An Infinite Past?

[seer]

The evidence is indeed completely indirect, not somewhat. There is 'no actual observable physical evidence' that the Higgs Boson exists. I am using your own words as to what the standards of evidence 'must' be.

No, there is indirect physical evidence for the for the Higgs boson if there wasn't it would still be an unconfirmable theory:

The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, the Large Hadron Colliderable to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, it was announced that a previously unknown particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 (134.2 and 136.3 amu) had been detected; physicists suspected at the time that it was the Higgs boson. By March 2013, the particle had been proven to behave, interact and decay in many of the ways predicted by the Standard Model, and was also tentatively confirmed to have positive parity and zero spin, two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This appears to be the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature

That is physical evidence Shuny. And I also made clear, on one of these boards, that if we really did detect these left over gravitational waves that the Inflation theory predicted then that would be evidence for Inflation. It would not however be evidence for a multiverse or an eternal past. Mathematical formulas are all very well but if they can not be confirmed by physical reality they are nothing more than numbers on paper.

[Leonhard]

We have no actual physical evidence for the basic particles of matter.

Are you actually denying that we have evidence of atoms? Or are you referring to quarks?

[Leonhard]

‘Classical Mechanics’ (referred to as Newtonian Mechanics by Shunya)

The fact that he systematically bongles the two and doesn't admit it when its pointed out to him, doesn't provide a clue to you that the guy is basically a crank?

My point was that Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics is only applicable after the Planck Epoch.

For what? For purposes of cosmology? Not even then, you actually have to apply them right around that era as well in order to explain the lumpiness of the CMB background. You also have to invoke it to explain the nucleosynthesis which gave us the distribution of elements in the early universe.

If you're talking about the shape of the spacetime continuum and things like that? Yes, then, and only then, do we need to think in new terms when you get close the earliest moments around t = 0.

I believe that Leonhard is correct in saying that “showing that something is very unlikely to be true is sufficient for falsification”.

Good, because that's obviously true.

And shunya makes the point that: “We have no actual physical evidence for the basic particles of matter”. But, I might add, we know that they are there because of the effects they have.

Shunya is usually vague to the point of being useless in a discussion. It doesn't help that seer while well meaning tries to state things a little too forcefully at times, which ends up hurting the case he makes. However I can't see how seer's statements can't be given a treatment of interpretive grace. Does it matter whether its 'direct' or 'indirect' observations, as long as the evidence supports the theory in a strong way? Of course not. Otherwise we'd have to give up physics the moment we had to read spectrum graphs, instead of using microscopes.

“According to the Basic Particle Model, every elementary particle is built by 2 mass-less constituents which orbit each other with the speed of light c. The frequency of the circulation is the deBroglie frequency…”

http://www.ag-physics.org/structure/

Please tell me you realise full and well that this was a crank site.

[Leonhard]

That is false Tass and you are bearing false witness. Vilenkin himself said that the greater multiverse needs a "beginning." Those are his words which I linked in this thread to his You Tube talk. Now are there ways around this - possibly, but not from anything that is known or can be proved. And so what if Craig assumes God, you assume no God. Neither assumption can be "proven."

Actually no, he says that this theorem most strongly supports there being a beginning as it requires some infinitely fine-tuned spacetime configurations (that contain domains that collapse in just the right way to not cause problems ahead of time), which are completely unacceptable. For that reason he has his own model where the universe spawns from a timeless quantum field at t = 0, but there is still no sense in which you can talk about events taking place prior to that time.

He doesn't say that his theorem proves a beginning, just that there's really no other good choice left.

[Leonhard]

The evidence is indeed completely indirect, not somewhat. There is 'no actual observable physical evidence' that the Higgs Boson exists. I am using your own words as to what the standards of evidence 'must' be.

That depends on what you interpret seer to mean by 'actual observable physical evidence'. Since I'm sure you're using your own interpretations, as usual, since you're a crank. Let me give you a helping walkthrough.

Actual: We have them right now somewhere. For the Higgs they would be in the data archives of CERN stored on a multitude of harddrives in data centres and backed up prolifically on long lasting high-density data tapes for later use.

Observable: Its something that can be observed. In this case its the output from the two big experiments on CERN, CMS and ATLAS. Lots of particle track data and caloriometry (allowing us to determine momentum, charge, mass, etc...) of whatever comes out from a collision.

Physical: Its something physical, which is what is studied by the field called physics. Whatever is happening at CERN is basically that.

Evidence: Something that either supports a theory or renders it increasingly unlikely to be true. This is also true for the data at CERN since we know what it would look like if the Higg's Boson existed, if various pseudo-Higgses were out thre, or if it didn't exist at all. All the data is consistently supporting only the model with the Higgs as we know it with a mass of 126GeV I think, and of course with Spin at 0 (we will probably only be completely sure about this part when the International Linear Collider is built) and charge at 0, no colour charge and with a somewhat interesting isospin... yada, yada... however we do have evidence of it. Its boring evidence, because we kinda hoped to find five of them, two with electrical charges, which would have supported some supersymmetry theories. However boring evidence is still evidence.

The evidence we have of the Higgs Boson, so far, fulfills all the requirements.

What you want it probably 'direct' observations which is a little vaguely defined. However all the evidence we have is indirect, from the effects of the Higgs, not from the Higgs itself interacting with our instruments. However since nothing in seers demands needs to reasonably distinguish against these two, at least if you apply interpretive grace to him, this has all been an exercise in futility Shunya.

Basically you're pulling a ignoratio elenchi fallacy, which you tend to do quite often.

I don't care if you're a Dominican Thomist. If you introduce a distinguishment into a discussion, then make it matter.

[JimL]

Are you actually denying that we have evidence of atoms? Or are you referring to quarks?

I think that perhaps the graviton would suffice as an example of a basic particle of matter which we still have no direct physical evidence of.

[seer]

Actually no, he says that this theorem most strongly supports there being a beginning as it requires some infinitely fine-tuned spacetime configurations (that contain domains that collapse in just the right way to not cause problems ahead of time), which are completely unacceptable. For that reason he has his own model where the universe spawns from a timeless quantum field at t = 0, but there is still no sense in which you can talk about events taking place prior to that time.

He doesn't say that his theorem proves a beginning, just that there's really no other good choice left.

Well kind of, in the link of his you tube talk I posted he does, more than once, that his theory does require a beginning (his words not mine). To say that Craig was misquoting Vilenkin, as Tass does, is just false.

[Leonhard]

I think that perhaps the graviton would suffice as an example of a basic particle of matter which we still have no direct physical evidence of.

Gravitons are completely hypothetical so yes we currently have no evidence of them. However this is somewhat different from not having any evidence of particles at all.

Or 'direct' evidence, which we do have for many particles. However you want to define the term.

Shunya is trying to weasel out of reasonable demand of evidence. Unless he can point to seer outright demanding us actually seeing the multiverse, his distinction is without difference to the discussion.

In other words don't get dupped into his fallacies.

[Leonhard]

Well kind of, in the link of his you tube talk I posted he does, more than once, that his theory does require a beginning (his words not mine).

Quote mining is not a reliable strategy seer. I've read his other articles, the technical discussions of them and I've read his theorem as well. I can see how you can construct an infinitely fine-tuned spacetime to avoid the problem. This is not kosher as per Ockhams Razor. Hence the only thing left that's plausible is a beginning of time. This is subtly different from saying that it proves a beginning though.

This is to be expected since it meshes well with philosophical reasons to prefer a beginning of time to an eternal past.

Both the philosophical arguments and the physical reasons constitutes probabilistic arguments. It merely establishes that we have greater reasons to believe this than in any other model out there currently.

To say that Craig was misquoting Vilenkin, as Tass does, is just false.

I agree. In fact Tassman is harping unnescessarily on what Craig has said in one interview or another.

I get the feeling that Tassman has never sat down and read Craig's argument in the most developed form. He's very specific in saying that the BVG doesn't prove absolutely a beginning of time, but at the same time it pretty much clears the board of alternatives.

Both of you need to buy Blackwells Companion to Natural Theology.

[seer]

Quote mining is not a reliable strategy seer. I've read his other articles, the technical discussions of them and I've read his theorem as well. I can see how you can construct an infinitely fine-tuned spacetime to avoid the problem. This is not kosher as per Ockhams Razor. Hence the only thing left that's plausible is a beginning of time. This is subtly different from saying that it proves a beginning though.

I didn't quote mine, I watched his short but in context class about 10 times now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

Like I said, Vilenkin concludes that the universe or multiverse does need a beginning, at least as far as we know at this point. And I didn't say it proves a beginning.

I get the feeling that Tassman has never sat down and read Craig's argument in the most developed form. He's very specific in saying that the BVG doesn't prove absolutely a beginning of time, but at the same time it pretty much clears the board of alternatives.

Both of you need to buy Blackwells Companion to Natural Theology. :smirk:

Yes, I'm looking for a good deal on a copy. They are $40 up for a paperback.

[Tassman]

It doesn't help that seer while well meaning tries to state things a little too forcefully at times, which ends up hurting the case he makes. However I can't see how seer's statements can't be given a treatment of interpretive grace. Does it matter whether its 'direct' or 'indirect' observations, as long as the evidence supports the theory in a strong way? Of course not. Otherwise we'd have to give up physics the moment we had to read spectrum graphs, instead of using microscopes.

It shouldn't matter. But it does when seer, in the absence of direct, observable, falsifiable evidence interprets this to mean with strongly implied.

Quote mining is not a reliable strategy seer. I've read his other articles, the technical discussions of them and I've read his theorem as well. I can see how you can construct an infinitely fine-tuned spacetime to avoid the problem. This is not kosher as per Ockhams Razor. Hence the only thing left that's plausible is a beginning of time. This is subtly different from saying that it proves a beginning though.

More than "unreliable" in my view. It's dishonest and unethical - as has been pointed out to seer by shunya, Jim, me and others numerous times.

I agree. In fact Tassman is harping unnescessarily on what Craig has said in one interview or another.

I get the feeling that Tassman has never sat down and read Craig's argument in the most developed form. He's very specific in saying that the BVG doesn't prove absolutely a beginning of time, but at the same time it pretty much clears the board of alternatives.

Well no it doesn't. What it does is leave the question open, which means one cannot assert that the universe had an absolute beginning - as is being implied.

[Leonhard]

It shouldn't matter. But it does when seer, in the absence of direct, observable, falsifiable evidence interprets this to mean "we don’t have a shred of evidence” with “therefore God” strongly implied.

I agree that this is what seer does, but he could learn in principle to construct an argument. That's what you'd typically do if later you wanted to use the premise of a beginning of time to argue for God's existence. That's not typically how I'd argue for His existence, as you can't use this argument to establish the properties of the God of Classical Theism, only that there must exist a very powerful, personal entity of some sort.

More than "unreliable" in my view. It's dishonest and unethical - as has been pointed out to seer by shunya, Jim, me and others numerous times.

In general yes, in seers case I think he merely missed some subtle differences which weakened his case. Its not worth harping on.

Come now, let’s be clear here. Both mattbballman31 and seer are the ones pushing the BVG argument as interpreted by Craig, not I - except by way of response.

The fact is you've stated multiple times that Craig interprets the arguments as proving a beginning of time, however, despite what he may or may not say to a popular audience, he has a far more nuanced and completely correct approach to it in his technical articles. Since in the end he argues you're left with no credible alternatives.

Well no it doesn't. What it does is leave the question open, which means one cannot assert that the universe had an absolute beginning - as is being implied.

Leaving the question open? In other words you're saying that there are no other alternatives right now, leaving the standard Big Bang Cosmology as the only contender standing. As the view most best fitting all the evidence, and avoiding all the paradoxes. That's what Craig is arguing for.

In that case I'd say you have a decent probabilistic argument for a beginning of time from Cosmology, namely that this is the view currently best in evidence. New proposals must each be examined on a case by case basis, which they are, that's how Cosmology works.

Since I don't hang my hat on Kalam type arguments for the existence of God, I'd readily admit it if at some point in the future the evidential support was weakened.

It might be important to you that the key premise of the argument, namely a beginning of time, is false. However it isn't to me.

[seer]

More than "unreliable" in my view. It's dishonest and unethical - as has been pointed out to seer by shunya, Jim, me and others numerous times.

Except Tass you have not shown one instance where I actually did this. Please show me. You recently accused me of this with the Dr. Steinhardt link concerning his objection with the multiverse theory. You were shown to be wrong. Nor did I ever take Vilenkin "out of context." So Tass, you need to stop bringing false accusations, like you did with William Craig. A charge BTW that you have yet to prove.

[JimL]

Gravitons are completely hypothetical so yes we currently have no evidence of them. However this is somewhat different from not having any evidence of particles at all.

Or 'direct' evidence, which we do have for many particles. However you want to define the term.

Shunya is trying to weasel out of reasonable demand of evidence. Unless he can point to seer outright demanding us actually seeing the multiverse, his distinction is without difference to the discussion.

In other words don't get dupped into his fallacies.

Thats all true, but I think the point that Shunya was making is that like the lack of direct evidence for the graviton, and previously to finding it, the higgs particle, we have no direct evidence of other universes either, but no direct evidence isn't the same thing as no evidence. I'm not quite sure what all the hoopla is about anyway concerning the the multi-verse scenario. Even if there are multiple universes that are born of a mother Cosmos so to speak, that doesn't prove that the mother Cosmos itself is eternal. The theist can still go on to argue that an eternal and immaterial mind created time and the material substance of the mother Cosmos from out of nothing.

[Tassman]

I agree that this is what seer does, but he could learn in principle to construct an argument. That's what you'd typically do if later you wanted to use the premise of a beginning of time to argue for God's existence. That's not typically how I'd argue for His existence, as you can't use this argument to establish the properties of the God of Classical Theism, only that there must exist a very powerful, personal entity of some sort.

any

In general yes, in seers case I think he merely missed some subtle differences which weakened his case. Its not worth harping on.

The fact is you've stated multiple times that Craig interprets the arguments as proving a beginning of time, however, despite what he may or may not say to a popular audience, he has a far more nuanced and completely correct approach to it in his technical articles. Since in the end he argues you're left with no credible alternatives.

Leaving the question open? In other words you're saying that there are no other alternatives right now, leaving the standard Big Bang Cosmology as the only contender standing.

There are several possible

As the view most best fitting all the evidence, and avoiding all the paradoxes. That's what Craig is arguing for.

It doesn't. And neither does his misuse of the BVG Theorem. It assumes that nothing further is to be discovered; that we already know all that is to be known and that this knowledge is sufficient to arrive at solid conclusions.

In that case I'd say you have a decent probabilistic argument for a beginning of time from Cosmology, namely that this is the view currently best in evidence. New proposals must each be examined on a case by case basis, which they are, that's how Cosmology works.

Since I don't hang my hat on Kalam type arguments for the existence of God, I'd readily admit it if at some point in the future the evidential support was weakened.

It might be important to you that the key premise of the argument, namely a beginning of time, is false. However it isn't to me.

Obviously not as a theist! But I see no good reason to introduce the notion of a deity into the scientific process of acquiring systematic knowledge of how the physical, material universe functions.