Metaphysics

Why is the "big bang" theory completely taken for granted in modern physics when it so obviously contradicts the primacy of existence axiom?

Post 1

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 1:09pm

Possibly because it corresponds with some of the old pagan origin myths. For example, the Greek myths stated that before the world "as we know it" existed, all time, space, and matter were jumbled together in Chaos.

The "Big Bang" theorists assume that before the Bang, the universe existed in a kind of infinitely small spaced called a singularity, and that the compression of matter and energy within that singularity caused the Big Bang. Getting back to the topic, the theorists could attempt to justify their theory on philosophical forms by stating, "Yes, we accept that existence exists, but we think that existence existed in a different state (or form) at some point in the past."

The question is, has existence always existed as we know it? Have the natural laws we understand always applied, or were conditions different at one point in time? For my part, I think that there is evidence that suggests that the universe is expanding. The question then becomes "why is the universe expanding? What is pushing all the stars and galaxies outwards, and from what point is this push coming from?" I think its a valid scientific question, despite accepting for philosophical purposes that existence exists.

In the meantime, at least the scientists are treating the "Big Bang" as a theory and continuing to look for experimental evidence to either prove or disprove the theory. It's a hell of a lot more than the Christians do; they simply take on faith that $DEITY got bored with the void one day and said, "Let there be light".

Post 2

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 1:46am

"$DEITY" -- nice!

I think that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily contradict the primacy of existence axiom or causality even.

Our current science traces the history back to that point, but does the Big Bang Theory necessarily state that nothing else came before? Maybe before the bang there was a Big Crunch. Or perhaps our universe as we know it is somehow spawned off of some other universe and the singularity is the spawning point.

I saw an astronomer guy on TV this week who said that because there's gravity, the universe either has to be expanding or contracting, but unless you add in some magical cosmological constant, it can't be static. If at any point it was contracting, then what happens when it gets down to a singularity? You'd have a big bang. It seems reasonable and consistent with causality that the universe follows an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. But if it contracts to a true singularity then it seems like there wouldn't be any way to get information about what happened before there was a singularity, hence as far back as you can research is the Big Bang.

Post 3

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 4:31am

"$DEITY" isn't original to me, Jeff; it's a Perl-ism I picked up on Usenet at some point and started using myself. You're right; there's a great deal that we don't know. Perhaps our universe is the result of the compression of an old universe. Perhaps ours is part of a larger "multiverse". We don't know yet, but given time and tools we will. I am willing to take that on faith if necessary, that men can know all that can be known in time.

Post 4

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 7:09am

In my view Objectivists should reject the expanding/contracting universe idea. Objectivism states that the universe is the sum of all existents and is therefore non-spatial, i.e., that the universe is the container of all space and so cannot itself exist in some wider space - the container of which then being the universe.

For the universe to expand it would have to have some space to expand into - an impossibility since what is outside the universe is not space but NOTHING. An expanding universe would mean an expanding existence, i.e., existence being created out of thin air - a contradiction of the primacy of existence axiom.

It could be argued that this is not problematic, that the universe may not be the sum of all that which exists, but rather one universe out of many "parallel" ones. This is false since, as mentioned, there must be some ultimate
"container" of all space. Imagine a pan of boiling water with each bubble representing a "universe." If it weren't for the existence of the pan itself, (the actual universe) then none of its contents could be possible.

Thanks for your contributions.

Post 5

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 9:07am

Is existence really being created ex nihilo, or is existing space merely being stretched as all matter and energy explode outwards from some theoretical point of origin. We don't know yet, but the answers are out there.

Yes, existence exists. But we do not fully understand the nature of existence. Therefore, I see no reason to reject the expanding/contracting universe model. Ayn Rand was a philosopher and a novelist; the lady wasn't a scientist. Nor was science as advanced in Rand's time as it is now and will be in the future (assuming that the barbarian Arabs don't conquer all). I think it is pointless to state that existence exists without asking "what is existence" and looking for the best answer possible.

Post 6

Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 5:44pm