Big Bang Befuddlement 9 comments

30 Apr 2004 @ 15:39, by Bruce Kodish As I wrote in the book Dare to Inquire,"Serious misevaluating may complicate some of the current discussions about the "big bang" and the beginning of our presently known universe." "Cosmologists (physicists who study the large scale structures of the universe) generally agree that some momentous event called "the big bang" occurred some 12 to 15 billion years ago. This began the presently expanding universe that we live in." "However, there is much speculation involved with this theory and more than one version of it. Some top-notch scientists have created confusion by implying that the 'beginning' of the known universe is the same as the 'beginning' of 'everything' including 'time', therefore placing off-limits any discussion about the pre-conditions of the 'big bang', etc. After all, nothing can come before the beginning of everything--can it?" "There are serious reasons for questioning the legitimacy of attempts to close discussion by possibly confusing Ôthe big bangÕ with the beginning of ÔeverythingÕ. For one thing, such an interpretation conflicts with the traditional naturalistic-'materialistic' assumption that "nothing comes out of nothing" and that the existence of something depends upon previous existences. This basic assumption should not be abandoned lightly by naturalistic formulators." "It has by no means been definitely established that the Ôbig bangÕ beginning of the known universe, even if it did occur, is equivalent to the beginning of ÔeverythingÕ. Alternative scenarios which elaborate on possible preconditions to the Ôbig bangÕ and even multiple ÔuniversesÕ with different ÔlawsÕ, have been developed by some physicists." See The Myth of the Beginning of Time in the current (May 2004) issue of Scientific American. "There seems to be more room for scientific discussion and disagreement here than many people think. Blithe talk about Ôthe beginning of the universeÕ can easily result in finalistic, absolutistic formulating. How might a change from "the" universe to "a" universe affect current cosmology?" "Discussion about the beginning of ÔtimeÕ lends itself to catchy verbal play which, however much fun, may represent a confusion of orders of abstractionÑobjectifying ÔtimeÕ as a ÔthingÕ which can have a ÔbeginningÕ. If ÔtimeÕ is not an object, but a word to label a dimension of observation and experience, how can it have a defined ÔbeginningÕ and ÔendÕ? How might we re-view cosmology if we spoke of an indefinitely continuable process?"

9 comments

---

Your Name:
Your URL:	(or email)
Subject:
Comment:
	For verification, please type the word you see on the left: