On the theory of the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe
I.
What banged?
II.
Before banging
how did it get there?
III.
When it got there
where was it?
— Wendell Berry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
the occasional rantings and bantering of a poet-cum-philosopher-cum-musician-cum-theologian-cum-traveller in time and space...in short... an epistemological nomad...with a guitar
23 comments:
very good questions
tho perhaps berry should ask them
of fr georges lemaitre
originator of the big bang theory
i did not know that
i'm responding to a recent hawkings statement that
God is not necessary
georges lemaitre
wow
what a kick
maybe
god burped
thanks for filling in the
real stuff
i wonder
lemaitre must've included the will of god in his calculation
:)
jh
OK smarty pants
you got me
sure go and push some authentic catholic intelligent thought in my face
i didn't even know the guys' name i admit i have a blank spot in my burbbling epistemology
but
i did do some quick reading
and felt my mind drifting back to your inquiries while you were here
seeking back in the day
all too briefly i might add
but i guess in space time continuums you were here just long enough...i mean i guess... a quantum is a quantum no matter what
it's interesting to think that the magisterium struggled so much with pierre tielhard de chardin sj
but lemaitre waltzed right into the monsignor cap and gown
i think one thing is that lemaitre seems to have studied the bible with some real zeal...especially the old testament...de chardin while no slouch did write at times as if the old testament were never written..he was focussed way ahead and history for him was largely prehistory
it's been awhile since i learned something really great in the blogworld
this compares to the new leonard cohen song i'm learning and actually did listen to a youtube of
lemaitre was a music lover
i'd like to meet someone with the knowledge of lemaitre and the sensibilites of an eskimo
i heard a story once of a maasai man who became a jesuit and displayed prodigious abilities in mastering knowledge of all types he went so far as to be ordained
but then went back to kenya and after awhile felt the tug of his people and went back to running long distances and watching cattle graze on the savannah
and yet i agree
berry's questions are very good ones
and lemaitre would say to the 1st
un oevre
(a french word i tend to love)
to the 2nd
it existed mometarily like a booger from gods nose just before the instant when time began
(it would sound much better in french, i'm sure)
to the 3rd
when it got there it was right where it was meant to be just outside the dynamic explosion of cosmic eggyolk
the rest has been the cleaning up after
(again in french)
i like the image of the egg because it implies some sort of fertilization must've taken place
in fact
i've often wondered if the whole thing wasn't a big whisper something like lovers speak something that happens in much the same way whenever life is begun anew
the a-bomb set the stage for paradigmatic thinking about what the atom world is
but actually everything happens pretty quietly
lemaitre alludes to the hidden god of isaiah...the god in a slight breeze
let there be lights
curtains
it's show time
jh
jh- love your free jazz comment even more than the Berry quote. Here's a similar quote from Chesterton that reveals the subjectivity of the scientific mindset:
"But for those who really think, there is always something really unthinkable about the whole evolutionary cosmos, as they conceive it; because it is something coming out of nothing; an ever-increasing flood of water pouring out of an empty jug. Those who can simply accept that, without even seeing the difficulty, are not likely to go so deep as Aquinas and see the solution of his difficulty. In a word, the world does not explain itself, and cannot do so merely by continuing to expand itself. But anyhow it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."
Hawkings' pronouncement may be arrogant and cold, and upsetting to some religious folks (then, so did Copernicus). Yet...we should not mistake the scientist as a crypto-metaphysician or obligated to bless theology (of whatever type). Occam's razor used in the wrong hands can be ugly if not dangerous (Dawkins discussing human psychology, most of the time). But at times ...Occam's needed. That said, the evidence does strongly suggest something like a "Big Bang"
Berry has his own arrogance as do some neo-thomists or fundies who still insist science must conform to the church dogma. I doubt you care much for Hume, but in his Dialogues of Natural Religion he addresses some of these issues. Hume was writing when astronomers had begun to speculate on First Cause and theologians and philosophers were ...generally insisting on Aquinas, or modifications via Leibniz etc.
Hume doesn't deny the possibility of theism yet he, via Philo points out the problems with any First Cause argument, and Design arguments for that matter. They are more akin to metaphors than equations.
(note jh---scuzi the moderation BS on my blog. GoogleCo set up a moderation/spam queue app.--now looks mandatory! I'm trying to override it.)
william
i've neglected you
and almost everyone else in blogdom
thanks for the chesterton quote
read yesterday that pius XII took lemaitre to task and was bowled over by the humility of the scientist and his willingness to be taken to task on the very point chesterton makes
lemaitre knew his thomas aquinas
and was able to forge a sort of nominalist explanation of the believer and nonbeliever looking at the same things in scientific inquiry
the believer has the advantage because he/she is guided by the knowledge that a solution is inevitable even if not in this life
yet
freedom in the pursuit of truth must win out
at one point he mildly castigates theologians for their neglect of scientific insight - he basically tells them their theology would improve greatly if they looked into the insights of science...einstien had no porblems with the priest but others couldn't reconcile atheist presuppostions about the magisterium with the work of the priest/scientist...gregor mendel was one thing...but going play for play with the biggest thinkers in physics was another... quite
afterward after i'd read up on this guy after sally so sweetly and gently informed of my ignorance i thought
well OK theologians are a bit ignorant of modern science but what about scientists and theology
it seems almost irreconcilable
the posture of atheism tends to require unwavering devotion to something else...empirical knowledge takes the place of god
of course lemaitre and others state that the conclusions of science are not in need of theological acknowledgement
and the cause of faith is not in need of science...so the old nominalist disorder of the argument is really senseless
anyway
scientists should at least read poetry lest they become informational automatons and little esle
thanks for chiming in here
william a sigler
jh
of course lemaitre and others state that the conclusions of science are not in need of theological acknowledgement
and the cause of faith is not in need of science...so the old nominalist disorder of the argument is really senseless
LeMaitre is an interesting figure and sort of kept in the background. At one point hearing Lemaitre lecture on the "Cosmic Egg" (which became the "Big Bang" a few years later) Einstein supposedly jumped up and said that was the most sublime account of the universe ever, or something ( Einstein did not completely accept the big bang theory).
Scientists should not be expected to affirm any theological or philosophical conceptions, however, should they, jh? Those conceptions are... a posteriori, I believe. The physicist or astronomer does his work and then people may speculate (or not) on the metaphysical implications. To force science to follow a priori religious assumptions (as Aquinas did, really)--that's why Galilleo was arrested. And other scientists burnt at the stake or labelled as heretics.
I wager even LaMaitre agreed with value-neutral (and non-theological) science since he often worked alongside non-catholic scientists and communicated with them (including Einstein and Eddington).
Each of Berry's questions are quite good, and bring up problems that I can't resolve.
1. What banged?
If there was nothing before there was something, how could nothing bang?
2. Is basically an extension of one, which asks how could it get to a place that wasn't?
3. Basically an extension again of one.
I can't understand how an expanding universe can expand into something that isn't. Even if the expansion is purely internal, it still doesn't make sense.
When I was a kid playing basketball in the garage (winter) I thought the lightbulb was like the sun. Then the dust around it would be like planets. And the walls of the garage like the walls of the universe.
But then outside the walls of the universe the infinite universe would continue on and on.
That puzzled me, because how can matter, which is finite, expand indefinitely?
So, if the universe exploded 15 billion years ago, and is now 15 billion light years in width (expanding at the speed of light) then how can this continue, or how could it have started, if at first there wasn't anything?)
Infinity is a difficult problem, and probably it's something that's unimaginable. God is supposedly infinite. What truck does He have with the finite? Why on earth does He care about the finite?
This always creates insoluble questions for me.
I didn't know about Lemaitre, or that he was the origin of the Big Bang theory. I liked learning about this.
It's as much of a mess to reconcile this with itself, as it is to reconcile it with the Biblical account.
Likewise, the endless proliferation of species in the notion of evolution. I can't understand how one thing becomes another thing. More so, I can't understand why the process began, or why it eventuates in humans, who turn around and eat all the other things God made.
This sorts of Moebius strip questions (questions which turn back on themselves) are very hard. I think Berry did a good job condensing the BB into a smaller conundrum. Does Lemaitre provide a Christian answer as to why this is happening?
Does he also believe that the expansion will continue on, or that there will be a retraction at some point, at which point we will apparently collapse into a black hole.
This stuff is hugely incomprehensible to me, even if I could understand it.
I believe that the Lord God is the first cause of the Universe. This suggests a mildly sexual interpretation of the "big bang" as the divine act by which the Universe we know was conceived.
And I'm no great fan of the "lots of Universes" theories, which seem to me to be based entirely on a refusal to grant any standing to the anthropic principle, because to do so would challenge their belief that God is not. We know better. God is.
Also review Kant's First Antinomy on this issue. Apart from the mathematical issue (ie, infinite series do not seem prima facie impossible), the idea that matter might be created ex nihilo still remains problematic.
Kant rejects Aquinas's quaint First Cause arguments as well. Aquinas's arguments are quite different than modern Big Bang concepts, anyway (some might say...Aquinas held to slightly pagan, ie Aristotelian views. Deus may decide to clap His hands and bring reality-substance into being...but He exists...sub species aeternum...supposedly)
Citizens of course have a right to believe in creationism, of whatever sort, notwithstanding the scientific consensus on a very ancient world (not 5000 BC as theological tradition held). Heck, some fundamentalists believe Moses walked among dinosaurs (no pterodactyls appear in the Bible however). That doesn't mean they have a right to teach it in schools, or demand that others believe their particular form of religion.
(scuzi editing, jh. no java yet. delete erased posts, or even pluck this one out if it offends ye).
stu
it would seem to me that scientists and genesis readers might agree with the necessity of LIGHT - a bang or a quick series of firecrackers or an exploding cosmic egg - nonetheless - LIGHT
j
nobody is required to believe anything they can't comprehend
but
TA using the best observation available at the time thought that the genesis account was credible
he was in a position to grant logical cohesion and comprehension for the reasoning that had occured on the matter thus far
yes he chose aristotle over plato
and a smattering of other theories
i still think the first proof for the existence of god would be a curious return point for speculative physics - there is motion - what do we know of motion
given the world we know
i guess hawking is stating that the "big bang" theory ( which was the title given rather facetiously to the lemaitre's theory by fred hoyle - who held to the "steady state" concept) in order for it to be a coherent explanation for the "day without yesterday" does not require a theological referrent
the equations lending themselves to randomness in the universe are sufficient to explain the first moment
yet
there must've been light
from a purely catholic point of view there is no epistemological division between science/reason and
faith/theology...the misconception that there is has arisen on both sides of the false divide
aquinas certainly would not balk at any discovery from science
he would embrace it and attempt to work it into his cosmology
galileo it would seem had the temerity and prudence to acknowledge he couldn't get people to see what he had seen - he couldn't explain the complicated new lens driven views of space - but within 40 yrs jesuits had determined that his observations were correct and he was completely exonerated - yet the shame lingered in the church -- as for galileo he never let up on his faith he went to mass frequently and was even carried there when he was unable to walk
kant it seems driven by his response to hobbes' world view began the "we cannot know so we cannot say" approach to metaphysics - thus the kantian "keep it real" dictum
the ding an sich
the ex nihilo problem or one that rarely gets stated is
if ex nihilo
is god nothing
for if god is something
then ex nihilo is the wrong concept
pantheists wrestle with this notion
are there any pantheists left
my problem with all this is
scientific statements of fact depend on first hand observation
so whatever we want to call the initial orgasm of life (which is what i will call it from here on in) it can only remain in the realm of fantasy - fantasy rooted in some experience - but really imbued more with wonder and breathtaking awe than any equation or succinctly worded theoretical declaration
the scientists (at least the atheistic sort)should always begin with
"well of course we can never know"
jh
i caught a little bit
of larry king live last night
he was interviewing hawkings' co-author
of the new book
along with a jesuit priest
and deepak chopra
it seemed to me that they were
talking in circles
like it was all a lot
of hullabaloo about nothing
what does hawkings mean
by saying God is not necessary?
maybe he doesn't need God
to explain the universe to him
because he can figure it out
for himself
that's fine and good
but it doesn't mean that God
is not present within and beyond
the very fabric and structure
of the universe
i think the problem comes
when we think of God
merely as the explanation
for anything that we can't explain
when we define God that way
then God gets smaller and smaller
the more we learn and understand
but that's not really what God is
is it?
if God were to reveal to us
exactly how he created the universe
and exactly how he accomplished
all the things that seem like
miracles to us
if we became able to understand all this
would God cease to be God?
i don't think so
i suppose maybe there is
some disappointment
in learning the secret
to a magician's trick
and it no longer seems
like magic after that
just sleight of hand
but i think it is different
with God
what draws us to God
is not the magic
but God's goodness and love
and somehow learning about
the secrets of the universe
does not decrease at all
my sense of awe
that we live in a universe
where matter spontaneously
organizes itself into life
and eventually into consciousness
and even love
i mean how cool is that?
it just blows my mind
it makes me think that this
material world must be infused
with something pretty special
something divine
and hawkings' co-author
(leonard something or other)
freely admitted
that we don't know
nobody knows
science does not know
what consciousness is
so even hawkings cannot say
that he understands everything
about the universe
so even hawkings cannot say
that he understands everything
about the universe
so why is everybody taking him
so seriously and getting
all upset about what he said?
as john mcgill says:
hawkings is just "mouthing off"
Word Verification: wooff
(that's my dog sadie
adding her two cents)
thanks sally
great insight there
the trajectory of the intellect in traditional catholic terms is one of ever expanding openness
jacques maritain makes much of this in his great tome
"the degrees of knowledge"
the reasoning emphasis places a lot of weight on "the answer"
the means and substance of didactic learning
whereas the prayer based faith inspired approach to learning about the world is by it's very nature transcendental
our minds arrive at knowledge and insight but we are always beckoned beyond to something even greater
there's this huge space left open by the dialectic of skepticism
one which ignores the thread of traditional thinking in favor of the brightest new light on the scene
so hawking dawkins hitchens
their voices tend to be heard with the same emphasis that people received from the ecclesial declarations on everything from baptism to the avant garde in books and knowledge
up until the 20th century
post modernism has upset the pleasant little apple cart of epistemology built by the scholars and churchmen (and women) of old...or at least they've thrown a pretty big stick in the spokes
i still find the fact that for all we know we are the only living breathing rational creatures in the universe a most awe inspiring fact(cioran might challenge this in his description of man as the insomniac)
earth is the only game in town
we're listening
maybe we've heard some curious things from out there
but for all we know now
we're it
this is it
we can be existential about it and feel as if there is "no exit" or we can base our insight on the real mystery of an amazing world
and open our heartsmindsselves to more and more
let there be light
amen
jh
WV cabled
an actual word
i always find the term
word verification
somewhat pretentious
but today hmnn
not too bad
Interesting thoughts jh and Miss sally.
Kant's points re the First Antinomy (finite-tude vs infinity, in brief) may be ultimately therapeutic--perhaps not quite Deepak, but sort of....asking humans (even Hawkings...or priests for that matter) to have some humility in the face of the vastness of spacetime and the heliocentric model (ie Copernicus...and Newton) .
Kant doesn't quite accept the traditional catholic rationalist accounts of creation (ie Aquinas...or Leibniz, tho admittedly Leibniz is a bit more involved). While the scientists of the time did not have something like Hubble/Lemaitre's big bang concept worked out (especially in regard to the expanding uni. idea), the first cause arguments are somewhat similar.
Kantian idealist-rationalism is not empirical-mechanist either, however; though he doesn't reject science, at all. His Idealism does allow for Mind, perhaps even Design of a type, and the possibility of...monotheism. But in many ways he's quite opposed to the traditional theo-rationalist models of Aquinas--at any rate those traditional models are not those of Hubble, or informed by modern physics, Einstein (who had read a bit of Kant), quantum mech., the laws of thermodynamics (entropy's a problem for theism, arguably)
kirby
i didn't mean to neglect you
your response to berry's questions
are as interesting as the questions
lemaitre and all i know of him is gained rather recently
after sally pointed me to the name
he actually didn't use the term
bigbang - it was offered rather cynically by another physicist who disagreed with him but it stuck
like a bad nickname - the name we use for the beginning of the universe is really a cynical bad nickname
what does that say about us?
i think lemaitre saw god's will in the initial moment i haven't read much but it sounds to me like he was able to let science be science and simply work with the quanta and the equations as science
distinct from theology
he was not insensitive to the miraculous power of it all
but even einstein was more theological in his statements
"god does not roll dice"
i saw a public television special not long ago that traced the evolution of dog species
evidently there are dog species that derive from both foxes and wolves...but they traced the genetic material back to one dog in china ( or they say they did ) sort of the canine answer to lucy of the olduvai gorge
and they traced the development of varities and breeds - most of the breeds we seee today at the international dog shows which everyone watches i am sure were developed since 1900
which only verifies my suspision of whatever we know of evolution is what we've done ourselves in animal breeding - which in fact bears little likeness to what nature does
i posted a quote over on de gustibus my other blog
something like
there is not too much difference between eternity and infinty
a quote by a contemporary and friend of lemaitre one Fr Costa
who was tieing math and theology more closely together in a mad tango of abstract platitudinous dancing
i've had the argument with john mcgill and others about the concept of light years and the time it takes for light from a star to travel to our eyes
i disagree with this notion
i believe when i look up at a star the light that is there is there
it is not travelling to my eye
so i can't comprehend the discussion about the expanding universe
i know the earth is pretty big and there are a lot of people here
and it's pretty small compared to
the sun and there are lots and lots of stars and they don't move too much they're always right about where you'd expect them to be...sometimes some of them trace across the sky like fireflies on speed
i have no concept in my understanding of an expanding universe i think it's about as big as it needs to be
maybe i have a stunted imagination and that's why i've never liked science fiction
although
i have a friend who is willing to donate his body to science fiction
it seems to me that berry's questions are as important as the theory
lemaitre did make an analogy that involved fireworks
and he also mentions an exploding egg
which grips my imagination
an raw egg in a microwave
would of course explode
or at least i think it would
time for an experiment!!!
he coined the idea
"a day without yesterday"
as the first day
so in a sense he is taking the genesis story somewhat literally
it was a quiet slowly heaving passionate twinkle of light
and i have the equations to back me up
i'm just so grateful to sally for introducing me to the name of georges lemaitre
i'm far more impressed with the miracle of a sunrise than i am with astrophysix as a black whole
but anyone who can get a job looking at stars is pretty clever in my book
that's got to be a good gig
i'd take that gig
if i could find it
but i wouldn't want to do the math
the music of the cosmos
the harmonics of the stars
twinkle twinkle
jh
Thank you for this response, belated as it might. Be.
Yours, Kirby
i'd like to have a special place
where i could read
all the comment deleted posts
Post a Comment