Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

[DannyM]

I’ve been debating a physicist. Lol - it's tough going at times, but the debate covers more than just physics, involving naturalism vs. Christianity and worldview, so I'm on largely familiar ground. But I’d like to get some views on this, particularly Byblos if he’s out there as I know he is (at least somewhat) familiar with the plethora of cosmological models out there. I’m not looking for any assistance. I’m well aware that the cyclical universe theory is just another theory ‘out there’, and due to the very nature of the Big Bang, it is physically impossible to demonstrate with 100% certainty what, if anything, happened before it. I also know I can just post up objections from other cosmologists, but I do want to take this seriously and not just ‘search out’ objections for the sake of it. So I’d just like some honest perspectives on *how much* empiricism this theory actually carries. Of course, some of it is interesting and quite persuasive in its elegance. But a mathematically elegant cosmological model is no reason to accept it as Theory.


CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOLOGY

"So far, we regard the conformal “space-time” prior to the Big Bang as a mathematical fiction, introduced solely in order to formulate WCH in a mathematically neat way. However, my “outrageous” proposal [4] is to take this mathematical fiction seriously as something physically real. But what “physical reality” can we consistently attach to this space-time occurring “before the Big Bang”? As a clue to this possibility, we should consider the nature of the physics that is presumed to be taking place just after the Big Bang."

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/ ... ESPA01.PDF

Danny

[Byblos]

I’ve been debating a physicist. Lol - it's tough going at times, but the debate covers more than just physics, involving naturalism vs. Christianity and worldview, so I'm on largely familiar ground. But I’d like to get some views on this, particularly Byblos if he’s out there as I know he is (at least somewhat) familiar with the plethora of cosmological models out there. I’m not looking for any assistance. I’m well aware that the cyclical universe theory is just another theory ‘out there’, and due to the very nature of the Big Bang, it is physically impossible to demonstrate with 100% certainty what, if anything, happened before it. I also know I can just post up objections from other cosmologists, but I do want to take this seriously and not just ‘search out’ objections for the sake of it. So I’d just like some honest perspectives on *how much* empiricism this theory actually carries. Of course, some of it is interesting and quite persuasive in its elegance. But a mathematically elegant cosmological model is no reason to accept it as Theory.


CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOLOGY

"So far, we regard the conformal “space-time” prior to the Big Bang as a mathematical fiction, introduced solely in order to formulate WCH in a mathematically neat way. However, my “outrageous” proposal [4] is to take this mathematical fiction seriously as something physically real. But what “physical reality” can we consistently attach to this space-time occurring “before the Big Bang”? As a clue to this possibility, we should consider the nature of the physics that is presumed to be taking place just after the Big Bang."

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/ ... ESPA01.PDF

Danny

Hi Danny,

I am not familiar with this particular theory per se but it seems like it is resembling the bouncing universe theory, i.e. a universe ends and another one bounces right out after it so that there is no 'singularity' so-to-speak but sort of a rounded edge oscillation. There are all kinds of paradoxes with any theory that purports a cyclical or bouncing universe and that has to do precisely with the creation of time where time becomes necessary ... for the creation of ... time. Listen to the following lectures here (4 parts) and here (7 parts), Spitzer addresses these issues (I believe in the 2nd one, though the first is a very informative lecture as well; sorry for not being able to pinpoint it any more precisely than that).

As for the 'naturalism' aspect of the debate, well what can I say, naturalism is pretty much dead in the water as it is no match for Aristotelian/Thomistic classical philosophy from which ALL the sciences derive and without which there can be not only no science but also, most fundamentally, no rational thought. I am in the middle of a book called The Last Superstition by Edward Feser and let me tell you, he completely and utterly dismantles naturalism in particular and new atheism in general. I am no philosopher (wish Jac were here for that) but even a layman like me can understand Feser's writing even though it is not an easy read. Well worth the time and money.

[DannyM]

Hi Byblos,

Thank you for responding.

I am not familiar with this particular theory per se but it seems like it is resembling the bouncing universe theory, i.e. a universe ends and another one bounces right out after it so that there is no 'singularity' so-to-speak but sort of a rounded edge oscillation. There are all kinds of paradoxes with any theory that purports a cyclical or bouncing universe and that has to do precisely with the creation of time where time becomes necessary ... for the creation of ... time. Listen to the following lectures here (4 parts) and here (7 parts), Spitzer addresses these issues (I believe in the 2nd one, though the first is a very informative lecture as well; sorry for not being able to pinpoint it any more precisely than that).

No that’s great, and I’ll have a listen. It’s more for my own edification really since I would like to be abreast of this insofar as I can be.

As for the 'naturalism' aspect of the debate, well what can I say, naturalism is pretty much dead in the water as it is no match for Aristotelian/Thomistic classical philosophy from which ALL the sciences derive and without which there can be not only no science but also, most fundamentally, no rational thought. I am in the middle of a book called The Last Superstition by Edward Feser and let me tell you, he completely and utterly dismantles naturalism in particular and new atheism in general. I am no philosopher (wish Jac were here for that) but even a layman like me can understand Feser's writing even though it is not an easy read. Well worth the time and money.

Oh, don’t get me on the naturalism aspect of this debate. My opponent has been trying to defend laws of logic, the laws of thought, by using/invoking the laws of physics. I’d never come across this approach before so have had to adjust accordingly by going along with his reasoning in order to then knock him down, and it has been a merry-go-round.

I haven’t heard of that book and I’ll go to Amazon and have a look, for sure. I too wish Jac was here…I’m missing him so much - and it’s mystifying too because he seems to have just gone! The amount of time I have spent in the past just reading him…almost mesmerised! Not many have the ability to capture their audience like this.

Byblos, would you be so kind to point me to any good works on Aristotelian/Thomistic classical philosophy? I have Aquinas’ selected writings in a book, much of which is superb but much of which is also very complex for the reader…Would you know of any easier-to-read works of the great man?

Thanks again for your response, and I’m going to watch those vids.

Danny

[DannyM]

There are all kinds of paradoxes with any theory that purports a cyclical or bouncing universe and that has to do precisely with the creation of time where time becomes necessary ... for the creation of ... time. Listen to the following lectures here (4 parts) and here (7 parts), Spitzer addresses these issues (I believe in the 2nd one, though the first is a very informative lecture as well; sorry for not being able to pinpoint it any more precisely than that).

Very good and informative, Byblos, thank you...Still watching...

[Legatus]

First, having read about this CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOLOGY, and this guy makes a LOT of assumtions (and says so), and deliberatly ignores some stuff (and says so). Basically, it is an idea, nothing more, based not on evidence but on assumptions, many unproven, perhaps even unprovable. Thus it is irrelevant if you beleive it or not, it isn't science untill it is possible to at least try and prove (or disprove) something.


Ive seen the videos linked by Byblos, and they are appropriet to this question. The problem is that this universe to turn out the way it did, capable of supporting carbon based life forms is so very improbably that it cannot happen by any natural means, hence, naturalism at the point in time of the beginning of this universe is impossible. The specific thing here is that making universes before this one actually makes the problem worse, as one of the very improbably things about this universe is how it started out with such low entropy. If you put another universe in front of this one, the problem actually gets bigger, now you need another universe with even lower starting entropy. Here is the quote:
Roger Penrose's probability for low entropy calculated on the order of 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents). That is as close to infinity-to-1 probability as any number can get, and again, that is irrespective of the number of universes.
BTW, that number is so large, with so many zeros, that to make room for all the zeros, you must write one on every proton, neutron, and electron in this universe, and the do the same for billions of more universes. I mean, the chance of this universe is soooooo small, and now you want to try and do it AGAIN?? That's not science, that's insanity. With odds like that, you could go to Vegas with a bankroll as big as the entire universe, and then some, and come out penniless.

This also brings up thwe infinite regression problem, or "it's turtles all the way down" . This is nothing more that that excuse dressed up as "science", and which has to be carefull not to mention the entropy problem to even be taken seriously (only the ignorant will be fooled). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1]


BTW, this link also has this:

:If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject"

I would agree with the idea, every THING has a cause. A thing is a material object, it is made of atoms or protons or photons or even the tiny neutrino. God however is a spirit, and not made of , anything we can detect, no matter, no energy, not even a tiny neutrino in fact, not made of anything but pure thought. As such, since we have proven that all material things in this universe are subject to time (that time changing depending on the relative motions of the thing), then God, not being material, not being a thing, is outside of time. Thus, it is possible for God to be eternal. Thus, we see the universe being born 13.7 billion years, ago, God sees it being born NOW. For God, all time is NOW. And God, not being a thing, can BE the cause, both because he is not a thing, and because, being eternal, nothing can come "before" God to be the cause of God. One can see that the Christian God is outside of time by the way that God foretold things that happened long before they happened http://www.oldwireroadchurch.com/fulfil ... omises.php .

A second point, this universe is so improbable that it must have been designed by a being of literally infinite itelligence. Such a being cannot be a thing, because things are subject to time and other natural laws. Because of that, we know that there is a finite limit to the speed and power of any computer, thus, nothing in this universe can have infinite intelligence. Therefore, if this universe exists (duh!), then there must be a being of infinite intelligence, who must be a spirit and thus outside of time. Such a being would be unable to be hurt by such limited beings as ourselves, and so this being would be a god of love, since hate comes from fear, and this being hasd nothing to fear. Also, such a being would be so powerfull and intelligent that it would need nothing from us, it could do it all itself if it wanted, thus all the worlds religions but one are eliminated, since all but Chrisianity have you do something to make god accept you, where in Christianity only, God (Jesus) does it all and you simply accept that. Conclusion, from a purely naturalistic, scientific perspective, there must be a god, and the Christian God must be it. Now, how much does this physisict actually beleive in naturalism, because it only leads to one conclusion.

This is also stated in the bible, here Rom 1:20. Here it says that Gods invisible (spirit, non material) qualities can be clearly seen by what is made (the material worlds, matter, energy, etc), and this is true back to the foundation of the world, which, scientifically speaking, goes all the way back to that improbably big bang. Thus the bible says the same thing I just said above, if you actually believe in naturalism, you must believe in Jesus.

And as for no miricales being possible, check out this quote:
In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all
in other words, a materialist is foced to believe in random miricles as an explainatory priniciple (to not believe in non random miricles).
In theistic universe, noting happens without a reason, miricles are intilliegently directed deviations from divinly maintained regularities and are epxpressions of rational porpose
thus scientific materilaism is self defeating and makes scientific rationality impossible.

Basically, if you can believe that something with odds against it in just one universe of 10*10*123 against can happen, and then happen multiple times over, you must believe in random miricles. Either way, you are stuck with miracles, there's no getting away from them.

The argument against miracles goes like this (the always unvoiced assumtions are in perenthesis):
(We know that there is no God)
(Therefore miracles are impossible)
Since miracles are impossible, they did not happen
Since they did not happen, we know that there is no God.

In actual fact, if miricles happen http://castroller.com/podcasts/FocusOnThe/1415285 ,well then, from a scientific perspective, they happen. If scientists say one thing, yet evidence says another, than what the scientist said is not science, since it does not follow the scientific method which relies on evidence.

I must conclude that if this physicist is a true naturalist and physicist, he must believe in Jesus. If he doesn't, then he must not realy beleive in either physics or naturalism.

[Byblos]

Hi Byblos,

Thank you for responding.

I am not familiar with this particular theory per se but it seems like it is resembling the bouncing universe theory, i.e. a universe ends and another one bounces right out after it so that there is no 'singularity' so-to-speak but sort of a rounded edge oscillation. There are all kinds of paradoxes with any theory that purports a cyclical or bouncing universe and that has to do precisely with the creation of time where time becomes necessary ... for the creation of ... time. Listen to the following lectures here (4 parts) and here (7 parts), Spitzer addresses these issues (I believe in the 2nd one, though the first is a very informative lecture as well; sorry for not being able to pinpoint it any more precisely than that).

No that’s great, and I’ll have a listen. It’s more for my own edification really since I would like to be abreast of this insofar as I can be.

Great, let me know what you think when done.

As for the 'naturalism' aspect of the debate, well what can I say, naturalism is pretty much dead in the water as it is no match for Aristotelian/Thomistic classical philosophy from which ALL the sciences derive and without which there can be not only no science but also, most fundamentally, no rational thought. I am in the middle of a book called The Last Superstition by Edward Feser and let me tell you, he completely and utterly dismantles naturalism in particular and new atheism in general. I am no philosopher (wish Jac were here for that) but even a layman like me can understand Feser's writing even though it is not an easy read. Well worth the time and money.

Oh, don’t get me on the naturalism aspect of this debate. My opponent has been trying to defend laws of logic, the laws of thought, by using/invoking the laws of physics. I’d never come across this approach before so have had to adjust accordingly by going along with his reasoning in order to then knock him down, and it has been a merry-go-round.

That's really funny, explaining the laws of logic by invoking the laws of physics. That's like trying to justify the existence of a man by pointing to his grandchildren. Ask him this question will you, ask him if the Pythagorean theorem (or anything related to Euclidean Geometry for that matter) held true before the laws of physics came to be. There really are certain universal truths that will hold true irrespective of the universe or its particular laws of physics (if one is so inclined to postulate).

I haven’t heard of that book and I’ll go to Amazon and have a look, for sure. I too wish Jac was here…I’m missing him so much - and it’s mystifying too because he seems to have just gone! The amount of time I have spent in the past just reading him…almost mesmerised! Not many have the ability to capture their audience like this.

Oh don't get me wrong I still follow him and read his posts, just not here though. I convinced him to join another site where there are a number of philosophy heavy hitters and trust me he's been holding his own.

Byblos, would you be so kind to point me to any good works on Aristotelian/Thomistic classical philosophy? I have Aquinas’ selected writings in a book, much of which is superb but much of which is also very complex for the reader…Would you know of any easier-to-read works of the great man?

The book I am reading is certainly one of them. Another I would recommend is by the same author, Edward Feser. The book is called: Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (what else). It's on Amazon for less than $10.

Thanks again for your response, and I’m going to watch those vids.

Glad you're finding them informative Danny, I certainly did. If you want to get even deeper into both Physics and Philosophy after getting acquainted with Aquinas (wouldn't that make a great book title?) then check out Robert Spitzer's new book: New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Talk about a powerhouse of a book packing punches from both sides of the isle. I am telling you Danny, it is so exciting living in this day and age. Classical theism is making a comeback and rightfully so as it offers the best explanation for logic, science, and rationality in general. Science from both extremes (astrophysics and biology) is more than ever pointing toward a creator. I just got done reading Francis Collin's book: The Language of God. Although many here may disagree with his theistic evolutionist stance, he coined a new term that I found very fitting and hope that it catches on. He didn't so much like the term theistic evolution for its negative materialistic connotations so he came up with 'BioLogos' (Life through the Word of God). Wow, that just about floored me with its simplicity in bridging science and God. Francis Collins is of course the famous geneticist (and MD and mathematician and physicist and I don't know what else) who was the head of the human genome project and a former devout atheist and current Christian.

[Byblos]

Legatus,

I agree with everything you've stated. Great post.

[DannyM]

Thanks, Leg...good post.

BTW, that number is so large, with so many zeros, that to make room for all the zeros, you must write one on every proton, neutron, and electron in this universe, and the do the same for billions of more universes. I mean, the chance of this universe is soooooo small, and now you want to try and do it AGAIN?? That's not science, that's insanity. With odds like that, you could go to Vegas with a bankroll as big as the entire universe, and then some, and come out penniless.

I agree that it is not strictly science. It is theoretical based on some science, mathematics, and perhaps one's philosophical leanings.

From my link...It is normally assumed that life had to arise via complicated evolutionary processes, and these processes required particular conditions, and particular physical laws, including the Second Law. The Second Law was certainly a crucial part of evolution, in the way that our particular form of life actually came about. But the very action of this Second Law tells us that however special the universe may be now, with life existing in it now, it must have been far more special at an earlier stage in which life was not present. From the purely anthropic point of view, this earlier far more special phase was not needed; it would have been much more likely that our present “improbable” stage came about simply by chance, rather than coming about via an earlier even more improbable stage. When the Second Law is a crucial component, there is always a far more probable set of initial conditions that would lead to this same state of affairs, namely one in which the Second Law was violated prior to the situation now!

Am I mistaken or is Penrose here trying to explain away improbability with the antrhopic principle? And is not Penrose invoking Chance in order to somehow replace improbability? Therefore rating Chance as somehow being more probable than improbability? If I am reading this right, then isn't this upside down thinking and prescribing creative powers to a most spurious 'mechanism'?

[DannyM]

That's really funny, explaining the laws of logic by invoking the laws of physics. That's like trying to justify the existence of a man by pointing to his grandchildren. Ask him this question will you, ask him if the Pythagorean theorem (or anything related to Euclidean Geometry for that matter) held true before the laws of physics came to be. There really are certain universal truths that will hold true irrespective of the universe or its particular laws of physics (if one is so inclined to postulate).

Good one, Byblos. But the response I got was a typical evasion argument:

“The Pythagorean theorem is merely a description of a certain characteristic of spacetime. Therefore, it is meaningless if spacetime does not exist.”

So I asked him to try inventing some kind of mathematics where the Pythagorean theorem would not apply to a triangle. I got this:

“A region of spacetime which is so warped by gravity that triangles cannot possibly exist, such as a black hole. “

Do you see his problem? He cannot answer; he first uses a physics-of-the-gaps to try to explain everything, and when pushed and pushed he says it’s all impossible anyway because there could not possibly be a world without the laws of physics. So I say to him that 1+1=2. 1+1 always equals 2, no matter what language you say it in and no matter who you are, and you cannot argue with logic as simple as this. For instance, if aliens resided in another dimension where the physics are different, there are no rules which can be bent in order to have different outcomes of this very simple and very basic mathematical truth. If an alien in this other dimension held one rock in one hand and one rock in the other hand, then this does not somehow suddenly become three rocks. And he retorts by saying his deity of physics would not allow this other dimension. El Oh El! So I’m unfortunately reduced to minor ridicule since he just will not allow his physics to be circumvented.

The one question he will not even try to answer and keeps avoiding is this standard transcendental:

How does one chemical state of the physical brain that leads to another chemical state of the physical brain produce logical absolutes that aren’t dependent on the physical brain for their validity?

But I fear this man is beyond reasoning with.

Oh don't get me wrong I still follow him and read his posts, just not here though. I convinced him to join another site where there are a number of philosophy heavy hitters and trust me he's been holding his own.

Brilliant!! Please send my love to him, Byblos, and my hellos…

The book I am reading is certainly one of them. Another I would recommend is by the same author, Edward Feser. The book is called: Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (what else). It's on Amazon for less than $10.

I’m all over it!

Glad you're finding them informative Danny, I certainly did. If you want to get even deeper into both Physics and Philosophy after getting acquainted with Aquinas (wouldn't that make a great book title?) then check out Robert Spitzer's new book: New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Talk about a powerhouse of a book packing punches from both sides of the isle.

Brill…I’m on it!

I am telling you Danny, it is so exciting living in this day and age. Classical theism is making a comeback and rightfully so as it offers the best explanation for logic, science, and rationality in general. Science from both extremes (astrophysics and biology) is more than ever pointing toward a creator.

I feel the same enthusiasm you do, Byblos. It’s simply amazing to have this age of complete dominance over the opposition.

Byblos, do you see any (even minor) similarities between classical theism and transcendental arguments for God’s existence?

I just got done reading Francis Collin's book: The Language of God. Although many here may disagree with his theistic evolutionist stance, he coined a new term that I found very fitting and hope that it catches on. He didn't so much like the term theistic evolution for its negative materialistic connotations so he came up with 'BioLogos' (Life through the Word of God). Wow, that just about floored me with its simplicity in bridging science and God. Francis Collins is of course the famous geneticist (and MD and mathematician and physicist and I don't know what else) who was the head of the human genome project and a former devout atheist and current Christian.

I saw a lecture he gave once and, while I don’t accept Darwinian evolution at all based on the science, he was ever so good in this lecture and so positive for the existence of God. ‘Unflappable’ was how he seemed.

He didn't so much like the term theistic evolution for its negative materialistic connotations so he came up with 'BioLogos' (Life through the Word of God). Wow, that just about floored me with its simplicity in bridging science and God.

Beautiful…

[DannyM]

I am not familiar with this particular theory per se but it seems like it is resembling the bouncing universe theory, i.e. a universe ends and another one bounces right out after it so that there is no 'singularity' so-to-speak but sort of a rounded edge oscillation. There are all kinds of paradoxes with any theory that purports a cyclical or bouncing universe and that has to do precisely with the creation of time where time becomes necessary ... for the creation of ... time. Listen to the following lectures here (4 parts) and here (7 parts), Spitzer addresses these issues (I believe in the 2nd one, though the first is a very informative lecture as well; sorry for not being able to pinpoint it any more precisely than that).

Hi Byblos,

I’ve finished watching the 7 part series, and it certainly puts into perspective the oscillating model, i.e., that it would still ‘in the end’ require a beginning…the problem just gets shuffled back. I found Spitzer’s discussion very good and loved his ‘pool table’ illustration, with all the balls flying back into the rack - very funny. And the guest in the last three videos illustrating the ‘fine tuning’ was very good. I’d put the videos up if only to see the physicist cry, “Catholic Priest, Catholic Priest!” and just dismiss the presentations on a genetic fallacy, but alas the debate is finished.

Lovely stuff, Byblos, and thank you for that.

Danny

[narnia4]

Not much to say, just want to agree about how exciting this day and age is for the theist. Even in my time following debates and philosophy, I've noticed a substantial difference. Internet bullies used to be able to just dominate a discussion on popular websites and squash out any opposition, opposition that mostly seemed to me to come from young inexperienced Christians who completely lacked confidence and may not have known what they even believed (and I fear that some have been lost because of this). Today you look on a site like youtube and on certain videos it still feels like Christians are outnumbered 10 to 1, but its wonderful to see Christians not only popping up on websites that they wouldn't before, but actually taking it to the opposition and dominating discussions.

The internet bullies (mostly new atheists, the bully specifically is the type I'm talking about) are as loud as ever and they've probably increased in number, but in the majority of discussions I read any open, rational person could see through the act with a strong apologist there to debate. Call them on it and even the inexperienced should be able to see that the emperor has no clothes. There are more sophisticated atheists who make for an interesting debate (at least for a bit), but it feels like these are shrinking while the number of Christians who have been equipped to defend their faith has been growing quickly. To me, even if the number of atheists continue to grow for a time, simply answering questions with reasonable answers based on Biblical theology will eventually make a huge difference among young believers and eventually, perhaps, our entire Western culture. The entire western world is so thoroughly secularized, but we have a seat at the table now.

Much of the academic world may have been ignoring the growing Christian movement lately, but outside of blind faith I don't see how some of these admittedly brilliant people can cling to naturalism with the overwhelming evidence presently available.