- Sep 19, 2004
- 1,241
- 83
- 74
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Warning: Philosophy Ahead
The other day in another thread, I was accused of (horror) using the God of the Gaps argument. I had made the statement that when considering the very origin of the universe (broadly defined) one has to explain the fact of existence itself. The Syntopicon of the Great Books says this:
"The Greeks, notably Plato and Aristotle, began the inquiry about being. They realized that after all other questions are answered, there still remains the question, What does it mean to say of anything that it is or is not? After we understand what it means for a thing to be a man or to be alive, or to be a body, we must still consider what it means for that things simply to be in any way at all;. . ." "Being" Great Books of the Western World, Vo. 2 (Chicago: Enclyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 129
Now, looking at all the options for the reason of the universe's existence (or at least the ones I can think of), we have
1. God
2. the universe itself
3. logic
4. vacuum
5. inflaton field
6. ourselves
These may not be totally independent causes. God could use the vacuum to create the universe, but what we are interested in is the First Cause of the universe, that which in some sense 'always was' although that in itself is a bad term to use because it implies time before the Big Bang.
Let me run through these contenders for the first Cause to illustrate why I do not beleive the question of existence itself is susceptible to the God of the Gaps charge.
With God, the game is very familiar. God zaps something into existence which either leads to our universe through an evolutionary process or God zaps thing after thing into existence created ala a magician, our present world. Science can not ask God to step into the lab and be tested so this option, if true, is beyond science.
The Universe
The universe itself might be an odd way for a creation, but Hawkings No-Boundary proposal for the universe posits that there are no temporal boundaries either. The universe always has been and there are no singularities. Hawkings writes:
Now, what this does is posit eternal existence to the universe itself and does away with the Big Bang. But, why does it EXIST? What logic requires such a self-contained universe to actually exist rather than absolutely nothingness be the case? Science can't seem to answer that and it seems very difficult to construct an experiment to address that question. Lacking such an experiment, it seems to me that we have gone outside of science when we address the existence of Hawking's no boundary universe. But even if his view is accepted, one must posit god-like properties to his universe--the property of self-existence, self-creation, and eternal life. This proposal actually tries to avoid explaining existence.
Logic
This concept comes to my mind from an article I read in New Scientist a couple of years ago (Feb 17, 2001, p. 26). Anton Zeilinger has proposed that at the basis of all reality is the bit. The article, entitled 'In the Beginning was The Bit,' argues that the world is quantized because reality is informational bits, the atom of information is the bit. WE can only inquire of the world in yes or no questions. Now to my mind, existence itself is also binary. Either one exists or one doesn't exist, yes or no. And if that is the case, then one could propose that we exist because the answer came up yes. But one must then ask, why would the entire mechanism of a yes-no logic exist out of which came the answer 'yes'? How could logic exist when all else was nothingness? So once again, we are at the point of having to postulate god-like attributes to something other than God in order to have existence. Logic must have been always self-existing, self-created and had the ability to create.
The Vacuum
This is the view that the universe is created by a quantum fluctuation in the pre-existing vacuum. Edward Tryon says:
But Tryon's answer is incomplete. In his view the universe would exist because the vacuum existed previously. But one must then ask why the vacuum existed? What logic requires it to be here rather than be NOT HERE? One can see quickly that godlike properties have to be attributed to the vacuum. It must exist eternally, it must be self-creative, it must be capable of creating our universe. Once again, we have something incredibly godlike but we dare not call it god.
Alexander Vilenkin has proposed a universe which comes out of nothing and it is an extension of Tryons idea. He has it start with no matter and no space or time. But he can't do without the existence of equations which somehow have the power to actually cause what Vilenkin's theory says. In other words, Vilenkin has to start with the existence somehow of logic and math. In what substrate is the INFORMATION encoding these equations held when there is no space, no time and no matter. Information requires matter (Rolf Landauer, Information is Physical, Physics Today, May 1991, p. 24). So where was the equation residing and how was it put into play? Why this equation and not another one? Vilenkin really doesn't start with absolutely nothing because equations and logic are actually something. In order to solve the problem one must start with absolutely nothing--no equations, no logic, no space, no time, no vacuum etc ad nauseum.
The inflaton field
This is not that much different from the Vacuum and the arguments will be much the same. Alan Guth proposed that an inflaton field creates universe after universe in cosmic eternity and we are just one of those universes. But there are lots of problems with the idea.
And, one must still ask why did the inflaton field exist? Is it the ultimate god-like thing possessing self-creation, eternal existence and magnificent creative powers? Why does it exist and how does science address that simple question. I know of no way to address the question of existence via science at all.
Ourselves.
This comes from the need for an observer in the Copenhagn interpretation of quantum. The universe exists because we observe it to exist. I doubt there are many adherents to this view and I find it odd to place mankind in the place of god, but given that science can't even explain the existence consciousness and self-awareness, much less even define it, we have to list this only for completeness sake. To take this option makes us observers the godlike beings with properties of self-creation. And that is not a view I will hold. But once again, I know of no scientific test one could possibly use to determine if that is true or not. Why do we exist?
In this brief survey it is clear that whatever road we take, we must posit godlike properties to something. Even self-creating universes become godlike in the traditional sense of that word.
Is there a science experiment which will distinguish between the above options when it comes to existence itself? I can't think of one. In order to do it one would have to start with a lab full of....utterly nothing and then try each of the above options to see which one turned utterly nothing into something. And that is impossible to do.
So where does science get us? If you define science as the positivists did, then science is only what we can observe, then our science does not allow us to observe things very close to the origin of the universe. I know we have lots of mathematical theories going back to those times but we have no verification. The cosmic microwave background allows us to see the universe only back to the decoupling era, when electromagnetic radiation and matter decoupled and atoms were able to form. This is about 300,000 years after the Big Bang (Silk, Big Bang, 3rd ed. p. 163). While we think we know what happened before that, we actually have no observations from astronomy.
But we do have evidence from particle physics. The collisions of particles in the upcoming Large Hadron Collider will take us back to 10^-15 seconds after the Big Bang. But there it stops. It is highly unlikely that we will ever build an accelerator big enough to probe the big bang itself.
Now, given that we will always have this observational gap and given that science can not possibly explain why things exist without positing god-like powers to something and given that one can't have a lab full of nothing to test the efficacy of various theories for our existence, this question is entirely outside of science.
If this question of existence is outside of science, then it can't be a God-of-the-Gaps argument. That argument is when someone says something like: Flowers can't grow therefore God does it. In such a case science has the possibility of answering how flowers grow. But in the case of existence itself, science has NO opportunity to answer the question and that means, NO God-of-the-gaps is involved here. THe gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, but existence itself is not a scientific question. The question of how the universe possesses existence itself is an open question which leaves one free to chose his favorite poison.
The other day in another thread, I was accused of (horror) using the God of the Gaps argument. I had made the statement that when considering the very origin of the universe (broadly defined) one has to explain the fact of existence itself. The Syntopicon of the Great Books says this:
"The Greeks, notably Plato and Aristotle, began the inquiry about being. They realized that after all other questions are answered, there still remains the question, What does it mean to say of anything that it is or is not? After we understand what it means for a thing to be a man or to be alive, or to be a body, we must still consider what it means for that things simply to be in any way at all;. . ." "Being" Great Books of the Western World, Vo. 2 (Chicago: Enclyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 129
Now, looking at all the options for the reason of the universe's existence (or at least the ones I can think of), we have
1. God
2. the universe itself
3. logic
4. vacuum
5. inflaton field
6. ourselves
These may not be totally independent causes. God could use the vacuum to create the universe, but what we are interested in is the First Cause of the universe, that which in some sense 'always was' although that in itself is a bad term to use because it implies time before the Big Bang.
Let me run through these contenders for the first Cause to illustrate why I do not beleive the question of existence itself is susceptible to the God of the Gaps charge.
With God, the game is very familiar. God zaps something into existence which either leads to our universe through an evolutionary process or God zaps thing after thing into existence created ala a magician, our present world. Science can not ask God to step into the lab and be tested so this option, if true, is beyond science.
The Universe
The universe itself might be an odd way for a creation, but Hawkings No-Boundary proposal for the universe posits that there are no temporal boundaries either. The universe always has been and there are no singularities. Hawkings writes:
Stephen Hawking said:What is the point of introducing the concept of imaginary time? Why doesnt one just stick to the ordinary, real time that we understand? The reason is that, as noted earlier, matter and energy tend to make space-time curve in on itself. In the real time direction, this inevitably leads to singularities, places where space-time comes to an end. At the singularities, the equations of physics cannot be defined; thus one cannot predict what will happen. But the imaginary time direction is at right angles to real time. This means that it behaves in a similar way to the three directions that correspond to moving in space. The curvature of space-time caused by the matter in the universe can then lead to the three space directions and the imaginary time direction meeting up around the back. They would form a closed surface, like the surface of the earth. The three space directions and imaginary time would form a space-time that was closed in on itself, without boundaries or edges. It wouldnt have any point that could be called a beginning or end, any more than the surface of the earth has a beginning or end." Stephen Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, (New York: Bantam Books, 1993), p. 82-83
Now, what this does is posit eternal existence to the universe itself and does away with the Big Bang. But, why does it EXIST? What logic requires such a self-contained universe to actually exist rather than absolutely nothingness be the case? Science can't seem to answer that and it seems very difficult to construct an experiment to address that question. Lacking such an experiment, it seems to me that we have gone outside of science when we address the existence of Hawking's no boundary universe. But even if his view is accepted, one must posit god-like properties to his universe--the property of self-existence, self-creation, and eternal life. This proposal actually tries to avoid explaining existence.
Logic
This concept comes to my mind from an article I read in New Scientist a couple of years ago (Feb 17, 2001, p. 26). Anton Zeilinger has proposed that at the basis of all reality is the bit. The article, entitled 'In the Beginning was The Bit,' argues that the world is quantized because reality is informational bits, the atom of information is the bit. WE can only inquire of the world in yes or no questions. Now to my mind, existence itself is also binary. Either one exists or one doesn't exist, yes or no. And if that is the case, then one could propose that we exist because the answer came up yes. But one must then ask, why would the entire mechanism of a yes-no logic exist out of which came the answer 'yes'? How could logic exist when all else was nothingness? So once again, we are at the point of having to postulate god-like attributes to something other than God in order to have existence. Logic must have been always self-existing, self-created and had the ability to create.
The Vacuum
This is the view that the universe is created by a quantum fluctuation in the pre-existing vacuum. Edward Tryon says:
Edward Tryon said:If it is true that our universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time. Edward P. Tryon, Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? Nature, 246(1973):396-397, reprinted in John Leslie, ed., Modern Cosmology & Philosophy, (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998), p. 224
But Tryon's answer is incomplete. In his view the universe would exist because the vacuum existed previously. But one must then ask why the vacuum existed? What logic requires it to be here rather than be NOT HERE? One can see quickly that godlike properties have to be attributed to the vacuum. It must exist eternally, it must be self-creative, it must be capable of creating our universe. Once again, we have something incredibly godlike but we dare not call it god.
Alexander Vilenkin has proposed a universe which comes out of nothing and it is an extension of Tryons idea. He has it start with no matter and no space or time. But he can't do without the existence of equations which somehow have the power to actually cause what Vilenkin's theory says. In other words, Vilenkin has to start with the existence somehow of logic and math. In what substrate is the INFORMATION encoding these equations held when there is no space, no time and no matter. Information requires matter (Rolf Landauer, Information is Physical, Physics Today, May 1991, p. 24). So where was the equation residing and how was it put into play? Why this equation and not another one? Vilenkin really doesn't start with absolutely nothing because equations and logic are actually something. In order to solve the problem one must start with absolutely nothing--no equations, no logic, no space, no time, no vacuum etc ad nauseum.
The inflaton field
This is not that much different from the Vacuum and the arguments will be much the same. Alan Guth proposed that an inflaton field creates universe after universe in cosmic eternity and we are just one of those universes. But there are lots of problems with the idea.
=Joao Maguijo said:However, inflation is not yet fact; it still awaits experimental confirmation. As I pointed out before, no one has ever seen an inflaton, the field that supposedly drives inflation. Until we do, there is a market for alternative ways to solve these riddles, and scope for much childish bickering among cosmologists. Joao Magueijo, Faster than the Speed of Light, (Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2003), p. 132
And, one must still ask why did the inflaton field exist? Is it the ultimate god-like thing possessing self-creation, eternal existence and magnificent creative powers? Why does it exist and how does science address that simple question. I know of no way to address the question of existence via science at all.
Ourselves.
This comes from the need for an observer in the Copenhagn interpretation of quantum. The universe exists because we observe it to exist. I doubt there are many adherents to this view and I find it odd to place mankind in the place of god, but given that science can't even explain the existence consciousness and self-awareness, much less even define it, we have to list this only for completeness sake. To take this option makes us observers the godlike beings with properties of self-creation. And that is not a view I will hold. But once again, I know of no scientific test one could possibly use to determine if that is true or not. Why do we exist?
In this brief survey it is clear that whatever road we take, we must posit godlike properties to something. Even self-creating universes become godlike in the traditional sense of that word.
Is there a science experiment which will distinguish between the above options when it comes to existence itself? I can't think of one. In order to do it one would have to start with a lab full of....utterly nothing and then try each of the above options to see which one turned utterly nothing into something. And that is impossible to do.
So where does science get us? If you define science as the positivists did, then science is only what we can observe, then our science does not allow us to observe things very close to the origin of the universe. I know we have lots of mathematical theories going back to those times but we have no verification. The cosmic microwave background allows us to see the universe only back to the decoupling era, when electromagnetic radiation and matter decoupled and atoms were able to form. This is about 300,000 years after the Big Bang (Silk, Big Bang, 3rd ed. p. 163). While we think we know what happened before that, we actually have no observations from astronomy.
But we do have evidence from particle physics. The collisions of particles in the upcoming Large Hadron Collider will take us back to 10^-15 seconds after the Big Bang. But there it stops. It is highly unlikely that we will ever build an accelerator big enough to probe the big bang itself.
At earlier times and higher energies, the temperature increases continuously back to the Planck instant, where it attains the incredible value of 10^32 kelvins. For physicists who ordinarily work with giant particle accelerators, such conditions are unattainable. The corresponding energy is 10^19 gigaelectron volds (giga- billion): the largest planned terrestrial accelerators may smash particles together at energies of thousands of gigaelectronvolts. The early universe offers a marvelous particle accelerator: we would need to build an array of superconducting magnets 1 light-year across to duplicate it. Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, 3rd ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman 2001), p. 110
Now, given that we will always have this observational gap and given that science can not possibly explain why things exist without positing god-like powers to something and given that one can't have a lab full of nothing to test the efficacy of various theories for our existence, this question is entirely outside of science.
If this question of existence is outside of science, then it can't be a God-of-the-Gaps argument. That argument is when someone says something like: Flowers can't grow therefore God does it. In such a case science has the possibility of answering how flowers grow. But in the case of existence itself, science has NO opportunity to answer the question and that means, NO God-of-the-gaps is involved here. THe gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, but existence itself is not a scientific question. The question of how the universe possesses existence itself is an open question which leaves one free to chose his favorite poison.