The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_DrW]

This thread is in response to a set of questions and comments from Roger over on the ' --Hammered by a Real Physicist ' thread. Roger initiated discussions on two different subjects, namely; evolution and cosmology.

The latter subject arose from discussion of several You Tube videos showing a debate between William Lane Craig (WLC), a professor of theology, and Sean Carroll (SC), a physicist. Since the time lapses between responses are likely to be somewhat stretched since Roger is non the road, this separate thread was set up help the two discussions to move more smoothly - cosmology and creation here, evolution and creation over there.

To begin with, I was surprised that any secularist would even agree to a debate with a theist wherein the proposition to be debated was to the effect that; 'The modern understanding of cosmology makes the existence of God more likely than it appeared to be prior to this understanding'.

From the scientific perspective, this is a trivial proposition, the resolution of which boils down to on whether or not the universe had a beginning. It therefore had a high probability of being demonstrated in the affirmative, since theism claims that anything that exists has a first cause, and when it comes to the universe, God is the first cause.

The wording of the proposition to be debated allowed WLC to suggest that some of the best evidence against God and theism provided by LC should not be considered by the audience because it had 'nothing to do with cosmology'.

Nonetheless, the debate was held and SC provided an well thought out overview of the case for naturalism in cosmology.

As to Rogers comments:

So, I would ask the Carroll supporters: am I correct so far? Did I miss something? In response to the question: What caused the universe to come into existence, Carroll's answer is: Don't ask.

Really?

An excellent short response to this question has already been provided by orangganjil over on the hammered thread.

This stuff can be very confusing, I think. Carroll is not arguing for ex-nihilo creation. Instead, he [ Sean Carroll] is saying, "We don't know."

This is another way of saying that we don't know what, if anything, came 'before' the Big Bang. Hypotheses mentioned during the debate ranged from an infinite and eternal universe (writ large) that contains mother universes that spawn baby universes, to a single finite universe (this one) created by the magic of the word of God.

However, we do know a great deal about how this universe came into existence. The standard model of physics, supported by more than a century of experimentation and observation, is more than adequate to describe the history of this universe without a supernatural being. The standard model takes us reliably back to within about 10 exp - 33 seconds of the 'beginning'. Not much room for a God of the Gaps.

To understand some of the language that Carroll used in the debate, and without attempting to speak for Carroll in any way, it might help to quickly review the Standard Model he referred to, with a nod to the Quantum Field Theory (QFT), with which WLC seemed so enamored in the debate and clearly did not understand.

The main take-away from the Standard Model is that the universe consists, on a most fundamental level, of quantum fields. These invisible fluid-like fields extend throughout space and may interact with themselves, and/or one another, to generate us, as well as everything we observe. There are a wide variety of these fields, one associated with every fundamental particle and force in the standard model, and probably a few more besides. Matter (particles) and energy are manifestations of vibrations or excitations in these fields as they interact with themselves and one another. That' it.

Equations of the Standard Model yield accurate and precise results when compared to experiment, and are mathematically consistent in calculations involving quantum mechanics and special relativity. These equations do not do as well with general relativity as it relates to gravity. This is, in part, because in general relativity the gravitational field is identical with space-time.

As their name suggests, these fields are quantized. That is, they exist in non-divisible bits or quanta. Space and time are likewise quantized with the smallest packet of space being the Planck length (1.616229 x 10 ^ - 35 meters). The smallest chunk of time is the Planck length divided by the speed of light (or about 5 x 10 exp-44 seconds). The consequence of these quanta is that space and matter are not infinitely divisible. There is a limit as to the extent that space, time and matter can be chopped up. This quantization of the fields gives rise to a number of non-intuitive phenomena.

If one were to take a box and remove every particle, creating a perfect vacuum (i.e. 'nothing' inside the box), that box would still be filled with quantum fields. Because of the waves propagating along these fields, particles "pop" into and out of existence. These particles - the effects of vibrations or excitations in quantized fields - can be detected with experimental apparatus properly set up to demonstrate the Casmir effect. Something from nothing.

One consequence of the well known Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that properties of a quantum particle (such as the spin, and position in space of an electron) are probabilistic. At the quantum level, one can view the world as being in constant random uncaused motion. Observed phenomena at the quantum level that are void of cause, or cause and effect, include quantum entanglement and radioactive decay.

It is at this level - at the fine grained quantum level of the Planck distance- that our intuition as to cause and effect, as Carroll says, fails us. The point being that we can understand the evolution of the universe back in time until it it enters the dimensional realm where our equations break down. This is another way of saying that we do not yet have a fully functional Theory of Everything.

As Carroll stated in the debate, the path forward in cosmology is to develop cosmological models that appear feasible, and then determine if they are mathematically consistent and whether they can be tested through observation or experimentation. Postulating a supernatural God is of no value whatsoever in this endeavor.

[_honorentheos]

Hi DrW,

I apologize for interrupting before the discussion really continued from the other thread, but I've been curious about the terminology used in the Kalam Cosmological Argument that WLC based the initial position on and which seems to be part of back-and-forth with Roger in the other thread.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. If the Universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the Universe into existence.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the Universe into existence.

It all seems to hang on what one means by transcendent. I only listened to part of the entire 2 hour debate so I likely missed if this was debated, but if SC opens his initial argument as debating the naturalism v. theism ontology and points out the "not-even-wrong" use of transcendent as language gets at the issue Roger seems to be questioning? That being, just because something isn't known or understood doesn't make transcendence the right word to use, and with it a theistic ontology? That unknowns are internally consistent with a natural ontology and not refuting of it?

[_DrW]

Hi DrW,

I apologize for interrupting before the discussion really continued from the other thread, but I've been curious about the terminology used in the Kalam Cosmological Argument that WLC based the initial position on and which seems to be part of back-and-forth with Roger in the other thread.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. If the Universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the Universe into existence.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the Universe into existence.

It all seems to hang on what one means by transcendent. I only listened to part of the entire 2 hour debate so I likely missed if this was debated, but if SC opens his initial argument as debating the naturalism v. theism ontology and points out the "not-even-wrong" use of transcendent as language gets at the issue Roger seems to be questioning? That being, just because something isn't known or understood doesn't make transcendence the right word to use, and with it a theistic ontology? That unknowns are internally consistent with a natural ontology and not refuting of it?

Hey Honor,

Before this debate, I had never heard or seen the term 'transcendent' used in stating the Kalam Argument. However, since WLC appears to have been the originator of the argument in modern times (he published a book in 1979 entitled, "The Kalām Cosmological Argument"), I suppose he can state the argument in the manner that suits him best at any given time. Most folks who are interested would probably recognize this is a variant of Aristotle's prime mover concept.

John Prytz does an outstanding job of debunking the Kalam argument*, especially as employed by WLC in the debate.

According to Prytz, the formal Kalam Cosmological Argument can be best stated as follows:

1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) Premise: The Universe began to exist.

3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause

As Prytz notes - so far so good. It is when the cause, first cause, prime mover, or unmoved mover (take your pick) is claimed to be the Christian God (or any supernatural god) that fallacy ensues.
_______________________________________
*https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunked

[_Fence Sitter]

As Prytz notes - so far so good. It is when the cause, first , cause, prime mover, or unmoved mover (take your pick) is claimed to be the Christian God that fallacy ensues.

Unless one is willing to define God as any and all causes, couldn't the word "Christian" be eliminated? This is where I don't get the leap creationist and anti-evolutionist seem to accept as automatic, the "there are gaps or errors in your scientific knowledge therefore God must exist" leap.

Okay, we can't explain how gravity works perfectly, so what? It isn't evidence that ANY GOD EXIST.

[_huckelberry]

Honorentheois, As I heard the argument, a mother universe would qualify as a transcendent cause. It would be something beyond or transcending the limits of this universe. That there are alternative possible transcendent causes other than God keeps the Kalaam argument outside of the area of a proof of Gods existence. Realizing that is probably why Craig was so careful to say his comments are not proof of Gods actions.

[_DrW]

As Prytz notes - so far so good. It is when the cause, first , cause, prime mover, or unmoved mover (take your pick) is claimed to be the Christian God that fallacy ensues.

Unless one is willing to define God as any and all causes, couldn't the word "Christian" be eliminated? This is where I don't get the leap creationist and anti-evolutionist seem to accept as automatic, the "there are gaps or errors in your scientific knowledge therefore God must exist" leap.

Okay, we can't explain how gravity works perfectly, so what? It isn't evidence that ANY GOD EXIST.

Although perhaps never stated explicitly by WLC in the debate (I'm not sure), the word 'Christian' was used in my post because the Christian God was clearly implied as the first cause by WLC in his debate performance.

" ------ that is probably why Craig was so careful to say his comments are not proof of Gods actions."

What do you think WLC intended for the religious audience to conclude from his carefully worded statements?

As Carroll pointed out, a huge problem with theism and theistic arguments is that theism is ill-defined and anyone is free to conclude or believe anything they wish regarding their god.

[_honorentheos]

Hi DrW.,

Thanks for sharing that link, it was very interesting and expanded on the discussion that was helpful for me.

I thought this was worth coming back to -

The Kalam Cosmological Argument as oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig, is as follows.

1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) Premise: The Universe began to exist.

3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

....

Allow me to amend the above slightly.

1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity).

One of the questions Roger raised in the other thread was regarding Carroll's response to the first question in the Q&A section where he notes that the universe itself is different than how we experience it. He went on to clarify this as a reference to how our intuitions about how things work based on our experience are not so reliable. During another Q&A response he points out that this pertains to the idea of cause-and-effect when time began, and our way of intuitively thinking about a universe "popping" into existence. But this is actually confusing our understanding. He seemed to be very careful in trying to convey the idea that models that describe a universe with a first moment of time are just that.

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheois, As I heard the argument, a mother universe would qualify as a transcendent cause. It would be something beyond or transcending the limits of this universe. That there are alternative possible transcendent causes other than God keeps the Kalaam argument outside of the area of a proof of Gods existence. Realizing that is probably why Craig was so careful to say his comments are not proof of Gods actions.

Hi huckelberry,

My first reaction to the debate as it started was also along these lines. I started listening to it this morning and am now done with the Q&A, and my thinking has evolved in part from Carroll's answers in the Q&A and DrW's comment. Perhaps I'm still wrong but my understanding is that Carroll's position is one where the premise that something could be called transcendent because it is not understood is flawed. That if one subscribes to a natural ontology then the models and predictions one proposes and accepts as valid must be consistent with the mathematics, laws, and observations of naturalism. They cannot be described as transcending naturalism. They may not be explained per se or the inventions made that help us better understand them, but they must still be consistent. And a major issue for us as human beings is that our intuitions about the natural laws and how things work are actually not as aligned with the laws and math as we tend to imagine they are so we mistake the universe as we quote-unquote experience it (i.e. - intuitively explain it) with the actual universe as it behaves in accordance with the understood laws expressed through math and science.

Or I just intuitively misread what he was saying...:)

[_DrW]

Hi DrW.,

Thanks for sharing that link, it was very interesting and expanded on the discussion that was helpful for me.

I thought this was worth coming back to -

The Kalam Cosmological Argument as oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig, is as follows.

1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) Premise: The Universe began to exist.

3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

....

Allow me to amend the above slightly.

1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity).

One of the questions Roger raised in the other thread was regarding Carroll's response to the first question in the Q&A section where he notes that the universe itself is different than how we experience it. He went on to clarify this as a reference to how our intuitions about how things work based on our experience are not so reliable. During another Q&A response he points out that this pertains to the idea of cause-and-effect when time began, and our way of intuitively thinking about a universe "popping" into existence. But this is actually confusing our understanding. He seemed to be very careful in trying to convey the idea that models that describe a universe with a first moment of time are just that.

As I watched the debate, I got the impression that LC believed that if we could successfully incorporate gravity into the standard model (and thus achieve grand unification) we just might have a shot at understanding the universe from the very beginning and filling in our understanding of those missing 10 exp - 33 seconds.

If I recall correctly, Carroll mentioned string theory as a possible, more fundamental, theory of everything. That looks unlikely now because the LHC has been chugging away for the last two years (after a massive upgrade to increase energy - well deserved after detecting the Higgs particle). Unortunately, the super-symmetry particles predicted by string theory have not shown themselves. They got nothing.

So, Loop Quantum Gravity is looking pretty good right now as a way to incorporate general relativity (gravity) into the Standard Model. As its proponents say, "We want a model whose equations can be printed on a T-shirt". So far, they have been able to do so. If they are successful, we just might have a Theory of Everything.

[_Gadianton]

It all seems to hang on what one means by transcendent

I listened to part of it. I thought in Carroll's view it hangs on what one means by "began", and that metaphysical language like that does not or may not describe the situation.