 |
|---|
Mountain Man's Global News Archive
The Smoking Gun and
the "Big Bang" theory
|
|---|
The Smoking Gun and the "Big Bang" theory |
|---|
Date: 20 Dec 1998 08:36:33 -0500
From: Mountain Man (prfbrown@magna.com.au)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Analogy to help justify "Big Bang" theory
> Bryan W. Reed wrote:
>> Nathan Urban wrote:
>>In your analogy, if we conclude that we'll never know exactly how the
>>gun was fired, it's still reasonable to hold on to the theory that it it
>>_was_ fired at some time, and was fired by a person; we know _something_.
>>Likewise, in the case of the universe, if we conclude that we'll never
>>know exactly how the Big Bang happened, it's still reasonable to hold
>>on to the theory that it _did_ happen.
> That's EXACTLY the point of the analogy.
>
> Now, there's people out there who hold quite closely to the sort of argument I
> mentioned at the beginning--that admitting that we may never know the "cause"
> of the Big Bang amounts to an abandonment of scientific method. I've seen
> it argued on sci.physics. Rather than try to refute it with abstract notions
> (such as you did, quite well), I thought I'd try making an analogy. In the
> analogy, it would take a peculiar form of stubbornness to insist that, because
> we'll never know what caused the firing of the gun, our whole methodology is
> questionable and we can't conclude that we even know that the gun fired at
> all. The analogous argument is occasionally made for the Big Bang. It's much
> harder to hold to this argument, I expect, in this more mundane, easily-
> pictured situation. And the burden goes to the anti-Big-Bang crowd for
> explaining why the analogy doesn't work.
Well over two millennia ago Heraclitus is supposed to have held
the opinion that the opinions of mankind were akin to
"children's playthings".
"What sense or mind have they?
They put their trust in popular bards
and take the mobs for their teacher,
unaware that most men are bad,
and the good are few."
Popular scientific bards are singing the song of the Big Bang.
This is how I see things - just for the record.
But back to the analogy. I can follow the distinction that is
being set up here (I think) however I find it is too artificial.
The analogy is set up akin to some type of forenzic evidentiary
process to which we are all educated by courtesy of 1,001 episodes
of "this is how the law operates" - whether it is Hercules, Hawaii
Five O., Bonanza or the Pink Panther.
The case of the smoking gun is an icon of causal investigation.
There's an investigation in progress, and it is big business.
However, in this case, that which is being investigated is the
very beginnings of the cosmos. We like to think we are more
privelidged now, having access to greater topical information,
and to a certain degree this may be the case, but we may still
turn out to have been blind to critical evidence staring us in
the face.
Suppose we instead use the analogy of the "smoking cup of coffee".
We find on a table in a room a smoking cup of coffee. Analysis
seems to agree as to the component composition of its parts,
their physical particulate structure and the configuration of
their motion suggests that at one earier point in time, there
would seem to have been an impetus of one "Big-Stir".
It is reasonable to consider this theory - it makes some sense.
We have thus inherited a research project which is examining this
natural phenomena found on the table in the lab in mankind's
theory-space. There have been many great works published and
other great unpublished research on the subject matter of the
"Big Stir" theory.
As to who made the coffee in the first place, this is a separate
area of research. All the proponents of the "Big Stir" theory
are saying is that at some stage, the coffee was given some form
of stir, and thus are able to provide an explanatory description
of the causal chain between the stirring and the present specific
configuration of the microscopic constituents of the cup.
> So I posted it, in the hopes that it would help somebody out there see more
> clearly. Either they'd see that the analogy works and perhaps rethink
> their positions, or they'd be forced to think about it enough to be certain
> that the analogy doesn't work at all. Either way, it makes you think.
It does indeed - but does it make you think enough?
I find the smoking coffee cup analogy more complex than the smoking
gun and put it forward simply because I found the smoking gun analogy
far too unyielding in its simplicity. Granted that your point
concerning the separate and independent assessments of the two
aspects of (1) since the bang/stir, or (2) before the bang/stir
is not necessarily observed and acknowledged, however.
From the vantage point of assessment (1) we could argue that the
ultimate mechanics of prediction will not be able to provide us
the equations, and our research and observation and physical
measurements the initial initial conditions with which we might
satisfactorily explain the present state of the cuppa on the
bench in the lab in mankind's theory space.
From the vantage point of (2), we might entertain 1,001 different
theories, from God made the coffee, to Fred made the coffee but
has been called away to the reactor, to I made the coffee but am
so absent minded I fogot about it until now. Is it instant, decaf,
brewed, boiled, nooooked? How much sugar? How much milk? Black or
white? From a machine, if so a molecular assembler or dispenser?
From a pot or billy? From a jar or a sample satchette?
>>If we decide that we'll never be able to answer all questions about the
>>Big Bang, you asked whether we should "abandon the theory of how and when
>>it happened". But we don't have a theory of how it happened to abandon!
>>(At least in the gun case we had a theory that the gun was fired by a
>>person; we don't know anything at all about how the Big Bang happened.)
> There's two senses of the word "how" being confused here. I intended the
> "how" of the gun firing to relate purely to the physical and chemical
> processes inside the gun. The ones we have relatively direct evidence for.
> I did not intend for "how" in this case to refer to any prior cause--merely
> a description of the event itself.
Granted.
I have simply extended the domain of the processes under consideration
from the physical and chemical of the smoking gun, to a more complex
one, and additionally maintain the distinction of "how" above.
>>And I see no reason to abandon our theory of when it happened just
>>because we don't know how it happened; you wouldn't abandon the theory
>>of when the gun was fired just because you don't know who did it or why.
> And this is an appropriate restatement of my point, using your use of the
> word "how" rather than mine.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. I was arguing FOR the Big Bang
> theory, not against it. I was simply trying to make the fallacies in
> one of the opposition's arguments more clear by translating them into
> a more concrete situation.
>
> Have fun,
U2.
I appreciate the concrete situation you took the time to outline
and hope you dont mind me rambling on about an alternative, which
I find closer to my flavor of "how" - only after the benefit of
relection upon the content of your post.
Besides, the analogy of the gun makes me unsettled. Although
I do have to admit that I find it the most enjoyable pastime
to take my 9 foot gun (made by one your countrymen) down to
the dawn to shoot a few waves on a regular basis.
I do not subscribe to the BB theory because on my count
(and I am willing to be corrected) we do not know an elegant
sufficiency concerning our own backyard and neighborhood, the
nature of the sun and earth and moon, and the nature of life.
Lower the sights a little - re-examine the grass roots.
Is it necessary to perform any research at all concerning the
nature of life before setting forth upon the research project
which is designed to ascertain the beginnings of the cosmos?
Many might see this as a valid question. I'm not so sure.
The domains of science appear to be changing - and indeed quite
rapidly with the expansion of research into 1,001 different new
fields (each decade now?;) - how insular is the physics of
cosmology?
Compliments of the season,
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Thematic Threading: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates:
QuoteForTheDay:
"Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in
the singular. How does the idea of plurality (emphatically
opposed by the Upanishad writers arise at all? .... the
only possible alternative is simply to keep the immediate
experience that consciousness is a singular of which the
plural is unkown; that there *is* only one thing and that
what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different
aspects of this one thing produced by deception (the Indian
maya) - in much the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turn
out to be the same peak seen from different valleys."
- E. Schrodinger, "What is Life"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Index |
Mountain Man Graphics |
E-Mail
