Before The Big Bang

[poliphilo]

According to Horizon it's no longer scientifically illiterate to wonder what happened before the Big Bang. A convenor asked a room full of mega brains, "Who believes there was something before the Big Bang?" and every hand went up- though some only to half mast. There are many theories to be considered. The one that sticks with me- probably because its so simple- is that the universe expands, contracts and expands again- like breathing in and out. 

Comments

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The other interesting thing about it is that it answers the question, "why is there something instead of nothing?"

See, the fundamental constants of the universe are very carefully balanced to allow, y'know, MATTER and ENERGY and things that could allow life and intelligence. If some of those constants were very slightly different, nothing resembling life could ever exist.

So why are those constants so carefully balanced to allow us?

The "anthropogenic" argument points out that, if there WASN'T "us", then we wouldn't be asking that, but still, there IS a question as to why this most incredibly careful balance exists.

And that's one argument for some sort of God-like being. SOMETHING chose to create these constants at such a level to allow life, goes the theory.

However, if the universe is in a solid-state of constant expansion, contraction, and re-creation, with different physical constants every time, then there could have been quadrillions of universes before this, and after this, and it's very, very rare for there to be a universe with life, and therefore, we exist because every once in a very great while, the universe just randomly throws out a situation that CAN support life. And therefore, you don't need to postulate any sort of thing with godlike qualities.

For what it's worth, I find this terrifying, just because it's so big.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

The anthropogenic argument strikes me as being rather similar to the lottery winner who claims that, as the chances of his winning were so small, he must have been singled out by God for special favour - and that therefore God exists.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's the opposite. The antropogenic argument is, "If we didn't exist, we wouldn't know we didn't exist, so the fact that we know we exist merely means that we exist, and therefore doesn't mean anything."

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Ah, then I beg its pardon. I have heard an argument like the one I just alluded to, but perhaps that's the one the anthropogenic argument is against!

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Exactly so. Now, the thing is -- if the universe was only created ONCE, I could see this as having some sort of validity. Not necessarily, but, I could see it. The odds against life and intelligence happening by random chance in ONE try are, well, "astronomical" is definitely far, far too small a concept for it. But if the universe is recreated infinitely, with different characteristics each time, then it's absolutely certain that life and intelligence will be created infinitely often, no mater how unlikely it is.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

You mean the "weak anthropic principle" and the "strong anthropic principle". They are worth a lookup on Wikipedia.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes.

A purposeful universe is inconceivable, but then so is one that is purposeless.

Our brains just aren't big enough to handle these ideas...