Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth. I was watching A debate on cosmology where William Lane Craig uses the Borde , Guth and Vilenkin theorem to say the universe had a.
|Published (Last):||11 November 2005|
|PDF File Size:||15.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This leads us to the question, what can science do without mathematics? If Science is permeated with assumptions that cannot be scientifically accounted for, at least it has some assumptions that we can account for. Thus we arrive at the absurd outcome that science- if defined as you would have it as necessarily theoem antithesis of metaphysical assumptions random strings of characters – is random.
Here are the two sides. Must we conclude or the non-self equivalent, seeming or the non-self equivalent, appearing or the non-self equivalent, looking or the non-self equivalent, suggesting… to appear to seem to conclude that we cannot escape pure randomness through either metaphysics or science?
The point is that there are truths which we grasp that are not scientifically accessible, among these aesthetic truths.
If there is no universe then there can be no laws. We have exceptions, like Islamic countries, of course, where I can be killed by saying the truth: And I thought that singularities in physical equations are artifacts due to break downs of the underlying theory or at least the approximations.
Planck time is the shortest elapsed amount of time which according to physicists is 10 second after the Big bang. Carroll is correct in that the BGV theorem thus does not include all models, but it includes a wider range than Carroll’s “some” may make it sound like depending on interpretation, of course.
By accounting for assumptions, you transform metaphysical ideas pre-accounting into scientific ones post-accounting. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. This challenges the popular arguments of atheists.
In this, the universe do not have hteorem true origin or even a true big bang. The world line of a geodesic is the sequence of events obrde relate to the point particle in question.
So there could be a time at which God created the initial cosmological singularity, viilenkin if that moment is not in physical time. I would put a summary of Carroll’s and Craig’s arguments, but I am afraid I would butcher them so I just mentioned the timestamps and left the link to the video.
Your Leibnizian line is nothing more than special pleading for God. Mickey Mouse is not the embodiment of Good by definition, and thus would not be worth worshiping.
Alexander Vilenkin – Wikipedia
OrodruinDec 20, A meteora satellite or anything traveling in space has geodesics within space-time, and are also considered point particles. Significantly, the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models.
In order for science to exist, then, science must be able to account for all ideas that scientific bodre depend on.
The second point is to realize what the nature of that first cause is. Stenger, The Gith of Fine-Tuning, Maybe we will never know the full history of reality. Join Physics Forums Today! By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
The paper outlining the BGV theorem, Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete highlights the finding of a space-time boundary at the inflation event. It makes more sense to me that matter is a result of an infite mind, rather than the mind developing from matter.
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
Mickey Mouse is by definition not a Maximally Great being and therefore cannot be the creator of all of time, space, truth, beauty, reason, etc. A timelike or null geodesic have a tangent vector with a norm of negative and zero, respectively.
With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. Science depends on the theoorem, because science is the practice of accounting for assumptions. I think the message is as clear as it is common in these debates: To restate what has already been said, an inflating universe cannot be regressed indefinitely into the past, or, In other words, an inflating boede has a beginning at some finite time in the past.
It cannot be the self, for science cannot be dependent on the meaningless-as-random-strings-of-characters metaphysical assumption of the self for the un-assuming and beholding. The BGV theorem can be used as a powerful empirical evidence of a beginning of any universe which on average has a positive expansion rate, of which the universe presently observed does.
If the singularity is something that exists, it was a real state of affairs of the Universe Beginning around the 1: Others need to lie to themselves, and even build an entire career based in their need for self-deception. Now Ryan writes in with a good correction to what I said earlier.