Any more updates on Roger Penrose's cyclic universe model?

[DRDS]

Hey, I was just checking to see if there are any updates on the supposed evidence that Roger Penrose found that he thinks supports a cyclic universe. I think it surrounds the "discovery" or electromagnetic rings in various places. One of the things I saw late last year was that other independent scientists tried to locate these rings and came to a different conclusion than Penrose. I'm just curious if anything new has come out since then? Thanks.

[Byblos]

Hey, I was just checking to see if there are any updates on the supposed evidence that Roger Penrose found that he thinks supports a cyclic universe. I think it surrounds the "discovery" or electromagnetic rings in various places. One of the things I saw late last year was that other independent scientists tried to locate these rings and came to a different conclusion than Penrose. I'm just curious if anything new has come out since then? Thanks.

I'm not certain this qualifies as 'new' or 'newer' but one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of a cause for the creation of an anthropic universe is the extremely low probability of low entropy calculated by Penrose himself to be in the order of 10*10*123 (yes, those are 2 exponents: 10 to the power 10 to the power 128). Low entropy (high degree of organization and coalescence) is essential for a universe capable of producing life to exist. Trouble is that low entropy is EXPONENTIALLY improbable, to a degree that renders it a virtual impossibility as demonstrated by Roger Penrose.

Another one would be the BVG theorem (Borde, Vilenkin, & Guth) proposed in 2003 which states that for any universe with an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero, this universe must have had a beginning. It could not have existed eternally. Note that for a universe to have the remote possibility of being anthropic (producing life, any kind of life) it must be an expanding universe. What's so great about this theorem is that it applies to ANY type of universe, including multi-verse, oscillating, cyclical, M-theory, string theory, you name it.

[DRDS]

Yes, I tend to favor the BVG theorem for it's theistic friendly implications. What I'm still somewhat nervous about is if Penrose's cyclic model turns out to have good evidence and ends up being very probable what would this do to the cosmological argument for God's existence? Because from what little I have read about Penrose's model it allows for a universe with no beginning. I think he had a book published recently talking about it, but I don't know all the details yet.

[Byblos]

Yes, I tend to favor the BVG theorem for it's theistic friendly implications. What I'm still somewhat nervous about is if Penrose's cyclic model turns out to have good evidence and ends up being very probable what would this do to the cosmological argument for God's existence? Because from what little I have read about Penrose's model it allows for a universe with no beginning. I think he had a book published recently talking about it, but I don't know all the details yet.

He then would be contradicting himself (and his low entropy probability). It would certainly contradict BVG, something no scientist worth his weight is willing to do for the theorem is very solid. But I will look into it.

[Byblos]

I will look into it.

A cursory reading of a few Google searches tells me it's a theory in its infancy and there may be many problems with it. It hasn't even been peer-reviewed so let's wait and see what his own colleagues' reactions are before passing judgement on it ourselves. One explanation he gives for low entropy in the beginning of any universe is that black holes gather up entropy from an existing universe (effectively ending its time, though he does not call it a collapse), and then turns around and spews it (low entropy) back out as a singularity (a moment of extreme low entropy) resulting in a new universe. Nice theory .

[DRDS]

Well as I said in my original post, other cosmologists tried to locate the "evidence" that Penrose "found" and so far they are not seeing the same thing, I think they were even saying that what Penrose is seeing is just digital noise, but future tests of the background radiation with updated technology will be released soon so once it comes it could spell the end for Penrose's model. So, that's one potential defeater for his model.

[Legatus]

Yes, I tend to favor the BVG theorem for it's theistic friendly implications.

I see this as a problem. I see no reason to support, or not support, any theorem, because you wish, or do not wish, there to be a god. First, if God exists, or does not exist, your wishing won't change that anyway, anymore than my wishing you not to exist would cause you to suddenly vanish. Wishing changes nothing. if there is a god, there is a god, and if there is not, there is not. Your belief is irrelevent.

Second, the bible states that you must worship God in spirit and in TRUTH, for you to state that you support a theory or not because it supports what you wish to beleive is to say that you are willing to support a theory even if it is not true, simply because it supports your position, the position you wish to be true. That is dishonest, and therefore, if you beleive the bible, you cannot support that. You must go with the truth, wherever it leads.

Third, do you suppose God needs your help? Do you suppose that an infinitly powerfull and intelligent being needs you to defend him? From whome? Is God afraid that someone will find him wrong? The solution is simple, cancel that person backdated to the beginning of time, or change the universe (also backdated) to cover up your mistake. However, if you are god, neither if these is nessissary. You already know what everyone will be thinking and when they will be thinking it long "before" it happens anyway. "Psa 139:2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. Psa 139:3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Psa 139:4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." Thus, as God, no problem questions can arise that you do not already know about. Further, as God, you also know all POSSIBLE questions, even the ones no human has thought to ask. Thus, as God, there is no possibility of ever being caught lying, and no need to lie, since as the author of everything including the people looking for your lie, you can simply MAKE everything true.

In short, God does not need you to defend him or to cover up for him. Being infinitly powerfull and intelligent means never having to say your sorry, or to say 'oops".God is not afraid of this or any other theory because God is not afraid of anything. if God is not afraid of it, you shouldn't be either. The only reason you might be afraid of any theory is because you wish there to be a god, and are afraid that there isn't one, and wish to cover up or censor any evidence that is against your wishes. That is silly, God doesn't need you to wish him into existance, and you cannot wish him out of existence anymore than you can wish me or anyone else out of existance.

Fourth, that word EVIDENCE. Gods word says "Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Plain, seen, from what has been made, since the creation of the world, this clearly states that the EVIDENCE of this entire universe supports the idea of God, and even tells us of some of his caracteristics. This means that God has made his existance falsifiable, he has deliberatly stated that all the evidnce we see, even that all the way back to the beginning of the world, supports his existance. That means that if it could be somehow proven from that evidence that he does not exist, the bible is falsified. This is the only religion that has the guts to allow itself to be falsified from evidence we can see. Like I said, God is not afraid of anything. Cutzpah, its a jewish word, no suprise there.

So what does the bible say about the creation of this universe? It says, speaking to us humans who live here in it, that it had a beginning, that it expanded, and that we can see evidence for God there. So we have considerable evidence now that it did have a beginning, and that it expanded, we call that "the big bang". Moreover, for a big bang like that to result in the universe we see all around us is so hugely improbable that it appears to have been planned by a being who could dream up an infinite number of possible universes and than make the one that works best. The only other explaination suggested is that there are an infinite number of universes, and idea that runs afoul of the problem that there is exactly zip zilch zero nada evidence to back it up. We thus have the idea, God, supported by exactly 100% of the evidence we see, and the alternate theory, supported by zilch. No wonder God is confident about allowing the bible to be falsified. There is thus no need to cover your eyes and ears to screen out any evidence against God, and to simply beleive in God based on blind faith, all you have to do is simply...open your eyes. The evidence is all there, just as it states in Romans.

Also, what does the bible NOT say about the creation? it does not say what method God used, if any, to do it. It neither confirms nor denies the existance of any other universes. The evidence also says that it doesn't matter if this is or is not an oscillating universe, the odds are so hugely against a follow on universe ending up like this one that it is essentially impossible, and thus is a moot point. It should be noted that the bible does speak of a beginning, which seems to rule out an oscillating universe, although if the universe collapsed into a black hole, what came after would certainly be a beginning for this universe, since what came after would be what we see, and what was before was completly different, so from our perspective of this universe and it's laws, it began 13.7 billion years ago and that's it (once again, a moot point).

Fifth, this is a theorem, just a theorem. Before it can be anything more than that, it needs to pass the test of the scientific method. So far, it has failed the test of repeatability, other scentists say "we don't see it". As such, it hardely bears even thinking about untill it actually has some sort of EVIDENCE to back it up. Untill then, it is not reality, just an idea which may be nothing more than fantasy.

In short, God is not afraid of Penrose and his little fantasy, because God is not afraid of anyone. God does not need you to defend him. God can do that quite well on his own, thank you very much. Don't be afraid of the truth, either today's or tomorrows.

[Bill]

If God didn't need anyone to defend him, then the critics of Jesus could have continued to teach the precepts on man, rather than the revealed word of God. They sought to speak for God, without having their hearts devoted to the matter. A little like in the OT where God supposedly issues orders to go into the hills and kill every man, woman, and child without mercy of a neighboring tribe. Or directs a priest to prepare a potion for a jealous husband, that will cause his wife to miscarry if she wasn't a faithful to him. The one that issued the first order was likely a general, or a king, or a nationalistic bought-and-paid-for prophet. Moses reminded his people to treat others fairly. Jesus would remind us of the Golden Rule. And any God that would claim to be good and just, and certainly better than Baal, who passed babies through fire to terrorize and control people, would not wish to be thought of as on the same moral plain as the former dictator of Iraq, who likewise killed his enemies, men, women and children without mercy. And the last example, what loving husband would wish to destroy his wife and child, even if he thought her not faithful? Certainly God would know that the soul of the child did no wrong -- unless one is such a hard case as to say that the baby has no soul until its first breath, and so thus isn't human and thus doesn't count for anything. Yes, a cruel law might allow it, but would he do so if he had love for either one, or had concern of one day facing God about it? A God that said that how we treated the least among us, is how we treated him.

So, even if the Bible itself says or allows us to do something evil (as in the above) the speck of God that is within us, that we call a soul, is saying otherwise. And which would be the "truth" as you put it, words on a scroll, or the "still small voice demanding our attention within"? Consider King David. The Bible almost has two stories concerning him. The very bloody tyrant that God would not allow him to build a Temple in his name. And the David that wrote the soul examining an richly praiseworthy psalms. Could the same man have done both? Was the later true, or a faithful scribe's PR and wish for his king's memory? Note: Saddam Hussain of Iraq was likewise said to have composed hundreds of morality based plays. The same man who handed people over to torture. And all know that he in reflection of his sins, had a calligrapher write in high art his people's Holy Book, in Saddam's own blood. But did high art, or some blood of his own, remove from the things that were terrible that he did?

I said all that, because of course God needs defending. A good God, and not merely a powerful tyrant would need defending. Powerful tyrants say that "might makes right". A believer would stand even in the path of God, for the sake of mercy and justice. And might even turn aside seemingly justifiable wrath. Did not some prophets thus defend God, even from himself? But of course he KNEW that they would. It was his will that they would do so.

In matters of Cosmology, the subject of this thread, is what is good for man also good for God? If we humans have free will, then shouldn't God be allowed to have it as well. If that is, if anyone would put such restraints on him. So if God wants to Create one and only one universe, he is free to do so. If he wishes to have an alpha and omega to this one, he is free to do this as well. And if like a potter with his clay, it pleases him to press it all back into one lump, and then to spin the work into Creation again, what would be wrong with that? And who could say that as an artist that he might not have a great collection of works that we might no nothing about? Yes, even other universes. Would their existence reduce him or us? He is a great God, and maybe even greater than we know. Great enough perhaps for us to be allowed the briefest of pictures of what he might be doing. He KNEW that we might want to know about it.