BothAndBlog Forum

Why Was There A Big Bang
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ig-bang/p1

The only answer to Why that does not precipitate an infinite regress and, in effect, begs the question is There Is No Why. Rather: How did the BB come about?' 'Planck era' spontaneous symmetry breaking. — 180 Proof

"What came before the Big Bang?" questions stimulate some creative thinking on both sides of the Realistic Science versus Idealistic Philosophy divide. And "spontaneous symmetry breaking" is a genius modern myth, along with the math-magical metaphor of instantaneous-inflation-from-nothing-to-cosmos. Relative to the ironic evasive tactic of "no-thing is unstable", the notion of the pre-bang symmetry-of-nothingness is precious. Both sides assume without evidence, that some-thing existed before our space-time era began. But one imagines that what-is-is-what-was. While the other envisions that what-was-is-what-will-be. ???

Planck probably thought that by calculating the smallest possible measurable time or length, that fades into asymptosis or ellipsis, would put an end to such "before the beginning" nonsense. But, for curious philosophically inclined seekers, "what-if?" questions are irresistible honey for the imagination. And some posters on this forum will take-up hard-line (this-is-what-is) positions on such conjectures, which are by definition unverifiable. It would be nice, if for a change, we could just freely speculate on such pre-columbian "what's out there over the horizon?" scenarios, without coming to blows over which party is the biggest idiot : the short-cut-to-India optimists, or the sail-over-the-edge-pessimists.

No woo required. — 180 Proof

Who said anything about "woo"?. What I said was :
"Both sides assume without evidence, that some-thing existed before our space-time era began. But one imagines that what-is-is-what-was. While the other envisions that what-was-is-what-will-be. ???" Now which side is pitching "woo"? Are you just being contrarian?

So we discover there is this broken symmetry at the root of things. It is not unreasonable to wind that back to the symmetry state that marks its beginning. — apokrisis

Of course, I was putting words in Planck's mouth to illustrate the philosophical problem of the abrupt beginning of our space-time world from an initial state of infinity-eternity, that we are not able to penetrate with our physical science. Not to be deterred, we still attempt to go beyond that physical limit, with meta-physical imagination. And such speculation is posited by some famous serious scientists. Yet contrarians refer to some of those conjectures as "woo" (in a non-Shakesperean sense), while the other shot-in-the-dark guesses are "justified" scientific inference from limited information.

Anyway, I just read a section of a book, written by Astronomer/Physicist John Barrow, on "classical cosmology". There, he noted : "prior to the Planck time 10^-43 seconds we know nothing of the state of space and time nor even if such familiar entities existed". He goes on to say, "during this fleeting era (10^-43 to 10^-35 seconds) there is a complete symmetry between all these interactions (fundamental forces) . . . . complete symmetry between matter and antimatter". [my emphasis] So, according to the scientist's BB theory inferences from current conditions to Planck time conditions, the Singularity was symmetrically balanced.

Which raises the question for both materialist physicists and non-materialist meta-physicists, "what caused that sudden symmetry break . . . that instant imbalance?" Anything we say about that pre-Planck era is inherently speculative, and based on certain assumptions. The pertinent presumptions here are A- "matter (particles) is fundamental", or B- "mind (reason ; law) is fundamental. Neither side of this debate knows what it's talking about, in scientific terms. But as philosophical inferences, they are both worthy of serious consideration. IMHO. Scientists tend to prefer a physical scenario, such as the Quantum Fluctuation hypothesis (due to random Chance). And some Philosophers prefer to consider a non-random lawful scenario, such as Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover (a deity of "pure form"). Which acts via teleological Intention. Admittedly, the latter is not an empirical scientific theory, but then neither is the imaginary Quantum Fluctuation scenario. So, why not give due consideration to both propositions?


"The Swerve" refers to a key conception in the ancient atomistic theories according to which atoms moving through the void are subject to clinamen: while falling straight through the void, they are sometimes subject to a slight, unpredictable swerve.
__reference to De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swerve
Note : the poetic invention of a sudden unexpected change in course foreshadowed modern "Quantum Fluctuation" proposals to explain how acausal randomness can be a creative disruption of Chaos to produce an orderly organized world.

↪Gnomon
"Both sides" of what? I can't follow you, G. My mention of "woo" is explicated in the post you reference (first paragraph). — 180 Proof

I'm not sure. I'm not taking sides. But I'm referring to whatever alternatives you have in mind when categorizing the Science versus Woo controversy. It's all philosophy to me.

Prishon says: No symmetry between interaction! Symmetry break based on wrong assumption. Higgsy mechanism no exist! Matter antimatter are equal and were always equal. Also now! Anti rishons on othere side of 4d open torus! Anti quarki and anti lepton on other side. Quarki and lepton contain same anti as normal. On other side of open torus Prishon sees anti quarki and anti leptoni. But on both sides equal number both. — Prishon

Exactly!

So the Universe just had to cross a threshold where the unified conditions finally broke in the usual phase transition way. Or not so usual if this breaking also released an inflationary spurt. — apokrisis

Sorry, if I confused you. I was asking a philosophical "why" question, not a scientific "how" question.

As a philosophical layman, I tend to take the more holistic cosmological perspective of "Emergence", instead of the analytical reductive scientific view of "Phase Transitions".

Phase Transition :
Phase transitions occur when the thermodynamic free energy of a system is non-analytic for some choice of thermodynamic variables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition

Evolutionary Emergence :
* As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
* Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progession to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
* Zoom back down to the sub-atomic level, and we find another set of "upward" emergences. From the universal Quantum Field of statistical possibilities, "virtual particles" or "wavicles" mysteriously appear from nowhere as almost real particles of matter, such as Bosons & Leptons. Those minimal particles of matter are bound together by strange forces into the paradoxical state of matter called "entanglement". They also tend to cluster into the dynamic structures we call Atoms, as-if foreordained to snap-fit into designated roles in the smallest whole systems. From that barely-real phase of reality, atoms assemble into molecules and thence into larger aggregations of matter. After each emergence, those integrated systems display complex patterns of information, and new physical properties . . . eventually even mental qualities never before seen in the mechanical material world.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

PS__↪180 Proof
180 Proof's answer to the topical question was "there is no why?". If that is the case, why are we discussing the BB on a philosophical forum instead of a scientific forum?

↪Gnomon
"Both sides" of what? I can't follow you, G. My mention of "woo" is explicated in the post you reference (first paragraph). — 180 Proof

I'm not sure. I'm not taking sides. But I'm referring to whatever alternatives you have in mind when categorizing the Science versus Woo controversy. It's all philosophy to me.

So yes. We can boil it down to metaphysical first principles like the dialectical opposition of law and chance. But then we want to avoid the chicken and egg debates about which came first, or which is the ground to the other. That is the kind of causal logic that sets up the two sides of the one story as disjunct monisms. Both good old fashioned materialism and good old fashioned theist woo (or idealism) are logically in error because of their shared reductionism. — apokrisis


I'm not qualified to discuss some of the technical issues you raise concerning Big Bang theory. But, I can grok your notion of a "dialectical opposition of law and chance". I see that creative dialectic in Darwin's concept of Evolution : Randomness generates diversity, and Selection (apokrisis -- choose, sort out, decide) winnows down the multiplicity to the "fittest" few. Randomness is a series of unrelated accidents, while Selection chooses only those accidents that have something in common : fitness for a niche in Nature. But post-Darwin scientists, with a reductionist worldview, tended to put their emphasis on the chaotic unregulated aspects, and took for granted the orderly regulatory function of Natural Selection. But, from a more holistic perspective, NS seems to be essentially a "law of Nature".

In the June-July issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Ray Tallis notes that the laws of Nature seem to be more than just "habits" or "regularities", and act like directional agents for the path forward of evolution. He raises the "dubious notion" of natural laws as "being agencies in themselves". He presents the metaphor of a horse, which in a state of nature acts upon its own internal urges and needs : eating grass, propagating the species, and escaping predators. But a horse with a human rider, behaves completely differently. It is under the control of an external agent, who has needs and goals that may often be in opposition to those internal motives.

He discusses linear "natural necessity" as compared with some unpredictable irregular patterns of natural behavior. The "necessity" view says that "the laws of nature do not shape what happens, but are simply the shape of what happens". In that case, "the laws of nature . . . come to look less like explanations than descriptions". They are mere regularities, instead of regulators. This would mean that "the natural world is not the obedient servant of a legislative master", as implied by the original meaning of a top-down Royal Mandate intrinsic to the word "Law".

Tallis disagrees with the "that's just the way it is" implication that the predictability of nature. that scientists rely on, is a mere time-worn groove in stone. Instead, he says, "necessity is verbal, logical, or theological, as such, it has no place in grown-up philosophy of science". Ironically, while the laws of Nature are reliable, the laws of Science are continually being revised as our understanding deepens and matures : to wit -- predictable Newtonian Laws as superceded by unpredictable Quantum behaviors. Which he sums up as, "there has been a gap between the habits of nature (which do not change) and the laws of science (which do)".

And that brings him back to his original topic : "the compatibility of law-like nature, with the exercise of freedom by human agents". Within the scope of Nature, we have the steady, but non-progressive cycles of the horse, which continues to behave as its ancestors did millions of years ago. On the other hand, we have the relentless, but unpredictable progression of human Culture, riding the horse, with a will of its own. By imposing its will, human nature gains the freedom from natural laws, that allow it to become a guiding agency astride the horse. Thus a Metaphysical Principle rules over the Physical Habits of Nature. Which raises the "dubious" question of who or what was the Lawmaker, Regulator, Selector, Agent, Rider for the powerful Big Bang horse. Is that too woo to be true?

Aren’t you just re-mystifying the view that Tallis wants to de-mystify?

The Big Bang falls within his description of Natural Habits. Regularity is emergent as symmetries are broken and the general cooling-expansion of the Universe prevents its ever returning to its less organised past. — apokrisis

Although he doesn't make it explicit in the article, Tallis seems to be raising the same old questions that many scientists would put-down to "Mysticism", or even worse, "feckless Philosophy". Having noted that [natural] "laws somehow act upon the 'stuff' of nature from outside it", and that [natural] "laws are a 'quasi-agency'", he seems to be poking his nose into fundamental mysteries. "Outside of nature" is what many call "super-natural". I was merely going along for the ride on the horse that Tallis was directing.

Speaking of "outside nature", how could the Big Bang -- the first stage of an ongoing series -- be labelled a "habit"? Are you implying that it was just another routine step in an eternal cycle of repetitions? For most cosmologists, the BB is the beginning of what we now call "Nature". And anything prior to that, such as habitual regularities would be pure speculation, on super-natural questions. Of course, some of those cosmologists can't help such conjectures, even when it gets them into "woo" territory.

If the universe is prevented, by Entropy, from "ever returning" to it's initial state, that means it's a one-way trip. And not cyclical, as some would have it. In football lingo, "it's one and done". In that case, what might have preceded that auspicious, for us humans, beginning is a legitimate -- not mystical -- philosophical question. It's not a scientific question though, because it cannot be dis-proven empirically. But, since the BB was indeed a "big deal" for those of us who ask "why" questions, trying to de-mystify the provenance of the BB is an act of Wisdom, not necessarily a slippery-slope to Woo.

If our world is defined by its context, the circumstances that led to the BB need to be defined in some way, before we can claim to have a complete philosophical worldview. Of course, some people have religious or political motives, rather than philosophical or scientific reasons for asking such questions. But, by reflexively labeling all such "before the beginning" questions as Woo or Weirdness, would tar many serious scientists and philosophers with the same brush as the "religious nuts" and "wacko weirdos".

↪180 Proof
That's why I don't accept the "woo" label for my inquiries. Instead, I see it as Science-With-Both-Eyes-Open. Your left eye informs the analytical & reductive right brain, while the right eye views the world through the filter of the intuitive & holistic left brain. Together, we get a stereoscopic 3D worldview. But with one eye closed, we are blind to half of Reality . . . and may label the missing parts as "woo", or worse.


Provenance : the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.

Philosophy :
Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other.
https://philosophy.fsu.edu/undergraduat ... Philosophy

Context : the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." - Socrates?

Looking at the sun "With-Both-Eyes-Open" will completely blind you. — 180 Proof

Ha! Ever the contrarian. Another point of wisdom is "don't look directly at the sun, with one eye or two."