 |
| Burnaby, Monday |
Revised today
Presented from a theological and philosophical perspective while citing scientific sources.
Yesterday, I received another short and informative newsletter from Reasons to Believe, a scientific, non-Darwinian Evolution, Biblical ministry.
I am going to briefly discuss 'Did the Universe Have a Beginning'? By Jeff Zweerink.
I am not a scientist and do not have any science degrees. I did have to complete some limited scientific work for my British Doctoral work, such as researching scientific journals with articles on consciousness. These findings were part of the finished thesis.
The article author states that he was challenged by a published scientific paper, showed to him, 'indicating that the universe did not have a beginning'. (1). The idea presented is that 'scientists need a quantum theory of gravity to know with total certainty whether or not the universe had a beginning (a non-controversial and correct statement) and yet the sufficiently developed theories of quantum gravity point to a universe with no beginning!' (1).
The author then notes that 'none of the current models is yet established'. (1).
As well, 'the experimental data to test the validity of those models still resides in the far distant future, at best.' (2).
The author further explains that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2). But eventually the scientific community, had models that included a beginning. (2).
Wikipedia
'In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.'.
Michigan State University
'What is quantum physics? '
'Quantum physics is necessary to understand the properties of solids, atoms, nuclei, subnuclear particles and light. In order to understand these natural phenomena, quantum principles have required fundamental changes in how humans view nature. To many philosophers (Einstein included), the conflict between the fundamental probabilistic features of quantum mechanics and older assumptions about determinism provided a cognitive shock that was even more unsettling that the revised views of space and time brought by special relativity.
The word quantum refers to discreteness, i.e., the existence of individual "lumps" as opposed to a continuum. In Newtonian physics, all quantities are allowed to be continuous. For instance, particles can have any momentum and light can have any frequency. A quantum is a discrete packet of energy, charge, or any other quantity. '
Oxford Dictionary of Science
Quantum gravity is
'An aspect of quantum theory that attempts to incorporate the gravitational field as described by the general theory of relativity; no such theory has yet been accepted...there is some evidence that superstring theory can provide a quantum theory of gravity free of infinities.' (679).
Free of infinities...
The text further states that it is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).
It is then explained that black holes can also be investigated in regard to quantum gravity theory. (679).
I cannot comment as a scientist, but as a theologian and philosopher:
In regard to the idea that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2) This may be a case of philosophy within science or philosophizing within science, in other words, starting with the premise that the universe has no beginning and is infinite and setting out to find reasonable scientific proof.
This therefore could be an approach based in philosophy and not just empirical science. This allows me at least some room to comment.
It is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).
From the Oxford source, this reasonably recent 2010 citation clearly indicates that within this scientific field of study, the current default conclusion based on premises is to consider quantum gravity within the very early universe that began after the big bang.
The Oxford text defines evolution as 'the gradual process by which by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms...' (304). The text reasons this is at least for the last 300 million years.
Evolution (including microevolution; change within a species or group) by definition implies finite.
The infinite is limitless and does not evolve or expand. It simply is....
Therefore any type of (including evolutionary) scientific model is doubtful to empirically prove an infinite universe.
Further...
The idea of infinite is compatible with God described in Genesis 1, as in the beginning creating the heaven and the earth. God existing before the material universe, time and matter. Universe defined as ' All the matter, energy, and space that exists.' (847).
Even if the Biblical Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and New Testaments could be academically discredited as historical, religious history, which is not my academic position; an infinite cause behind the material universe is still the most reasonable philosophical and theological explanation for finitude.
 |
| Burnaby, Sunday |
Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Reasons To Believe Newsletter, July/August, 2016, Covina, California.
