IN THE SHADOW
OF THE BIG BANG
It is quite unavoidable, though often ignored, that hidden in the debate between a finite universe, derisively referred to as The Big Bang by Sir Fred Hoyle, and the infinite universe, also known as, The Steady State Universe are sets of assumptions and, the many “hypotheses”, that are essentially of a metaphysical nature, which are often incorporated without being clearly stated. And in consideration of Abbe Lemaitre, one cannot ignore the possibility of religious belief having played a part, such as the religious dictum, creatio ex nihilo. Though he never publicly admitted so, to ignore the possibility that this was the case, perhaps if only at a subconscious level is to ignore a possible cause and effect. And belief in science today, as in having a “scientific belief” has blinded the rational reasonable minds of the scientist seeking a usable model to explain observable phenomenon for an emotional attachment to a belief often supported by mathematics with a tenuous, at best, relationship with the natural observable world.
Whether you assume the universe has an origin in time and space, or you assume that it has always existed, in either case you begin with an assumption. In some respects, this is how science can work. Start with an assumption/hypothesis then test it. But to properly test an assumption, you require a controlled environment, or at least an environment where you understand the interactions and relationships of all aspects of the environment, or, at least a significant number of all aspects of the environment. Otherwise, you will not know how to interpret the results you get and misinterpretation in favor of one’s belief can be a psychological reality, for scientists are prone to the same follies and frailties of the ego as everyone else. There seemingly is an inverse relationship where the less understanding and knowledge there is of an environment, the greater the likelihood of misinterpretation of the data in favor of a belief.
After Abbe Lemaitre presented his, “Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom”, he predicted that the universe is expanding. Some time later distinguished astronomer, Edwin Hubble, looking into deep space via a radio telescope observes a “red shift quantization” in distant galaxies, which Lemaitre interprets as a purely Doppler effect and derives the Hubble Constant and we now have the BELIEF that the universe is expanding. In fact, it has been a favorite of the media to promote this origin story of the universe, especially once it was approved and claimed as a vindication of Catholicism by Pope Pious X. This should give one cause for concern for Catholicism’s relationship with science has always been tenuous and dependent on how much the science supported the BELIEF of the religion.
The problem is, there is no way at our present level of technology to test whether red-shift quantization is purely a Doppler effect or not. Certainly, from the perspective of sound waves, the math is well understood, but, its applicability to a deep space observation is not understood at all. Therefore, the Hubble Constant and red-shift as a purely Doppler effect is an assumption/hypothesis that is being used to support another assumption/hypothesis, that of the Big Bang. Building a house of knowledge, using assumptions as the primary foundation, is not, what I would consider, a rock solid structure and is akin to building a complex structure on shifting sands. Especially, since we can say, without a doubt that the consensus belief of the finest scientific minds of the day regarding near Earth space was significantly wrong, never mind distant unvisitable space. In fact many of these great minds passed from existence prior to the human species developing the technology to find and discover what does occupy near Earth space. Yet, still modern science clings to these assumptions and worse yet, seeks to prove it. And as anybody in science knows, it is not finding proof of a theory that enables the survival of a model, but it is the model surviving deliberate attempts at actually trying to disprove it that brings it to acceptance.
In this debate, if not all debates, either side is an assumption and the question of which assumption is safest or preferable is the purpose of the debate. Is it safer to assume the universe had a beginning, just like all living things, or is it safer to assume the universe has always existed more or less as it is? Funny thing is, in the BB belief, the universe is not considered a living thing but a mechanism, a cold heartless machine which gave birth to living things, you and I. Is this a logical path? For religionists, it makes sense for it is God’s machine, but, seriously, can that even be a consideration for a truly scientific mind? More importantly, does that previous question preclude assumptions? Is it possible for science to prove or disprove the existence of a God? And if it did prove the existence of God, would that God be anything like what is written to have been said by humanities ancient prophets?
It has seemed to me for some time that there might be a sort of anthropomorphism with BB believers. Subconsciously, they believe, I have a finite physical existence therefore the universe too must have a finite physical existence. One could argue, that believing your physical existence is all there is, is an assumption unto itself. But, so too, are all notions of an existence after one’s physical shell dies. Many people, if not most, will rely on the safety and comfort of faith in a belief rather than face an unknowable without fear. But, if you are seeking truth, then you need to face the unknown without any assumptions, without any preconceived notions, without belief, and, more importantly, do so, gracefully without fear. Sadly, it seems this may just be too much to ask.
Is there life after death? To the atheist, it is a resounding “no”. To the religionist, it is a resounding “yes”. To a Natural Philosopher, it is a resounding, “We’ll see.” For everything beyond the measurable and the testable, to the Natural Philosopher is a speculation.
Is there a God? Personally, I suspect not, but that is a speculative belief and honestly, it isn’t the purpose of this writing to answer such questions. But, as previously noted, the evolution of conscious beings from unconscious matter, is, in and of itself, highly illogical, and requires the invocation of an unknowable such as a Supreme Being. But, to invoke an unknowable as a cornerstone of your hypothesis is to make a Grand Assumption, and in science, such Grand Assumptions often become BELIEFS which veil one’s perspective and blind them to all evidence observed that suggests otherwise. BELIEF in science is a dangerous thing.
Did the universe have a beginning or not? To argue one way or the other without making unbiased observations is to speculate purely with one’s imagination, which is ostensibly making assumptions out of ignorance. The problem is, one cannot always tell when one is in fact ignorant and belief is often accepted as fact, so, Einstein incorporated Minkowski Spacetime as a fabric to interconnect what he and his peers wrongly believed were isolated islands in space. They wrongly believed space between the Earth and the Sun was a vacuum impassable to electric currents and “devoid of all matter but the ponderable bodies”i Now we have these BELIEFS still dominating science, that neutral mechanistic matter is the dominating force in the universe. Think about that bit of illogisme. Neutral mechanistic matter is a force? Of course, the blame is not on those that did not realize their ignorance through no fault of their own. The fault is on those scientists who got the new data and rather than make new observations with the new data, they literally either neutralized it, making it irrelevant and non-threatening to the model they believed in, or worse, invoke unknowables to appease divergent observations that do not agree with the speculations of their hypothetical belief. Unknowables such as such as the cosmological constant, dark matter, dark energy, complicated geometries, free space and even a restmass for the photon.
The thing is, all these speculations only work within the framework of a foundational speculation built on a belief rooted in profound ignorance. This does not look good for science. And the thing is, in the context of belief, in this case, we cannot blame religious faith, but, perhaps another new faith.
Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, it has been an imperative to seek a “minimum of hypotheses”, also known as, the simplicity argument. One is expected to account for all the observations with a minimum number of assumptions. But, in the 20th century, what we have witnessed is an invocation of hypothesis and assumptions upon hypothesis and assumptions. In other words, the idea was to “save the phenomena”, is no longer seemingly understood in modern science. If it ever truly was. For when we look back through human history, we see that Ptolemy’s Geocentrism as a scientific model kept on life-support through the use of ad hoc adjustments(epicycles) that lack any observational evidence other than the mathematics were not working as they lacked sufficient predictiveness to be able to keep one’s head. A price an astronomer to a king may pay for being wrong.
Very similar to the argument-or rather the postulate-of simplicity is the principle of beauty, typically thought of as a Pythagorean concept. A theory of the universe is not adopted because it is “true”, but because it either fulfills some religious views about the universe, or, conversely, simply because it is, in the mind of a mathematician, a beautiful equation. Such motivations are not scientific, though are often disguised as such, and, seem to encourage the observer to pay less attention to saving the phenomena, especially “contentious phenomena”, and to only concern ourselves with the internal coherence of the theory or a quest for beauty. Is it sufficient for modern cosmology to demand primarily coherence and not proof? Not if that “coherence” leads to the invocation of further unknowables. It seems altogether contradictory to the purpose of science to invoke an unknowable to support the belief of another unknowable. At one point do we stop invoking unknowables to explain the alleged existence of other unknowables that are either a product of even more unknowables or is the foundation of a hypothesis?
It seems to both the mathematician and the religionist, there are few, if any limitations. The reason for this similarity in two such diverse groups is that they lack little reference to reality but express much faith in their process. It is the mathematicians, who through their mathemagics have invoked so many unknowables, that at times they seem to overwhelm the knowables. It is my, not-so-humble opinion, that both mathematicians and religionists could gain a lot by keeping their focus on the knowables of reality rather than the unknowables invoked by their imaginations. A mathematician has faith in the math that they were taught as a religious person has faith in the teachings of the religion. Mathematics not rooted in confirmed phenomena shares more with religion than it does with science.
Is the reduction of phenomena in order to save only some facts, which are deemed more important or more cosmologically significant a valid approach in science? This approach springs naturally from the belief that all facts in disagreement with a theory are of secondary importance. In other words they are epiphenomena that can be easily forgotten. In cosmology, this has led to a neglect of what is observably present and knowable in preference for a unobservable hypothetical and an unknowable. This reductionism also leads to ad hoc hypotheses, such as the “cosmological principle”, according to which the universe is homogeneous and isotropic-a welcome notion when one is looking for “simple” or “economical” models. But reality cares not for our mathematically elegantly economic models. It cares not for our beliefs, our hypothesis our assumptions.
On the question of the origin of the universe, jumping back some unknown distance in time we can only make assumptions and then seek to confirm or contradict said assumptions, which through the power of human psychology can have a devastatingly disastrous result in the search for understanding. On such questions, I think it is far more preferable to understand the here and now without the pollution of belief, assumptions or the invocation of hypothetical unknowables. It seems to me, more often than not, the invocation of an unknowable, is in fact an admission of ignorance, which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But to sustain ignorance in preference for an unknowable born out of ignorance is simply a dead end street, if not outright antithetical in the search for understanding the universe. If your search is one of understanding, then it is imperative that, while it is ok to start with a belief, one should then seek to try to disprove that believe and if one fails at doing so, then one can consider that belief a workable model.
iRelativity by Albert Einstein
THE UNOFFICIAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHER 