dense state, not the beginning of the universe itself.
>and there is definitely something outside of spacetime.
We actually don’t know that at all. Scientists have posited things that we might be able to detect that might suggest an outside of our space-time, but we can’t even observe everything inside our space-time. The universe is huge and expanding fast enough that parts if our own space time are forever beyond our ability to observe.
>We know very little about whatever is outside of spacetime because we cannot see very well there.
We can’t see at all there, we don’t even know there’s a *there* there. Remember we can’t see all of our space-time, much less anything beyond it if that’s even a thing.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime has the capability to generate and maintain the infinitesimal point that would expand into the spacetime that we see around us.
We don’t know that the singularity is actually the state the universe was in prior to the big bang, we can’t ‘see’ beyond the planck epoch, which is the first measurable moment of time *after* the start of expansion. We don’t know what the universe was like before that. The singularity is no more than an educated guess.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime has the capability to initiate and maintain our expanded spacetime.
We don’t know that our space-time as a whole needs to be maintained from the outside. As far as we can tell, it’s self supporting.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime probably has the capability to generate and maintain wave functions for all (10^80 or so) of the fundamental particles in our universe.
Or the universe is self sufficient in these matters.
>Apologies to any who are not familiar with the physics terms, but it would take a long time to explain them. The justifications for all three of those inferences are basically the same: particles in our spacetime always behave as if wave functions, entanglement, and Minkowski relationships have a real physical existence, but we cannot directly observe any feature of our spacetime that would support them.
Why assume these relationships need external support?
>As far as I know, in the century or so since wave functions, entanglement, and Minkowski relationships have become accepted science no physicist has been able to produce a verifiable theory (a mathematical model) describing how those observed behaviors fundamentally work. We know what they do, we do not know what they are. The only way that we can generate them is in computer simulations.
This feels like we’re walking into an argument from ignorance….
>Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation. Which implies strongly that we live in a creation made by someone or something.
Yep, there it is.. we don’t know therefore simulation or god.
>Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least possible.
Sure, if we’re in a simulation made by a god, then all rules are out the window and contrary to all evidence we have available the bible could be true.
We could have all come from Adam and Eve in spite of the mountains of evidence that we are an evolved species of ape, related to Chimps. The entire planet could have been flooded ala Noah in spite of the fact that nothing about that story is possible as far as we can tell. The exodus story could be true in spite of all the evidence that Jews were never Egyptian slaves and the plagues never happened. You’re right… when we’re in a computer game, the developer could do anything he wants.
I would question why the god described by christians as never lying would do the things in the bible then cover them up to the point that we are unable to actuallly scientifically verify any of the events. Why make the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago with apparent age, then set it up so that everything we do to find out about the world’s past leads us conclusively and unanimously to an incredibly wrong answer. Seems pretty dishonest. And if he’s constructed such an imressively consistent and elaborate lie about our origins, how can we trust anything else about reality? Including that the bible is true.
​
> Our universe had a beginning
The BBT doesn’t postulate that. In fact, t[he most recent refined cosmological models allow for a “Big Bounce” universe](https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-models-reignite-big-bang-debate-20180131/), and thus only our spacetime would have a “beginning” in the sense that the previous “bounce” of the universe ended. That doesn’t mean the bouncing universe itself can’t be eternal, and thus without beginning.
Watch [Physicists & Philosophers reply to the Kalam Cosmological Argument featuring Penrose, Hawking, Guth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKe6YzHiME)
>So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning
I honestly think language is a problem here. I have even seen the same language used in pop-science sites, where they talk about ‘the beginning of the universe’, that the universe ‘began’ with the big bang.
What it really means is ‘the current state of the universe began wit the big bang’.
‘Begin’ really just means ‘significant change’.
My nursing career began in 1987.
Except it didn’t, the seeds were planted years before, I had previously thought I wouldn’t be able to deal with the ‘yucky’ side of nursing until my dog was ill, and caring for it despite the mess it caused was more important than me having a bit of a dry-heave at the smells etc.
But that wasn’t the beginning either, i can remember the first time I was aware of another person’s pain at just six years old, and wanting to help relieve it. And I’m sure if I had better memory I would remember factors before that.
This whole idea that the universe ‘began’ is highly flawed, and I think the flaw is part of how we as humans view the world, life, everything.
If we change ‘scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning’ to a more accurate ‘scientifically speaking, Our universe had a significant change’ it is now no longer possible to put into that sentence ‘the Kalam was right’.
> mathematical proofs based on physics predict that any more accurate model that replaces the current Big Bang model must also include a spacetime contraction to an infinitesimal point
Not that I am aware of. Many theories try to completely get rid of these singularities (quantisation fo space), do they not? (masters student of theoretical physics here)
> Bigish Bangish sort of beginning
Even if we can’t get rid of the singularity then this point is (by current understanding of spactime) not part of space time meaning there is no first point in time and as such no beginning.
> So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning and there is definitely something outside of spacetime
No we don’t know. And no where does the second conclusion even come from?
> Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.
> Which implies strongly that we live in a creation made by someone or something.
I agree that our universe is mathematically based like any well defined abstract structure in mathematics. There is no need for it being a simulation or something created by someone or something. Our universe can exist mathematically abstract as other mathematical structures such as groups and vectorspaces do as well without the need of someone constructing them.
Not actually sure whether this all is supposed to be satire or not.
Lol. I thought this was serious until I read the punchline: “Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “maintain”. Do you think that something outside of our universe is actively working to “maintain” it? That’s an odd claim. If maintenance were happening, wouldn’t we see evidence of outside interference?
I think quantum fields are capable of creating universes. Not sure that universes require maintenance, but if so, maybe the quantum fields can do that too.
>So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning and there is definitely something outside of spacetime.
This almost gave me whiplash because nothing you say before it even *hints* at establishing that there is something beyond spacetime. The only thing you said that could possibly be interpreted that way is if you were tacitly making an indispensability argument for mathematical platonism by saying that since the Big Bang theory uses mathematical models and mathematical models are abstract objects that exist outside of space and time, then it requires the existence of things outside space and time. But that would be very odd because it has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. You can run the same platonistic indispensability argument for any true theory that uses mathematics, whether it be physics, chemistry, genetics, or economics.
Set that aside. Let’s assume that the only way of reading the Big Bang theory is as positing the Big Bang as the absolute beginning of space and time, and not just the origin of all observable matter in our universe. Even then, this doesn’t imply that there’s anything outside of space and time that caused it. In fact, causation is essentially a spatiotemporal phenomenon.
The only way there could be a cause is if the universe is a simulation in a computer that exists in it’s own hyper-spacetime. Then the universe had a beginning in the hyper-spacetime. But this would be a distinct time ontologically dependent from ours such that there would be no necessary correlation between our time and hyper time. Our time could pause, slow down, fast forward, or even run backwards in hypertime if someone hits the relevant buttons on the computer.
But none of that is even remotely entailed by the Big Bang theory. Our time could be the only time and it could have an absolute beginning, in which case there is simply nothing prior to the first moment of time and it is senseless to talk about what caused the Big Bang.
Huh. Pretty interesting variation on the fine-tuning argument.
We observe patterns / math / fine-tuning, therefore maintained simulation and conclude creator / God.
It still runs into the problem that we see patterns in nature yet don’t find God. But somehow if we just ponder about things we have less knowledge about, we see signs of things we want to believe like God?
>Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least possible.
So all the events in the Iliad and Odyssey are possible then as well? Or not?
>Like all cosmologies, the Big Bang cosmology is a mathematical model based on physics (also mathematical models)
Not just mathematical. There are several very good sources of observational evidence and verified predictions. CMB, relative abundance of light elements, etc.
>that was derived to explain a spacetime expansion observed by astronomers.
It was first proposed by a Belgian priest (Georges Lemaitre) through theory alone as he recognized expansion was a necessary consequence of general relativity. Edwin Hubble later confirmed it with observation (red shift).
>Because our spacetime is expanding (remember that the spacetime expansion is an observation, not a prediction of a mathematical model)
Incorrect. This is a case where experiment and observation confirmed theory, not the other way around. This was actually an inherent solution to Einsteins original derivation of general relativity. He added an extra term (cosmological constant) to counteract the expansion because static state was the accepted theory at the time (considered Einsteins biggest blunder). It was later corroborated with evidence.
>So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning and there is definitely something outside of spacetime. Does that automatically imply that God exists and created spacetime? Alas, no. We know very little about whatever is outside of spacetime because we cannot see very well there. We do know a few things:
Your qualifier of “definitely” does not follow from your premises. We do not know at all that there is necessarily something outside of spacetime. For now, our observable universe is all we can observe and empirically test.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime has the capability to generate and maintain the infinitesimal point that would expand into the spacetime that we see around us.
I’m not sure what you mean outside of spacetime. It sounds like your leaving the only defining for “outside of spacetime” to be a God.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime has the capability to initiate and maintain our expanded spacetime.
I’m not sure what you mean by “maintain”.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime probably has the capability to generate and maintain wave functions for all (10^80 or so) of the fundamental particles in our universe.
There’s nothing outside of spacetime that we could verify to exist and there’s no reason to think that something outside the universe is needed to generate and maintain anything. All matter in our observable universe is already here.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime probably has the capability to generate and maintain entanglement relationships between all (still 10^80 or so) of the fundamental particles in out universe and every other particle that each particle ever interacted with.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime probably has the capability to generate and maintain Minkowski transformation relationships between every fundamental particle in our universe and every other fundamental particle in our universe
Both of these make little sense because of what I said earlier. You also kept putting the qualifier of “probably has the capability”. That’s a very unscientific way of putting forth your thesis.
>Apologies to any who are not familiar with the physics terms, but it would take a long time to explain them. The justifications for all three of those inferences are basically the same: particles in our spacetime always behave as if wave functions, entanglement, and Minkowski relationships have a real physical existence, but we cannot directly observe any feature of our spacetime that would support them.
This sounds extremely similar to quantum mysticism. What do you mean by “but we cannot directly observe any feature of our spacetime that would support them.” All three have empirical evidence with real experiments pertaining to them. Not to sound condescending but you are making claims about scientific facts that you don’t seem to fully understand.
>As far as I know, in the century or so since wave functions, entanglement, and Minkowski relationships have become accepted science no physicist has been able to produce a verifiable theory (a mathematical model) describing how those observed behaviors fundamentally work. We know what they do, we do not know what they are. The only way that we can generate them is in computer simulations.
Yes, this is the cutting edge of quantum theory but quantum mechanics is the single most successful theory in scientific history. We may not understand what is happening at the most fundamental level but there has never been a single experiment that contradicts the core tenants of quantum mechanics. What do you mean the only way we can generate them is in a computer?
>Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.
Math is the language of the cosmos, not a basis for it in sense you seem to be implying. There is a prominent philosopher Nick Bostrom who has a very cohesive theory about living in a simulation being very possible.
>Which implies strongly that we live in a creation made by someone or something.
This is Kalam all over. By calling it creation, your assuming the question with the answer.
>Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least possible.
Non sequitur.
>So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning and there is definitely something outside of spacetime.
*Our local presentation of the universe* had a beginning.
​
>Apologies to any who are not familiar with the physics terms, but it would take a long time to explain them. The justifications for all three of those inferences are basically the same: particles in our spacetime always behave as if wave functions, entanglement, and Minkowski relationships have a real physical existence, but we cannot directly observe any feature of our spacetime that would support them.
Doesn’t really matter for the sake of this group, since none of it has anything to do with whether God exists or any claim made by any mainstream religion.
>Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.
Um no. It could merely imply that the universe behaves in ways that can be modeled by mathematics.
​
>Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least possible.
Um, no. God did not hover over the waters before the universe was created, or separate the “waters above” with a firmament, or create the sun and moon AFTER plants were created, or make man out of dust, or woman out of a man’s rib. THAT is the biblical creation story, and it is 100% factually incorrect. Also the biblical story is not “a kind of computer simulation”.
>So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning
The Kalam doesn’t say “the universe had a beginning”. It says “the universe **began to exist**”. Those are not the same thing. The baseball game begins at 6 pm. That doesn’t mean baseball began to exist at 6 pm.
So now we have to examine what “begins to exist” means.
That to me sounds like “spontaneously manifesting having not been created of previously existing material”. Or “it popped in to existence out of nothing”. Because if the things it’s made of **EXIST** previous to the specific thing existing, then the thing didn’t “begin to exist”.
The way I see it, premise 1 of Kalam, “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is meaningless because nothing “began” to exist. Everything that exists is a reconfiguration of previously **existing** stuff. The chair never “began to exist”. The wood existed before the chair. The stuffing existed before the chair. The fabric exists before the chair. So everything that makes up the chair already existed when the “chair began to exist”. Same with me. The sperm in my dad existed. The egg in my mom existed. The food that nourished her whole pregnant which is what cause me to grow existed. It was all just reconfigured in to me. I didn’t “begin” to exist at all. I didn’t just pop in to existence out of nothing.
So if you think p2 of Kalam is correct, why do you think the universe popped in to existence out of nothing?
>and there is definitely something outside of spacetime.
I personally have no clue whatsoever if anything exists outside of space and time, and I don’t think any human being does either. That seems like an unanswerable or unfalsifiable thing so I have no idea. But I don’t see anything wrong with it.
> Does that automatically imply that God exists and created spacetime? Alas, no.
Kalam doesn’t contain the word god. Kalam is not an argument for god. Kalam is an argument that the universe had a cause.
>We know very little about whatever is outside of spacetime because we cannot see very well there.
We don’t know **anything** about whatever is outside space time.
>Apologies to any who are not familiar with the physics terms, but it would take a long time to explain them.
Everything you listed are just tautologies about what we know about the universe itself.
>no physicist has been able to produce a verifiable theory (a mathematical model) describing how those observed behaviors fundamentally work.
Has **anyone** done that? Who might be best qualified to determine that?
> We know what they do, we do not know what they are.
That’s what physics is. Physics describes relationship. It doesn’t attempt to explain why. It’s just interested in how.
>The only way that we can generate them is in computer simulations.
>Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.
What? Why? Math is a language that we use to describe reality. It’s the other way around. Our math is based in how the universe works. The universe isn’t based on math.
>Which implies strongly that we live in a creation made by someone or something.
No it doesn’t because it’s not true.
>Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least
Even if the it did imply an intentional creator, there’s absolutely no reason to think it’s Yahweh. I would think, if I’m writing some sci Fi, it would be something more akin to scientists. Some beings who live in some other dimension or outside our spacetime, doing a science experiment, turning on a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy and… Bang. A big one.
There’s no way to tell the difference between yours or mine.
That’s all speculation, and fiction at this point. We can speculate all we like, but the fact is we can’t figure that out one way or another, and we do know that within this universe, whether it’s true there’s a god or not, people make up fictional gods. That’s just a fact. Every god you don’t believe in was made up by someone else.
And when I read the bible, the first of 4 or 5 read throughs, it reads suspiciously like other ancient fiction. Homer. Stories about all the other gods interacting with the people who believe in them.
If the universe is a mathematical simulation, then our physics is correct when it says the sun can’t stop in the sky above Jerhico. Our geology still says the world was never flooded. Our biology still says humans evolved. And there’s no evidence that the Christian god is any different than any other god any other human has thought up that doesn’t exist.
>Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.
This unexpected jump gave me whiplash. Mathematics is now the cause?
>So, scientifically speaking, Kalam was right. Our universe had a beginning and there is definitely something outside of spacetime
Whenever cosmologists say that the universe began at the Big Bang, what they really mean to say is that the cosmos in its current state began at the Big Bang. The KCA however argues that spacetime and matter just spontaneously popped into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. This is of course wild speculation without a shred of empirical evidence.
​
>The only way that we can generate them is in computer simulations.
How does it follow from this that we likely live in a simulation?
​
>Which implies strongly that we live in a mathematically-based universe, a kind of computer simulation.
Math is simply the language we use to describe the universe. It doesn’t make any sense to describe the universe as “mathematically-based”. That’s like saying the universe is “English-based” because we can use English to describe the world.
> One claims that there is nothing outside of spacetime.
What does even the word *exists* mean outside of spacetime?
> The other claims that spacetime is not finite, that it had no beginning.
As best we can tell from the big bang theory, time began at the instant of the big bang. The universe was in a hot dense state. So, the universe already existed at the instant of the big bang.
But, the concept of before the big bang is indeterminate. The very word *before* is a time comparator. Without time, *before* has no meaning.
> Both conflict with the Big Bang cosmology.
In what way?
I completely don’t understand this.
What do you think exists outside of spacetime according to the big bang theory or any other established scientific theory?
What do you think the big bang theory could possibly say about the meaning of the word *before* when time did not yet exist?
As far as I can tell, nothing in your post makes the point either that the universe began when time began or that something exists outside of spacetime.
> Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least possible.
[Genesis 1 is not remotely possible.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/if54du/genesis_creation_error/g2lfecz/)
Not even a little bit. The universe it describes is not the universe in which we live. The order of creation is provably false. Even if we ignore the literal 7 days, which is a big thing to ignore, the creation myth in Genesis 1 cannot possibly be correct.
Please click through to the link above where I have personally Fisked Genesis 1 and tell me how you think it is at all possible.
Causality is not necessary to explain this universe. It doesn’t even make sense for a “law” to exist objectively. How does it even exist? As lines of code in some abstract world? If causality didn’t exist, then this world could still exist exactly as it is. It would just mean that the causal patterns we see are coincidences, correlations. So Occam’s razor says there is no need to create such an unnecessary assumption. It doesn’t even make sense to ask why anything exists unless you make that anthropocentric assumption in the first place. If causality is real then you are left wondering how the universe exists, but even worse, you must ask yourself how causality itself exists!
>Any more accurate model that replaces the current Big Bang model must also include a spacetime contraction to an infinitesimal point, a Bigish Bangish sort of beginning.
That would be the beginning of the expansion of the universe, which is not necessarily the same as the beginning of the universe. We have no way of knowing what might have come before that, if anything. The fact that something existed at the Big Bang tends to suggest that it we preceded by something.
How can we know it was an infinitesimal point? Our observable universe would surely be an infinitesimal point, but our observable universe is probably not the entire universe. If the entire universe is infinite, then the universe would still be infinite in size even at the Big Bang.
>Whatever is outside of spacetime has the capability to generate and maintain the infinitesimal point that would expand into the spacetime that we see around us.
What does it mean to generate or maintain something without time? If a thing is generated never and maintained for no time, then is it really generated or maintained?
> Which also implies strongly that all of the events described in the Hebrew/Christian bible are at least possible.
I think you had me until this statement. So somehow you went from something that sounded reasonably scientific, though I’ve never heard of your terms, and jumped the shark to: man originating from Adam and Eve, the virgin birth and the “miracles” of Jesus, including his resurrection. But somehow none of the claims Islam, or other religions are true.
Good try though! Your later reasoning is so obviously bad that I will leave it to others to take apart but I have to applaud you for the Rick Roll!