Occam’s Razor is good enough for me.
The origin of the Universe is unexplainable. The origin of God is unexplainable. To “explain” the existence of one unexplainable entity (the Universe) by postulating that another unexplainable entity (God) “caused” it does not, in my book, get you anywhere in terms of an actual explanation. You just get another level of turtles.
I echo Mandos’ sentiments.
The fact that we aren’t sure what causes quantum fluctuations, doesn’t mean there isn’t a cause. Surely there is a difference in the lead up to a quantum fluctuation occuring, and one not occuring.
Why is everybody so quick to dismiss the idea that there was no time before the Big Bang? If the Big Bang was caused, then time existed before it. If it wasn’t caused, then the Big Bang should be unlimited, infinite and undefined. Does it have these characteristics?
Colibri, would it interest you to know that Ockham was profoundly Christian?
That’s true, but it doesn’t help. Back then “everywhere” was a geometric point.
The short answer is that nothing is containing the universe since the universe is defined as all that is.
If there was some giant saran wrap wrapped around all the galaxies so that they could only go so far, that saran wrap would also be part of the universe.
If you want to try to think of a boundary for the universe, consider that it can only be as large as a sphere radiating from the point of the big at the speed of light.
Nothing beyond that exists.
The only flaw in that thinking is that nothing precludes the possibility that there are other big-bang spheres radiating at the speed of light that have not yet expanded to the point where they overlap our sphere.
Those would be other universes, or I guess, unknowable sections of our universe. For all intents and purposes though their existance is wholly moot.
I don’t think that’s in the cosmological minority these days. Spacetime curvature is geometry in four dimensions, not three; and most lay-level stuff I’ve seen says that the universe’s overall shape is almost certainly open–it’s not a curvature that closes back on itself. Which means, it goes on forever.
Protons have never been observed to decay, I don’t think–there are theories that say that they actually do, but the half-life is some obscenely large number, many times longer than the current age of the universe. If they do decay, and the universe’s curvature is open, eventually all matter will simply dissolve. Cheery thought.
I’m just curious: what exactly did Ockham say?
Occam’s razor: a person should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, or that the person shouldn’t make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It’s also called the principle of parsimony. Basically, it holds that sticking to the most economic explanation is usually best.
It cuts like a knife.
but it feels so right.
No classical education is complete without Bryan Adams’ first LP.
Time was created by the Big Bang. The math is quite complex, but that’s what the best minds of the day have come up with. Read “A Brief History of Time” for a good overview of the cosmology of the Big Bang.
This is analogous to steadfastly sticking to Newtonian physics to explain Relativity. Things work differently around the singularity that was the Big Bang, don’t try to apply common sense logic to the situation.
Scylla
Pravnik
I see. So which is more economical, one entity or twenty?
How are we defining “universe”, anyway? As a philosophical concept (i.e., the sum total of all that exists), a physical concept (an entity or state with observable laws), or as a meld of both?
Ya got me. The problem with Occam’s razor is that you don’t always know without a doubt which assumptions are necessary and which aren’t. It’s sort of a rule of construction rather than a hard and fast law.
Sorry, I should have said “Libertarian: Ya got me.”
I am aware of that. Just because Occam did not apply the principle rigorously in every respect - and in his era, it would have been culturally and philosophically virtually impossible to apply it to the origin of the Universe, since almost nothing was known about the Universe - does not invalidate his principle.
But I agree that Occam’s Razor doesn’t prove anything in and of itself, it is merely a guideline.
Perhaps Ockham found God, as I do, to be a necessary entity for explaning his experience. Perhaps the assumption that he did not apply his own principle is itself an unnecessary assumption.
Beat me to the punch, Lib. I only felt like entering this because it disturbs me that we can’t say things like “god is the first cause” but are free to toss out such gems as “everything was everywhere and there was no time” and so on. In short, when physics sounds like religion, I am wont to raise my eyebrows.
Physics hasn’t answered the question, so Ockham’s razor doesn’t seem to apply for the origins of the universe. In my mind, at any rate.
Well said, Eris. Where else but at Straight Dope would theists and atheists stand side-by-side and stick out their tongues at the same monster?
[pats Lib on back] Nowhere else on Earth, my friend; nowhere else on Earth.