Warp wrote:
>   How can *any* hypothesis which states how the Universe came into existence
> be testable? 

It can make predictions that are or are not borne out, the same as any 
other. For example, the "big bang" theory postulates that the universe can 
only be a certain age (based on the size of the observable universe and the 
speed of light). It postulates that the background radiation could not have 
gotten across the universe in the length of time the universe has existed, 
and therefore should not be as smooth as it is. Hence the theory of 
"inflation". It postulates that deceleration due to gravity should be 
getting smaller, while instead it's actually negative. Hence the theory of 
"dark energy". And so on.

If we found things were not moving apart at a speed apparently explicable by 
gravity, then we might have the steady-state theory. Which would require a 
different explanation of how the universe came about.

But no, that's why the call it a singularity. Stuff breaks down there.

If you want to argue that something from *before* the singularity has 
persisted *after* the singularity, you'd need to give evidence. Like I said, 
I don't have trouble with a "first cause". I think one would have to provide 
some evidence it answers prayers of humans, if one intends to try to 
convince me of that possibility, tho.

> It's more or less by definition impossible to replicate the
> circumstances of the Big Bang (eg. for the simple reason that time-space
> is not currently in the same state as it was at the moment the Big Bang
> happened).

You can extrapolate backwards from what you can experiment with, just like 
you can look out into outer space and, without traveling to the stars, you 
can determine there likely was a big bang.

But yes, as I said, it's a singularity, so figuring out what was *before* 
the big bang requires it to be recreated on the "pre" side of the bang. If 
we manage to create a little universe in a lab, we'd probably have a good 
idea of the cause of the big bang that made ours. Or at least an explanation 
with *some* evidence in support.

>   For this reason one hypothesis is as good as any other.

Nope. The hypothesis that "something created the universe" doesn't provide 
any information we didn't already have. It doesn't "explain" anything.

>> In any case, my comment was more along the lines of "free will implies there 
>> needn't be a first cause", not "there was no first cause." 
> 
>   What is "free will"? Do we have free will (regardless of what is your
> world view)? Or is free will just an illusion?

I can certainly give you my answer. But I'm not sure that helps anything.

>   However, in neither case can you speak of true "freedom of choice".

Right. I don't think either of those has anything to do with "free will" in 
my book. Nor is "free will" an illusion.

>   Even if we make a mix of the two extremes, can it be called "free will"
> even then? Your choices are only either a consequence of your past, or
> caused by quantum uncertainty.

It can certainly be called "free will" at that point, or at either of the 
others. I don't think asking "what is free will" or "do we have free will" 
is an effective approach to the problem. I expect everyone has made at least 
one "choice" that they thought they made freely, even if it was a trivial 
and meaningless choice. I think investigating the question of "what sorts of 
beings/objects have free will" takes you much closer to figuring out the 
nature of free will. Do rocks have free will? Do individual ants have free 
will? Does an ant colony taken as a whole have free will? Does a government 
have free will?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message